Guest AAA Response: Dennis Wilson on Anarchy and Morality
July 17, 2006
7:47 a.m., MT

What follows is an unsolicited response to a question posed in the first Ask an Anarchist session. I addressed the question, as did others in the comments on that post, but not particularly informatively. Dennis Wilson sent this essay response over the weekend. The only editing I've done is encoding URLs into text, and cleaning up some punctuation (e.g., changing quotation marks into italics). By posting his remarks, I'm not implying an endorsement of his Café Press shop, or any other project; I'm just sharing his ideas in answering a question.


On 2006-January-25, Farider asked: Do the proponents of anarchy have a clearly stated morality of behavior, an understanding of how to make a moral argument for anarchy?

I suppose there are as many answers as there are people. I can't (and won't) speak for others, but I arrived at anarchy thru Objectivism and I definitely subscribe to the Objectivist ethics/morality (which is clearly detailed in the opening chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand). Anarchy, of course, is a political position and a person's politics (usually) reflects their moral code. One of the erroneous preconceptions I had about anarchy was the commonly popular association of anarchy with chaos, which put anarchy in conflict with my explicit moral code.

When I (recently) encountered a proper definition and studied the etymology of the word, I realized that--like the words atheist and selfish--anarchy has been badly maligned. Archos is Greek/Latin for ruler, tyrant, or dictator. An-archos or Anarchy means without a ruler; civic life lived without a tyrant or dictator to tell us what to do is hardly an undesirable state of affairs, in the view of many.

Anarchy is not chaos. Chaos and anarchy are polar opposites. To the extent that you have one, you have less of the other. Anarchy is not destruction. It is simply the absence of a 'government', a King or a political State.

Chaos is disorder. We see chaos as a result of governmental interference in the market economy, pogroms, genocides and wars between States. The agency most people identify as 'government' today is in reality a gang of lawyers, armed thugs, and con artists backed by an army of bureaucrats, which operates an immense array of protection and other rackets financed through tax extortion and fraud. (I have posted this plus additional information about anarchy at my Café Press site.)

Being an Objectivist, I was understandably interested in Ayn Rand's view of government.

As you probably know, Galt's Gulch has become THE prime model for those seeking relief from our current culture of ever encroaching tyranny. In commenting about Galt's Gulch, she said:

"I must mention that Galt's Gulch is not an organized society, but a private club whose members share the same philosophy. It exemplifies the basic moral principles of social relationships among rational men, the principles on which a proper political system should be built.

"It does not deal with questions of political organization, with the details of a legal framework needed to establish and maintain a free society open to all, including dissenters. It does not deal with specifically political principles, only with their moral base. (I indicate that the proper political framework is to be found in the Constitution, with its contradictions removed.)"

In 2003, after reading The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo and with the goal in mind of creating a better political organization, I created Judge Narragansett's New Constitution Project based on Ayn Rand's description of the Judge's activities in the closing pages of Atlas Shrugged. After spending considerable time working the Project and then reading some Lysander Spooner and Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T Party), I concluded that the Constitution isn't broken, it is working as it was intended and that without nullification by secession (thanks to Lincoln), the Constitution is unenforceable and that the best way to remove the contradictions in the Constitution is to completely abandon it, restart with the Declaration of Independence and fulfill the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness found therein by understanding and adopting, on a personal level, L. Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent.

Galt's Oath and the NAP/ZAP are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of interpersonal relationships based on those moral principles.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers--L. Neil Smith's Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize.

(If you study these same items and reflect on the no rulers nature of Galt's Gulch, you may come to a similar conclusion.)

The final piece of persuasive knowledge about anarchy came to me from Scott Bieser when he posted the following identification and distinction:

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers.

Well, the Covenant contains the rules and as a Signatory to the Covenant, the conclusion became a no-brainer for me.

Dennis Lee Wilson
Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Signatory: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Sunni

Comments: 14 people have contributed to the conversation

On Monday, July 17th, at approximately 2:36 p.m. Mountain time, Pagan said:

Dennis Wilson said, “Anarchy, of course, is a political position...”

I’m not sure I agree that anarchy is political at all.

Politics derives its impetus and power from the minds of men who wish to rule. “Anarchy” is a(n ideal) social situation that exists without rulers. Therefore it seems to me that anarchy would be a-political.

Am I misunderstanding your statement, Dennis? What /political/ position does anarchy take?
I’m not trying to indulge in semantics here; I’m wondering if I have missed something in the understanding or interpretation I have of anarchy, according to your version.

On Tuesday, July 18th, at approximately 5:17 a.m. Mountain time, Ian Scott said:

For a different "Objectivist's" position on this, check out my latest post, and then click through to the discussion on the other blog.

Paul McKeevor, Leader of The Freedom Party here in Ontario, Canada claims to be an "Objectivist." I'd love your comment on what he claims is "utterly moral."

The post is here: http://ianism.com/?p=235

I'm scratching my head on this one.

On Tuesday, July 18th, at approximately 7:31 a.m. Mountain time, Dr. Lenny said:

'Anarchy is not chaos'

Chaos is not anarchy, is not evil and is not eliminable. It exists as an opposite balance to order and to say you wish no chaos is to wish for 100% order. Anarchy as personified by the fiction of Galt's Gulch is a nice dream, but that includes allowing people who wish to live under a set of rules to choose to live under that set of rules. We dont get to tell them they can't have rules just like we dont like it when they tell us we have to live by their rules. Why? They need to leave people that wish to be left alone, alone.

moral codes notwithstanding, since card number 13 burnt in a strange water/fire episode, i felt compelled to eat the truffle it represented - an orange. Awesome texture, needs a bit stronger on the flavor, but if the rest are as good as the initial indicator, my truffle game experiment might turn into a marketing tool. i can't tell you about what i'm doing, because it would bias the mojo.

The fire water trick was cute - i'll blog it if reality ever lets me up for air.

On Tuesday, July 18th, at approximately 7:55 a.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Excellent point, Dr. Lenny. But you've saved the truffles until now?! While they haven't gone bad, their flavors are surely not as good as they'd be fresh. That said, snolfs and I agree with your assessment of the orange flavor, and it will be improved with the next round.

On Tuesday, July 18th, at approximately 8:01 a.m. Mountain time, Billy Beck said:

"Pagan" -- classically, "politics" is the study of how human beings should treat each other in a social context. Strictly speaking, *every* instance of the interaction between two or more human beings carries a political component.

It really is about a lot more than what most people understand about "politicians", today.

Anarchy is about a politics of *freedom*. And that "without rulers" thing does not account for the prospect of each individual's *self*-rule.

"I am the captain of my own soul" ("Invictus"

The most important implication of that claim is the matter of *responsibility* for one's actions. That is the whole root of an imperative to behave oneself in the company of others.

But it only works in a culture of reason, which this one isn't anymore.

On Tuesday, July 18th, at approximately 9:52 a.m. Mountain time, Pagan said:

Thank you to Billy Beck.
From that understanding of "politics", I can accept that "Anarchy is about a politics of 'freedom'".

It does seem to me to be an oxymoron, however -- perhaps because I’ve spent so many years despising the political arena as it exists OUTSIDE “a culture of reason”.
The word “politics” is an insult to anarchy.

On Wednesday, July 19th, at approximately 1:20 a.m. Mountain time, Dennis Wilson said:

Nice comments. The only addition I might offer is that Anarchy is to Politics what Atheism is to Religion. Both Anarchy and Atheism are (extreme) views or positions within the field (politics or religion) being discussed.

On Wednesday, July 19th, at approximately 5:51 a.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Dennis, thank you for contributing to the discussion here!

On Saturday, July 22nd, at approximately 7:53 a.m. Mountain time, jomama said:

The Covenant is going up as a link on my blog. I will also be signing.

What you signatories may want to think about is filing one with a county recorder. Hint: If you can't find one person there to do it, ask another or go to another recorder. Living outside the uS, I haven't done this so can't vouch for the process.

At some future date, you may not want to deal with someone you don't know who doesn't have one on file. Makes it easier to check when it's on file with local recorder.

Who's going to set up a filing procedure on the net for those who prefer that method?

On Saturday, July 22nd, at approximately 1:29 p.m. Mountain time, Dennis Wilson said:

Welcome to the Covenant, jomamma. It is always nice to know of a new signatory.

On a personal note: I want as little interaction with the existing government as possible. Recording my signed Covenant gains nothing for me. If someone claims to be a Signatory, I am willing to take that individual's word--until and unless that person prove not to be serious about the Covenant. Even a document as clearly written as the Covenant still has people who sign but do not understand or willfully ignore its provisions.

I have discovered one "proud signer of the Covenant"--who uses the pseudonym "NorthGunner" and claims to live in Arizona--who has no reservations about using force to prevent me from associating with people from Mexico.

As in all matters, the proof is in the person, not the act of signing (or filing at a county recorder office).

In spite of occasional disappointments, signing, and announcing such, has worked as a nice "filter" for meeting the kind of people I would like for my neighbors (which is also why I was passing out "badges" from my Cafe Press site at the last Freedom Summit in Phoenix, Arizona.)

Dennis

P.S. I have a (free) badge for you and any other Signatory who sends me an email with their postal address.

On Saturday, July 22nd, at approximately 2:44 p.m. Mountain time, Dennis Wilson said:

I guess I should leave my email... DennisLeeWilson (at) Yahoo.com

On Sunday, July 23rd, at approximately 6:03 a.m. Mountain time, jomama said:

Thanks for the badge offer, Dennis. I'm assuming the badge indicates I'm a signatory of the Covenant, correct? Isn't that quite public and even more so than filing with the country recorder?

I work very hard to keep my Meatspace identity separate from my Cyberspace identity so I'll have to decline to include my address in my email.

Yes, I've been around long enough to also see there is a wide gap between the understanding and application of any philosophical position.[big sigh]

On Sunday, July 23rd, at approximately 7:10 a.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Ah yes, I recall chatting with you briefly there, Dennis! (No wonder your name was familiar to me ...) And I apologize for not following up on this. I admire the covenant, and certainly try to live my life in a manner consistent with it, so I guess I can be considered a signatory ... but I've pretty much had my fill of public pronouncements and filings, etc. I just want to quietly live the rest of my life, as honorably and honestly as I can. And that seems none too easy at the moment.

On Sunday, July 23rd, at approximately 11:49 a.m. Mountain time, Dennis Wilson said:

Yes, the badge indicates that the wearer is a Signatory, and of course, it is only public while (if) you are wearing it. I usually restrict myself to wearing the badge at events where I can expect to meet other Signatories, such as the Freedom Summit or the Free State Wyoming Jamboree. (It worked well for me at those events).

I can fully appreciate why a person would not want to send an address via email, I am reluctant to do so myself. I cannot think of another way to deliver physical objects except at various freedom events. I intend to always have additional badges with me, so keep a watch for people wearing badges. (grin)

Home
Previous entry: "Message to Nanny-Ninnies: Fuck Off"
Next entry: "And You Thought Your Web Site was Yours ..."