ESSAY AGAINST ANARCHISM

A Debate for the Necessity of Government

Eric Rukamp
PHI 102: Logic
December 14, 2015
 1

What exactly is anarchism? No doubt, anarchists may be stereotyped as people who

despise government so much that they embrace unadulterated chaos and incite mob violence,

while spray-painting graffiti over every building. This stereotype is far from truth. The real

ideology of anarchism discussed in this essay is particular to the early 1900s, an ideology that

asserted that government causes most of a nation’s problems, and without government the people

would be truly free. Anarchism also held that people could excel only in an environment where

they don’t need to answer to any authority. However, this raises the question of just how a

society could function without some sort of governmental authority. This essay stresses that the

philosophy of anarchism is unable to stand logically, and only proves that mankind needs some

sort of authority to function. In order to accentuate this necessity, tenets of anarchism will be

compared to those of philosophers in favor of some governmental authority.

To understand our need for governmental structure, a deeper understanding of anarchism

is required. Anarchism is defined as not only a critique of current government, but an ideology

that seeks to abolish all authoritative use of force.1 In fact, the very meaning of anarchism

derives from the Greek roots meaning “without ruler.” Essentially, anarchism wishes to establish

a more utopian society that lacks any sort of authority. To achieve this end, anarchism tries to

reestablish the relationship man has with society through social change.2 Historically speaking,

the anarchism movement gained notoriety on the international stage around the turn of the 20th

century, just prior to the First World War. The movement produced minds such as Pierre-Joseph

1
Joel Kriger, Margaret Crahan, Lawrence Jacobs, William Joseph, Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja, James Paul. The
Oxford Companion to Politics of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.)
2
George Woodcock. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (Cleveland: The World Publishing
Company, 1962), 9.
 2

Proudhon in France and Karl Marx in Prussia, minds whose thoughts would permeate all of

Europe and change politics forever. Marx’s socialism would give rise to communism in Russia,

and Proudhon’s thoughts would saturate Spanish and Italian political thought for much of the

early 1900’s. Keep in mind the times where anarchism grew; these were times of unrest and war,

where the grasping hands of imperialism were being seen as destructive to the state. This

background knowledge may very well provide reason to the tenets of anarchism.

As was aforementioned, the goal of anarchism is social change to a more free utopian

society. It seeks to answer all the needs man has currently, while also answering the problems we

as a society face. Any political theory will always ask itself: “How might I best provide for my

people, while also ensuring their freedom?” Anarchism seems to have viewed mankind as

extremely altruistic beings whose good nature was destroyed by law being imposed upon it. It

seemed that any matter of “imposing” was strongly despised by early anarchists, as their

arguments ranged anywhere from political to socio-economic matters. Generally speaking,

anarchism especially appealed to the working class, as equality played a major role in anarchistic

philosophy. It was this that led to the majority of workers’ unions associated with the early social

democratic parties.3 Ironically while workers and activists worked locally, the ideology sought to

spread over the globe and become the dominant political thought. Through revolution, however

peaceful or violent, the world would be better off without the restrictions of government.

3
Woodcock, 425-467.
 3

Now, since anarchism wants to handle all the needs government does for society, the

question is: does anarchism succeed? Before anarchism was a formal school of thought, there

were already arguments against it indirectly. These arguments, rather than argue against the ideas

that would come to make up anarchism, argued for the necessity of government. Thomas

Hobbes, a proponent for the English Crown during the English Civil War, remains one of the

strongest advocates for government. His titular work, Leviathan, argues a sharp contrast to the

altruism of anarchism. Where anarchism asserts the state causes man to be violent, Hobbes

asserts it’s the other way around. He argues that it is man’s natural state to be violent, and

government is seen as the protecting force of good that holds society together4. Another

opponent of anarchistic ideals would be John Locke, an additional proponent of the social

contract. Locke asserted that, while mankind was innately good, it required government to

uphold the good and deter the evil5. Either way, the final purpose of government is the protection

of its people. Although government has its shortcomings, such as war and poverty6, the

government is meant to be better than the natural state of man. This is where anarchism falls

short: by attempting to assert that mankind’s evil is caused by government, it begs the question

of accomplishing the social contract. Take away this foundation of the theory, and all the

premises thereafter are invalid.

4
Thomas Hobbes, J.C.A. Gaskin. Leviathan. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.)
5
Sir Earnest Barker. Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1962.)
6
Hans Morgenthau. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred Knopf, Inc.,
1967.)
 4

Understandably, when the topic of conversation is about a theory from one hundred years

ago, it makes you wonder how relevant this is. We definitely don’t hear much of the political

anarchism these days as it has evolved into socio-democratic and libertarian movements. Rather,

I will point to the political state of modern countries. A note to keep in mind is that anarchism is

society operating under a lack of effective authority. The sole purpose of this essay is to prove

that not only does anarchism not work, it proves we need government. Contemporary countries

like Somalia, Syria, and Iraq show the damage a lack of government can do to a people. Their

current, war-torn states go so far as to prove Hobbes, in that without a strict and rigid authority,

society tailspins into a truly violent hell. Allow me to use even a fictional example to illustrate

this damage. The environment of the video game BioShock is that of an underwater city named

Rapture, founded on the bottom of the ocean to escape the grasp of socialism and democracy.

These models are painted in a tyrannical light, and instead the city operates on the saying: “No

kings. No gods. Only man.” The only form of government in the city is the founder’s oligarchy,

which is meant to operate as “research and development” rather than a real political party. Under

a society with no limitations of any kind, the people effectively tailspin into violent revolution

and destroy a majority of the city. Whether it is in a real country or a fictional city, a lack of

government begets only violence – an undeniable portion of mankind’s natural state.

We can naturally conclude two things: a) while we are not completely evil, mankind is by

nature evil, and b) we require authority of a sort to protect and preserve us. One could argue

from a theological perspective that this design is as God’s creation intended. Whereas mankind’s

original purpose was divine servitude to God, our fallen purpose is servitude to the redeemer
 5

Christ. Even through a secular lens, we understand that there is a natural state to mankind where

we have a duality of good and evil. No matter what half is greater, we cannot deny the existence

of the other half. Allowing our evil state to run rampant without any ramifications is a recipe for

disaster. We need the security of an authority to not only keep ourselves in check, but to also

protect us from the evils of our fellow men. Anarchism will never succeed in this matter. Not

only does anarchism misunderstand our natural state overall, it seeks to make its changes by

revolution. Anarchism had no qualms of using violence to achieve the international spread it

aimed for. This fallacy goes against the very teaching anarchism wished to achieve. By coming

to understand the social contract and government’s role in philosophy, I most certainly have

come to appreciate the interaction the two have.

 6

Bibliography
Barker, Sir Earnest, ed. Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1962.
Bucci, John. 1971. “Searching for the Meaning of Anarchism”. The Journal of Education 154
(2). Trustees of Boston University: 61–68.
http://www.jstor.org.wlc.ezproxy.switchinc.org/stable/42773032.
Carter, April. The Political Theory of Anarchism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1971.
Hobbes, Thomas, and J. C. A. Gaskin. Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Krieger, Joel, ed., Margaret Crahan, ed., Lawrence Jacobs, ed., William Joseph, ed., Georges
Nzongola-Ntalaja, ed., James Paul, ed. The Oxford Companion to Politics of the
World. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Morgenthau, Hans. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 4th ed. New
York: Alfred Knopf, Inc., 1967.
Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Cleveland: The
World Publishing Company, 1962.