Constitutions versus Law-and-Order Anarchism

The primary flaw in the notion of constitutional constraints on government power is that the very nature of any political government is monopoly.

As such, the state only recognizes itself as a valid interpreter of a written constitution and it recognizes no accountability process it might be beholden to apart from the ones it establishes.

This means that any government is basically just racketeering. While the whole point of a written constitution was supposed to be a “rule of law” rather than “rule by men”, any political government must necessarily be conducted by people who are improperly vested with a monopoly of law. A political state, by definition, recognizes no law outside of its control which it is beholden to — and is thus a lawless entity.

If one truly wants “law and order”, one must support the anarchist conception of polycentric law, or free market law, so that there might always be independent legal recourse available.



5 thoughts on “Constitutions versus Law-and-Order Anarchism

  1. The free-market is no better than political government. The rich & powerful are the ones who control governments anyway. If we're going to make it out of this mess we're in as a species, we're going to have to change our outdated ideals of the "free" market, and every other 'ism' for that matter. We're at a point of technological advancement where there is no longer any need for money. It is now only used as a control mechanism, no different than kings controlled peasants. The only difference is that the gangs in control now pretend we live in a "free" society & use words like 'democracy' & 'justice'. Politicians really have no say in the matter & neither do the general public. Unless mankind can mature passed our fear, violence & domination way of life, things will only get worse.


    1. "We're at a point of technological advancement where there is no longer any need for money."

      Wait… I was under the impression that money is a medium of exchange for real commodities and consumer goods. Are you suggesting that we are about to be in a post-scarcity world? Or that technology will enable us to solve the double-coincidence of wants problem with barter? Or that we will have a non-monetary way to have a long-term storage of value? Or maybe you mean that we must end our experiment with fiat currency and go back to a market-chosen money, ie. gold, silver, rice, wheat, wampum, livestock, bitcoins?

      I believe that you are suffering from with Roderick Long calls "conflation." You are equating what we currently have with a "free market." Forget the rhetoric. Start thinking of the possibilities of a FREED market and the voluntary society that would emerge.
      My recent post Anarchy is impossible. Wait. It existed in Iceland for longer than the US has been around?!


  2. Pretty silly juvenile and untutored rant, really… Our constitution, for instance, has many guarantees of personal access to the law, to the point of absurdity. A society without rules for those who disregard rules will fail through the simple mechanism of freeloading.


    1. I don't think Mr. Spangler, or most anarchists, argue for a society without rules. Rather they argue against the monopolization of law creation and enforcement. It is generally agreed that monopolies are undesirable because the products monopolized will be of poorer quality and higher price. Not only that but even assuming altruism on the part of the monopolists, they will still not know, without competition, how to best serve their clients.

      This applies to all economic goods including law and maintenance or order.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s