As I explained in my previous article, when confronted about the inherent immorality and illegitimacy of “government,” statists often fall back on making dire predictions of chaos and mayhem. Of course, this is logically irrelevant to philosophical principles. Reality doesn’t change itself to avoid bad things happening.
A: “Dude, don’t jump out of the plane, you don’t have a parachute!”
B: “Yes I do, because if I didn’t, this would kill me! Aaaaaaah…..”
Or…
A: “People can’t delegate rights they don’t have.”
B: “Yes they can, because otherwise there would be chaos!”
But there is something else worth noting about one of the most common dire predictions that statists fling around. They basically argue that if there were no government, the horrendous, chaotic, violent result would be … government. “Warlords would take over and build armies and rule us all!” In other words, the worst case scenario that statists predict for anarchism is … statism. And that’s pretty damn funny. (“I’m gonna advocate this bad thing—a big, powerful ruling class—because otherwise we would end up with the thing I’m advocating!”)
Statists love to proclaim that if a certain regime or ruling class collapsed, was overthrown, or just disappeared, it would create a “power vacuum” and a new ruling class would magically appear.
Actually, in one way they are quite right about that. But in another way, they are dead wrong. The only reason “power vacuums” exist is because most people think there should be—and has to be—a ruling class, a supreme set of “law-makers,” a “government.” If, for example, Washington DC just fell into the Atlantic today, a new “government” would regrow, but not because of magic, or human nature, or because the universe makes them appear, but because people who believe in authority will keep creating new ruling classes.
That’s why I constantly emphasize the fact that the belief in “authority” (including all belief in “government”) is the problem. Whatever particular regime is doing the evil crap right now is never the actual problem. The problem resides between several billion pairs of ears. As long as most people believe that having rulers is legitimate and necessary, they will keep putting narcissistic sociopaths on thrones.
So yes, as long as the general population is stuck in the authoritarian mindset (“Someone has to be in charge! We neeeeeeed a leader!”), then when one regime falls, another will be built in its place—often one even worse than the one before. And yes, this is why violent revolution is utterly pointless without there first being a revolution of how people think.
HOWEVER, once people outgrow the superstition of “authority” and escape the statist indoctrination they’ve been programmed with, there will be no “power vacuum” to fill. A society of voluntaryists is not going to suddenly decide that what they really need is to be violently dominated by a new group of politicians.
Statists often talk about how some tyrant or warlord would just “take over,” while completely missing the fact that their own belief system is the only reason anyone can “take over.” They seem to believe in the existence of Hollywood villains, who are so diabolical that they can just make power magically appear. They don’t seem to know that every successful tyrant has to dupe the general public into seeing him as a savior, so that they gladly and eagerly give him control over their lives, and over everyone else’s. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, they were all cheered into power by adoring masses. Masses of … you guessed it … STATISTS—people who believed in “authority,” and thought “government” is what makes society and civilization work.
So in one sense, when a statist warns of the “power vacuum” thing, he is right, while failing to notice that he and his fellow statists are the only reason his dire prediction holds any truth. If the people don’t perceive the new gang to have the right to rule—don’t perceive it to be “authority”—then they don’t cheer for it. They shoot at it. And it dies.
And that brings up the whole silly “warlord” thing. “If we didn’t have government protecting us, warlords would take over!” Such an argument ignores the fact that warlords (and street gangs and the Mafia, too) are almost always funded by black markets created by “government” (e.g., the “illegal” drug trade). Without a ruling class, they wouldn’t exist to begin with.
But the “warlords” argument also shows a profound ignorance of human nature. It basically implies that, in the statist’s mind, the ability to rule doesn’t at all depend upon the legitimacy of those in power, in the eyes of the people. In reality, it has everything to do with that. Especially in a place where a hundred million people possess their own firearms, the idea of “warlords” ruling by brute force is just ridiculous.
An example of private gun ownership in the U.S.:
Would you want to try to rule those people by brute force? I wouldn’t (and not just because I have moral principles). An example I like to use is this: imagine that you are an organized crime boss, and your goal is to extort a hundred million people of a large chunk of what they earn, every year. You have 100,000 loyal underlings. However, only two thousand of them are armed; the rest are paper-pushers. Do you think you could successfully rob those people, when they outnumber (and outgun) your armed enforcers fifty-thousand-to-one?
Guess what. The IRS does it. How? Most of their victims imagine the extortion to be “legal,” and legitimate, and necessary. The victims feel an obligation to obey and pay tribute. If tomorrow they all stopped feeling that obligation, there would be no IRS by the end of the day. That shows how much perceptions determine power, and how much political “authority” depends completely on the mentality of those being controlled.
In conclusion, there is only one gang with the ability to continually extort and control the American people, and that is the one that the American people imagine to be “authority.” In other words, the one gang that can dominate us is already doing it, and the only reason it is able to do so is because of the belief in “authority” infecting the minds of the general public.
We already are dominated by evil warlords. We already have been taken over by a violent gang. And, Mr. and Mrs. Statist, you are the cause; your belief system is what gives politicians all of their power. So when you whine at voluntaryists about how nasty gangs of crooks might take over, keep in mind that they already did, that you are condoning that, that you are making it happen, and that your crappy belief system is the only reason it continues to happen, or is able to happen at all. Way to go.
Great article, although I think you've raised a point of investigation rather than a justification to change (which resides in the 'why' factor) i.e. 'Why is there present, such a predisposition to bestowing a belief in authority'?
Personally I believe it is not authority that we believe in, rather it is consequence that we fear. The whole "do this or else" approach is not workable if you were a sports coach (perhaps to some degree - that measure being the measure of consequences they can inflict), but for a President or corporate CEO, well that comes with an extended range of measureable consequence if co-operation was withdrawn.
We need to be objective and face facts about our sociological state - there most certainly is violent crimes, intrusions on basic human rights and liberties, while I don't agree that our system of rehabilitation and justice is sound, the immediate alternative to dissolve such an authority would create an open-season of looting and violence.
While I believe that humans are inherently social and assimilate harmoniously, this is mostly only observed when basic human needs are met (food, water, shelter, health). We don't live in that world yet, and quiet literally "criminals" are fighting for survival by any available (or perceived - education dependant) means necessary. People are going to prison for stealing bread, or medication for dying relatives that they can not afford, but some are also going to prison because they injured or harmed someone in the process - it is a grey area, the judgement of justice needs to consider the environmental conditions that fuel certain crimes, and furthermore, to re-evaluate the use of authority measures against their effectiveness to prevent secondary incidents.
Authority, justice, law, punishment - it's all interconnected into a systemic social system that quiet frankly is not concerned primarily with basic human needs, but rather the preservation of person and protection of property (which has become mostly a usurped agenda shifting towards acquisition of property, at the expense of disempowering the person).
We don't believe in authority, we conform to avoid the illegitimate consequences that we ourselves enforce - It's a crab bucket, when one crab tries to leave (behavioural disconformity) the others hold it back as to share the same fate. We're a little more intellectually sophisticated then crabs, and this is a 'bucket' problem - but what can be said, is that continuing to operate within this system of "do, or else" slowly diminishes the fear of consequence - we want this effect for most people, but not all.
If it was a police officer between you and someone wanting to rob you, that side-arm and authority is welcomed - but not if your the person to trying to commit the crime (for who knows what reason). First things first, as much as I don't believe that an authoritarian approach to leadership is effective (it actually is in the short-term), we have to acknowledge that there are other systemic problems underlying the need for authoritative consequence (purely because we lack a better option (one that is operational and capable of addressing violent behaviour - which includes the process of detention if required at all).
Society has witnessed time after time what happens to those who rebel against authority (for reasons fair or not) - even when the efforts were of good morality, most will leave the nonconformists out to dry when they need support the most e.g. 'Manning, Assange, and Snowden.
When you see a large protest, easily 100x bigger numbers then the riot-control police, back off to police aggression as the pick and detain people at will - it is that at that very point where power is up for grabs, sometimes it is ceased by the people (Iceland), and other times it is given back (Ukraine). But most of the time, authority upholds the power because consciously we don't want it, but subconsciously we're not sure if it's needed or not, and collectively we're not ready to make that decision.
But Larken, the new warlord government won't give us an illusion of choice by allowing us to vote between pre-selected child murderers.
So don't accept their claim of authority over other humans which they are no different from.
Is it possible that the power vacuum argument is created by actions of the state? For example, the state destabilizing Iraq and Syria allowed them to create and fund an inorganic ISIS movement, which people use as an example of a stateless society. However, without government destabilizing a nation and propping up a warring faction, this example wouldn't exist, right?
well, that definately is a part of it. Never-mind that Iraq is a State t hat has or at lest had) a government (never mind (even if it is a very crappy one using the Statist standards) . Furthermore, also Isis wrose to one Government seeking to overthrow another and replace it with anothe government friendly to them. (boy did tha backfire).
Right, but from the position the world is now, we are all seeking to convert from a governed state to a voluntaryist state, so your first premise of Iraq being a state is a moot point, right?
Individual power vacuums are often by design, but none of them happen at all if the people don't believe in ruling classes.
That is a recurring statist argument, and I'm glad you're tackling it. But I think it isn't so weak as you suggest. There's an argument used by many authors (I recall it from Fichte) that says something like: a man can't be free in a society that isn't; and a society can't be free, if its men aren't.
So, how can we be free? Maybe its a long process that cross generations, and if we, living in a statist society, were to allow a power vaccuum, the process might have to begin from scratch. We have tamed our states to some degree, and by getting rid of democracy, we could get a tyranny in its stead.
It is because I agree with you, that free men don't need government, that I think the power vacuum is indeed a reasonable argument for those who aren't free.
Haha, my favourite statist argument other than something about roads is, "if we didn't have government to protect us, there would be government!"
Thank you @larkenrose for speaking out and challenging the status quo!
You've inspired some thoughts:
You can't be aware of that which you're not aware of.
Statists = cognitive dissidents.
The indoctrination system is supremely successful in shaping beliefs, limiting options, and ruling by fear that creates dependency on authority. And it's the norm! It's the standard! It's culturally accepted and viewed as "natural" because the programming tells you so.
Government does not exist in nature; it arises from Man's beliefs. It is a creation of the mind.
Shift beliefs, and the created entity morphs.
It's simple, because all you have to do is shift beliefs...but it's difficult, because the programming itself severs awareness.
We encourage people to check their values.
We're grateful that you continue to bring your valuable perspective to the revolution!
I kinda dealt with this one in my article titled "The Anarchist Wager" Every one of the Statists "fears" about Anarchy all pretty much occur in the present.
It just blows my mind how Statists don't trust their fellow man to run their own lives - so... they turn and force others' lives to be run by a monopolistic elite number of gov't 'officials' made by up their....fellow man. Face. Palm.
It's because they really and truly imagine "government" to be something SUPER-human. They don't think that way consciously, but the way they talk makes it obvious. "People can't be trusted! Therefore, we need government ... made up of ............."
This is truly a devout religion to the Statists.
"Government is religion. Statehouses are churches. Office is heaven. Politicians are saints. Citizens are sinners. Laws are blessings. Power is God." (a modified quote I concocted based on a socialist's POV deriding capitalism.)
The "power vacuum" concept is mind-boggling. The glaring assumption that statists don't seem to recognize, let alone analyze, is the idea that all humans WANT to be forcibly dominated by another human. Do they imagine that it is human nature to say, "Please, master, beat me so that I'll be good" or do they just avoid facing the issue?
I wish I could count how many times I've had the warlords argument used on me in debate. What really bakes my noodle is the flippant way they dismiss the fact this is exactly what we have now. When the response is "that's what we have now" they scream "NO IT'S NOT."
I like to cite examples of ISIS building roads and producing infrastructure and schools in their areas of control to further splatter their brains across the proverbial pavement.
Great post, Larken.
Here's a power vacuum for you: the SJW followers of Soros-funded Black Lives Matter Movement. They, regardless of their particular race (the white ones seem to be the worst examples), ostensibly hate authority and its enforcers. They openly speak of tearing down an oppressive system and so on. Yet, they advocate for policies and politicians who only wish to do the opposite. The irony exists the only within the movement's followers; the engine of the vacuum (i.e. the funders and their minion "organizers") does exactly what is expected, creating even more oppressive authority.
This is why it is so important that we free the MINDS of the enslaved now. The collapses are coming, all over the world. We NEED for our neighbors to not start clamoring for our next oppressors.
As the name government etymologically means: the control the mind, it's mind control..
Everything starts in the mind.
If you can disrupt the mind of the people by feeding it bad information and put them in a state of fear you create ignorance and internal confusion, anarchy within, no ruler of their own mind, making them be controllable through external forces, external monarchy.
That's a mischaracterisation. Not all ruling classes are equal with regard to the suffering they cause. In my experience the statist predicts anarchy would give a result much worse than the current status quo (a mad-max failed-state chaos), certainly not 'more of the same' in their opinion.
POWERFUL ARTICLE AND ARGUMENT.
WELL DONE
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.3
Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise. Built by @ontofractal