Asymptotic Anarchism

Ideological debates rage on. But imagine an axis representing a state called “rules without rulers." A curve represents experiments living together through time, getting ever closer to the axis.

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy…. The most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.
—J. R. R. Tolkein

The minarchist versus anarchist debate rages on. If you’re unfamiliar with that debate, this two-part series might seem obscure. On the one hand, it’s an important topic because it calls us to consider what sort of socioeconomic system is most likely to minimize people coercing people and maximize people coordinating freely. On the other hand, it calls us to consider whether or to what extent either system is practicable.

Already one can see how the prescriptive and predictive can get all mixed up.

The latest is between

Arnold Kling

and

Bryan Caplan

, both fine thinkers. Kling argues mostly from incredulity—a failure of imagination I’m not used to seeing from him:

How can we get from where we are now to anarcho-capitalism? I don’t see a path. And if we somehow find ourselves in anarcho-capitalism, my guess is that some predator organization would emerge that would overwhelm the anarcho-capitalist protection agencies, one by one.

Just because you can’t see a path doesn’t mean one ain’t there, the American Whigs said to the Tories in 1776.

Caplan might also respond—sort of as he did against Yaron Brook—that Germany, France, and Italy don’t devour Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. If the latter three were private jurisdictions, would they suddenly be prey? If so, why?

On the other hand, Caplan seems to take refuge in something he can’t really “bet on” right now, that is, until we see the proliferation of Free Cities that would test real market competition among private jurisdictions, and, internally, discover ways to supply government’s monopoly goods and services competitively. Theoretically, Caplan thinks such would get us pretty close to anarchism, as people would vote with their UHauls, setting out for places that give them more value for less Monero, more of their values for less of others’ values, and less compulsion for more consent.

But Kling is understandably skeptical that current authorities will allow privately-run jurisdictions to come into existence, much less serve customers citizens better.

You cannot create a sufficiently competitive environment in government services for anything close to anarcho-capitalism to emerge.

Yet this does little for Kling’s implicit case for public violence monopolies.

If history is meant to be a guide, neither minarchism nor anarchism has stuck around for very long, though both have been approximated. Predatory states have indeed emerged at times dominated by the mafia logic of Leviathan and the dynamics of hierarchy in the face of complexity.

Though Early America was minarch-ish, a few examples are anarch-ish:

1. Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1262)

   The Icelandic Commonwealth, or the Icelandic Free State, had a form of governance that can be seen as somewhat anarchic. It had a decentralized system with no executive power and a limited role of the central authority. The laws were decided at the Althing, one of the oldest parliaments in the world, but enforcement was largely left up to individuals.

2. Medieval Ireland (circa 650–1600)

   Medieval Ireland had a relatively decentralized and clan-based society with a system of “Brehon Law.” This system was more focused on restitution than punishment, and there was no centralized enforcement mechanism, which can be seen as reflecting some anarchist characteristics.

3. Gaelic Scotland (up to 17th Century)

   Similar to Medieval Ireland, Gaelic Scotland was organized around clans and had a relatively decentralized power structure. The clan-based society had some characteristics that might be considered anarchic, such as a lack of centralized authority and a focus on communal living.

4. Alpine Regions of Switzerland (Before the 13th Century)

   Before the formation of the Old Swiss Confederacy in the 13th century, the alpine regions of what is now Switzerland were characterized by communal living and a lack of centralized feudal structures, which may be seen as reflecting certain anarchistic principles.

5. Zomia Region (up to the present in some areas)

   Zomia is a term referring to the highland areas of Southeast Asia that have historically been beyond the control of governments based in the lowlands. The societies in this region have been characterized by statelessness and autonomy, as detailed by James C. Scott in The Art of Not Being Governed.

These examples, while they don’t explicitly brand themselves with the modern scarlet A, varying somewhat from anarcho-capitalist political philosophy, exhibit anarch-ish characteristics, such as decentralization and voluntary association.

Kling probably wants to defend poor Yaron Brook, whose showing at a Reason debate with Caplan (embedded above) was little more than regurgitated Rand. But to do so, Kling goes all Tim Cook-Hamilton-Hobbes and argues that all it takes is a natural monopoly-cum-superpredator to bring about a stable equilibrium:

Are government services similar to apples or to Apple? I believe it’s the latter.

In fact, Apple’s quasi-monopoly is nothing compared with the natural monopoly that accrues to a government in a particular territory. Apple has to work much harder to keep my business than does the government of Montgomery County.

I remember when people used to use Apple as an example of why Microsoft is not a monopoly, but no matter. Kling uses “quasi-” as a weasel prefix for a reason. Otherwise, the above is question-begging. If Kling is arguing that it’s not possible to have competition for government services, I’d say, “which services”? If he’s arguing that predatory states are “natural monopolies” due to their threat of predation, then his argument amounts to if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. But that’s at least offensive to the normative case for anarchism—if not the practical one—both of which are at issue.

In my next installment, I’m going to republish a piece that might be distilled into three basic insights:

1) that academic minarchist-anarchist debates are pretty useless;
2) that panarchy could serve as a theoretical and practical middle ground; and
3) that we should focus our mental energy on subversive innovation, the dual mandate of conscientious freedom lovers:

Innovate to lower transaction costs and increase predation costs.

A mien of subversive innovation better orients us away from academic debates and towards a potentially unifying embrace of what I call “asymptotic anarchy.” Acknowledging that this is pretty unsexy for promotional purposes, I entreat readers to forgive me for the obscure math reference, as well as the scary word that invokes mustachioed men with Molotov cocktails. The idea is pretty simple.

Imagine an axis representing a state we might call “rules without rulers” or full, peaceful anarchy. A curve represents various experiments in living together peacefully over time, where we might get closer and closer to the line—this state of non-violence and non-compulsion—but never actually get there.

Whether minarchist or anarchist, perhaps we can agree that this state is our shared north star.

Stay tuned for the second installment tomorrow.

---