Anarchists kind of remind me of conservatives, in that they have grand ideas without any thought given to the mechanics of how it works. If you ask a conservative if abortion should be illegal, they usually say it should, but ask them about details and you get an all-too-familiar dumb look on their face.
Who do you punish, the doctor or the patient? What should the punishment be? How is it enforced?
The conservative does not think this far ahead, they just hate Roe v. Wade because their church told them it’s murder to kill a fetus. There’s no actual thought going on, just the regurgitation of ideas that were spoon fed to the sheep.
The anarchist is little different in most respects. Ask an anarchist how private security works. They’ll tell you some bullshit about how it’s voluntary, but not a shred of thought goes beyond this.
Suppose I’m a super conservative Christian living in a voluntarist society. The security force I employ is likely to be one which matches up with my views. Suppose my security force decides homosexuality is a crime.
“But Bret, in an anarchy, there are no stupid rules, only rules which prevent people from doing really bad things.”
But Anarchist… you don’t understand that plenty of people do find that to be a very bad thing. You don’t understand that things are more complicated than your over-simplified view of things. You may be right, that we shouldn’t have laws like a ban on homosexuality, or drugs, or whatever it is in dispute, but enforcing your view of things on others is what you anarchists call “coercion.”
One day I see my neighbor holding hands with a member of the same sex, and they lean in for a kiss. I get pissed, so I call my security force and they come arrest or detain or whatever it is private security forces do. His private security force, which only upholds ultra-liberal views, is smaller than mine, because frankly there are more people who hate ridiculous things in America than there are people who take a “live and let live” mentality. If anything, my private security force is not stopped by his, but his may be outright attacked by mine in a private war of ideologies for supremacy in the area.
Worse yet, suppose my child is gay. They have no choice in who I choose to be the enforcer, is this not coercion? What recourse do any children have in these systems, where the security force is beholden to the one paying the bill?
Suppose my neighbor is selling drugs, or runs a brothel, or does any of a number of things that the average person opposes. Maybe they just go to the wrong church, and that’s a crime. Who knows what private security forces who are left to their own bureaucratic devices will come up with? What recourse do people have?
Again, don’t try to turn this around on what we have now, because that’s just deflecting attention from the questions I’m asking. My ultimate question is: how does anarchy actually correct any of the problems that anarchists complain about? Does anarchy actually correct anything at all, or is it just a rebranding of government? I would say it clearly is, and that it’s a complete crock to pretend that anarchy somehow does away with the natural human tendency to impose ideas and morals on others.
In our current system, grievances can be petitioned, we can protest and change things. We do it everyday, but I guess it’s just not fast enough for the impatient anarchist, because they want it now, now, now. But what does anarchy actually provide in the way of solutions? I think it is merely semantics, that “government” is replaced by private forms of law that provide no means of protest or opposition, more akin to kingships than democracies.
In point of fact, none of this has anything to do with law, but rather it is a ridiculous attempt to re-imagine coercion. It has less to do with enforcement than economics. Anarchists want to believe that they can keep 100% of their money and use it to provide themselves with the services they need, ignoring the economic truth that the overwhelming majority of public services are paid in bulk by the wealthy.
In point of fact, a completely privatized system would provide vastly inferior quality services while creating a society without any consistency in enforcement. And what’s more, a vast amount of people will be provided with no services, being unable to afford it.
Anarchy: bringing oppression from Washington to your backyard. If you abolish the government, who will you blame next when things turn to shit?