In Defense of Anarchism

Last summer I read In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff and I’ve been thinking a lot about the way we go about government in my home country, the United States of America. Here are some compelling ideas and questions that Wolff presents:

Autonomy vs authority, which Wolff presents this as the central tension of any form of government.
- Autonomy is “self legislation”, or the ability to live by our own moral code or set of values. This doesn’t mean that we can’t listen to or take advice from others; so long as we don’t act because someone told us to we can act in accordance with what others believe.
- Authority is how the state derives legitimacy in order to compel us to act in certain ways. Wolff draws a distinction between authority and power. Power does not imply authority. One can have power over another and exercise it, but it does not mean that that power is justified. Power coupled with the right to use it is authority.
- Authority and autonomy are fundamentally at odds, as authority requires us to act out of obligation, often in ways that compromise our own moral code.
- Wolff points out that we can submit to a punishment and still preserve our autonomy. However, we cannot, in a blanket manner, agree to submit to punishments for a set of unspecified future criminal actions. We exercise our autonomy with every action we take, this we cannot maintain autonomy by agreeing to compromise our moral code in the future.
How does representative democracy preserve our autonomy?
- Legislative bodies often pass laws that compel us to act (or not act) in ways that defy our own set of values. Say, for example, that I do not believe that I should have to pay taxes. By paying these taxes, I am submitting to the authority of the state and compromising my autonomy. Note that this is different from not wanting to pay taxes, but doing so because I think it is a socially good thing to do.
- Representative democracy is setup in a way such that we are forced to give up our autonomy. As we exercise autonomy on a decision by decision basis, agreeing to let a group of people make n future decisions on our behalf (some in accordance with our moral code, some not) compromises our autonomy, even if we willingly elected legislators in the first place.
Is direct democracy possible in 2018? If everyone had a smartphone, why can’t everyone vote on every bill at every level of government?
Why are we so convinced of the legitimacy of majority rule? If 50.1% percent of a group vote in favor of something, a non trivial amount of people (49.9% no less!) are are losing out.

I’ve spent some time talking about ideas with people, especially fellow US Americans. One of the things that surprises me the most is how resistant people are to the idea of direct democracy. Many objections come down to the following:

“How could we trust the common person with the job of making laws?”

Common people are either too busy, too uninformed, too inexperienced, or too stupid to be entrusted with the job of making laws. Hearing the systems of government present in the USA described as democratic makes me wonder what we (as US Americans) mean when we say “democracy”. The phrase “consent of the governed” comes to mind. How is this consent granted? Do we do it every time we vote, or do we grant it implicitly by being a citizen? Either way, how can we preserve our autonomy when we surrender our ability to make decisions according to our own system of values in a such a blanket fashion?

Here’s a few things I want to read in order to clarify what this means:

The Federalist Papers
A History of Political Theory by George Sabine, especially bits about David Hume
The United States Declaration of Independence
Essay Concering Human Understanding by John Locke
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill