The Smearing of Market Anarchists


BrianDrake's picture

"Huh? Anarchists want to kill all politicians?"

I agree that most consistent libertarians/market anarchists/anarcho-capitalists/whatever-you-want-to-call-those-who-oppose-aggression-in-all-forms do not support a violent revolution where we "kill all the politicians". From a moral perspective, it's highly unlikely such a revolution could be conducted without murdering/injuring innocents or damaging their property ("collateral damage" in state-speak) and thus is incompatible with the NAP. Practically, violence tends to beget violence and the only real shot we have at abolishing the state is through a peaceful revolution of education and mass-scale withdrawal of consent/acceptance of the state (the de la Boettie approach). Killing all the politicians (even targeted assassinations, to avoid aggression against innocents) is more likely to marginalize us further as the slaves rally behind their masters and seek vengeance for our slight against their god (the State).

But one wonders, in a state-less society, would politicians, and other responsible members of the former ruling class (and their henchmen) really be granted full pardon for past aggression? I imagine that "libertarian Nuremburg trials" like Walter Block (and others) have proposed may be distasteful for many and probably won't happen or have much bite to them if they do. But in a free-market of justice provision, is it not likely that the aggrieved relations of those who have been murdered by the state (a whole lot of Iraqi or Afghani mothers comes to mind, or survivors of victims of the drug war, etc...) will seek redress against those they can single out for their criminal (state sanctioned) activity? Personally, I would prefer that DROs (dispute resolution organizations - one form the justice industry may manifest as) that focused more on restitution (such as lifetime slavery in a work camp to pay the family of the one you murdered) would be more successful and thus more prevalent than those that doled out punishment (such as labor-less incarceration or execution), but really, the market would decide that. So it's possible that "we'll kill the politician that voted for the war that killed your son" (or the general that ordered the bombing of your city, or the DEA agent that tazed your grandma to death, etc...) courts would arise and be popular for a time (at least until the politicians are dead), resulting in the execution of many of the worst-offenders from the former state apparatus.

Because let's face it, though it is a heretical, lunatic thought in today's Statist reality, from a consistent justice point of view, those in the State ARE murderers and thieves. Just because the majority have been indoctrinated into believing the myth that association with the State magically makes murder, kidnapping, theft, terrorism, fraud, etc... not only not criminal, but virtuous, doesn't make it so. Politicians, members of the military, IRS agents, police, etc... ARE criminals, and it is not extremism, but rather moral and logical consistency for one to advocate they meet justice in the same manner any "private" criminal would.

It is within the right of the aggrieved individual to offer pardon and forgiveness and therefore spare the politician his just fate. But the vast number of victims of the State makes unanimous clemency highly unlikely. Even as one forgives the DEA agent for tazing his grandmother to death, another may choose to not forgive the same agent for planting coke on his brother who was subsequently stabbed to death in prison. Nor is it likely that the aggrieved masses of Iraq (or, pick a country) will all individually decline to seek justice.

Will that necessarily result in death for the politicians? Probably in most cases, but not always (when some seek restitution rather than punishment, or pardon is actually unanimously granted by the victims). Either way, due to the heinous nature and scope of the crimes of the State, it is most certain that whatever form justice is delivered in, it won't be pleasant for the recipients, nor should it be.