“The black flag comes in many colors.” – The Anarchist Handbook
In 1995, a rental truck laced with explosives detonated outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, causing one of the worst cases of domestic terrorism in American history. The perpetrator, Timothy McVeigh, a self-described incel and anti-government activist, had become enraged following federal raids on Ruby Ridge in 1993, and the Waco Branch Davidians in 1995. His counterattack would kill 168 people, more than doubling those killed at Waco and Ruby Ridge combined. This eye-for-an-eye crusade sought to reciprocate the unwarranted crimes committed by federal agents. A staunch Second Amendment advocate, McVeigh once told a reporter, “When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw.”
Fifty years ago, in 1971, “The Anarchist Cookbook”, debuted to teach wannabee terrorists how to build the perfect bomb. The author, a young anti-war teen, advocated for the use of violence to bring about political change. Like McVeigh, these extreme tactics, carried out by self-deputized agents of chaos, are what most people think of when they hear the word, anarchy. Even today, some Antifa activists seem to fit the bill.
But anarchy, properly understood, has always been about much more. In its simplest form, anarchy means “ruled by none”. Rather than force, anarchists seek a stateless society where everyone lives in peaceful cooperation without an established hierarchy. Imagine everyday voluntary interactions, expanded to include every other area in life, replacing government control with the marketplace. This is not to suggest that anarchy is some utopian vision as many of the same problems will continue to exist. But there are vastly different solutions in a world without the coercive power of the state. When you take a closer look, anarchy is not about chaos, the government is.
In Michael Malice’s 2021 book, “The Anarchist Handbook”, Malice looks to amend the misconceptions of anarchy through a series of noteworthy essays of various philosophical voices extending from the late eighteenth century to modern times. While Malice’s collection reveals how the black flag of anarchy comes in many colors, all the various schools of thought have one thing in common, they are all equally opposed to authority. And they all advocated, in their own unique way, for the maximization of personal freedom through liberation, whether it is from the state, religion, property, or capitalism. All with the express goal of ending political hegemony, whether from the right or the left.
While focusing primarily on the proper relationship between free people, these anarchist essays also form an intellectual justification for anarchy itself. Early revolutionary, Pierre- Joseph Proudhon, became known as the Father of Anarchy and represented the Anarcho-Communist school of thought that called for a communist structure outside the government. In this private system, people are organized through mutual agreement for the benefit of all, without the state or capitalism. Proudhon was also recognized for coining the phrase “anarchy is order”, as depicted in the blog’s title symbol, which is often seen in many anarchist gatherings.
Another early advocate, William Godwin, destroys the notion of government by social contract, a common defense for the legitimacy of government and its institutions, by arguing that an unwritten contract without terms or consent is not binding; while lawyer, Lysander Spooner, uses similar arguments to describe how the Constitution lacks any authority without any actual written agreement from the people.
Johann Most, Charles Robert Plunkett, and Louis Lingg all called for violent retribution whenever the government first employed violence against them, whether through police misconduct, worker exploitation, or suppression of speech. Each believed that in lieu of legal alternatives, using force was a legitimate way to regain lost freedoms. Lingg wrote: “If they use cannons against us, we use dynamite against them”. This tit-for-tat retaliation inspired other revolutionaries to the cause, whether for good or bad.
Authors Alexander Berkman, the Tannehill’s, and John Hasnas look at crime, policing, and the law by first describing flaws in the current system and then revealing how alternatives would result in better outcomes. Where the state offers revenge for criminal activity but seeks little restitution for the victim, crime without the state would focus first on reparations for those who were wronged, by making the criminals personally responsible for repaying the loss. Then, using insurance, claims could be made for losses beyond the scope of recovery. In place of courts, arbitration would have a leading role in determining guilt and penalties. Natural law and contracts would again guide society and protect individual interests.
A modern anarchist, Murray Rothbard, was known as the Godfather of Anarcho-Capitalism. He supported a capitalist-driven principle of anti-statism through private property, free markets, and self-ownership, with the force and violence of government replaced with production and exchange in a voluntary marketplace.
There is much work to be done to convince the masses that the core tenet of anarchism is a peaceful, cooperative society and that a society without government would not spiral into chaos. A highly decentralized system of voluntary arrangements can replace the monopoly of government, using competition and choice. Since it's unlikely the current system will ever be demolished outright, we can begin by using anarchist strategies to chip away at the size and scope of government, until its mere existence becomes irrelevant.
There is no defense for the devastation that McVeigh brought to innocent people on that terrible day in April 1995. Yet, despite the bad rap that anarchy gets for its violent reputation, the crumbling of the great American experiment may finally bring about its reformation. Heeding the early voices for freedom may help guide our way.
Comments