Josh LeCash from Don’t Tread on Media reached out to me for an interview after taking an interest in a number of articles here on Daily Anarchist, especially You Are A Slave by Daniel Hawkins. He wanted to know, “Is Anarchy The Answer?” I would say, yes. JoshLeCash focuses primarily on conspiracies, but saw a confluence with anarchists because, as he puts it, “Most conspiracies are rooted in the concept of those in power withholding or manipulating information being consumed by those without power.” Can’t argue there.
Josh: How would you explain Anarchy in layman’s terms?
Davi: For starters it’s the idea that there are not different moral categories for different people, and so if it’s immoral for a civilian to steal from someone, then it is immoral for a State agent to steal from someone. If it’s immoral for a civilian to kill someone, then it is immoral for a State agent to kill someone. On top of that, it is the idea that violence is not an appropriate tool to solve non-violent problems.
J: So is there a specific event that lead you to become an anarchist or was it just a process?
D: I would say it was definitely a process. I mean there’s a sense in which I always was. At least as far back as I can remember. Like I remember when I was a teenager I came across someone who had an anarchy patch. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen those. They’re like black and they have like a red ‘A’ on them. I was like what does ‘A’ stand for? And they said “Anarchy” and I said, “What does anarchy mean?” and hey said, “It means no government.” That immediately resonated with me and I went out and bought one of those patches. That upset a lot of people around me, including parents and teachers, and so I was sort of bullied into not subscribing to that idea, and so I gave it up for a long time. Then in 2004 I discovered Ron Paul and started analyzing and studying libertarianism, and then when Ron Paul ran for president in 2008 I was part of that movement. I really lost faith in the Democratic process through that because that was literally the most I could’ve contributed. I saw this huge democratic, sort of grassroots uprising of people saying “Hey we want this candidate” and he was cheated out of the primary through some pretty nefarious means. So I reasoned that when a person says “If you don’t like the system elect a candidate that you do like” that that is impossible. That the system is systemically broken. So, I am not interested in the system anymore. I see it as rigged against me.
There is no mechanism for keeping government small, is the problem. The Constitution was an attempt. See at the time people thought democracy was anarchy. That was one of the primary criticism from Europe. Without this centralized authority of the king it would be chaos. I’m sure you’ve heard this expression, that to primitive people any advanced technology looks like magic, right? So, I like to say, to any primitive people any advanced social structure looks like anarchy. It’s not that there would not be forces in society that prevented criminal behavior. Its that the system we have now is failing at that, and a newer technology is possible.
J: Yeah! It seems to me like a lot of new technology that’s available now is kinda defeating the purpose of government. Government seems to be more obsolete by the day. You know, you don’t need health inspectors going into restaurants giving a grading system of A or B or C or D or F because we have Yelp now. It’s way more advanced and reliable than anything the government can offer.
D: The idea is that order emerges from chaos. That there’s this sort of spontaneous self organizing ecosystem that comes out of freedom, and that is difficult to predict. And the fact that it’s difficult to predict makes a lot of people think that it wont happen. So, for example if you have told somebody in the 1800’s “You know, if we abolish slavery within a generation or two we’ll have these giant machines that are operated by one person and they will drive over the fields and pick cotton ten times faster than any human being ever could,” they would think that you were crazy. That kind of technology couldn’t be predicted, but that technology was prevented from being innovated because the demand was squashed by the existence of slavery. The fact that a plantation owner could have the slaves do the labor for cheap meant that the demand and the market for the advances in technology didn’t exist. There’s an order which emerges from the need for something to happen, and I think that one of the reasons we see the technology take up these needs is because government is failing at it. The government is failing at the monetary supply, and so Bitcoin emerges. These are responses to demand, and so those demands don’t go away when the government goes away. There will still be people trying to solve these problems they’ll just have a different set of limitations if they can’t force people to fund them.
J: This always interests me and I’m kinda baffled by it, but why do you think socialism, which is basically communism, is so popular with young adults in the United States?
D: Because they were educated in a socialist system. They are raised to believe that things can be centrally organized, that knowledge comes from above, that obedience is a virtue, that memorization and regurgitation of information is how you learn and as a result they come out of school feeling entitled to something because they have not paid for anything they have received so far.
J: But do you think that Anarchistic views are starting to resonate with younger people now ?
D: Yeah absolutely. I think the internet is a sort of beta testing anarchy. I mean if the internet is the quintessential free market of ideas, the anarchist ideas win.
J: Do you think religion plays a big role in accepting Statism? Because when you believe in a higher power, essentially the government is also a higher power and it seems to me that a lot of people look at the government in an almost god like kind of way. Or look at the president in almost a god like way, or a politician.
D: I think it can be. I think it can go either way. I do in my heart of hearts view Statsism as a kind of theology. I do believe that even though people don’t identify it as a religion in most peoples minds who are firm believers in the government, for them it is omniscient, omni-benevolent, all good, all knowing. You know, it is a deity, and in that sense they believe it’s capable of miracles, which is why they don’t have a problem with it going into debt. But for religious people there has always been two tracks within religion. There are those who say God is a higher power, God puts governments on earth, therefor obeying government is obeying God. And you will always find a politician eager to push that interpretation. But you will also find religious people who say “I have a higher code of conduct. I have a higher moral code then the government, and if the government is willing to violate my higher moral code, well then I am going to side with my religion and I am not going to side with my government.” I think that religions are recovering from intense Statism because in the pre-modern world government’s were religions.
J: It is pretty complicated, it’s uh, there’s a lot to it. So my last question would be, what is a good example of anarchy working in an effective way in the world?
D: This conversation.
D: Right here. Right now. Neither one of us has the ability to assert force over one another. Neither one of us has, you know, we are here voluntarily, and yet somehow we are not talking over each other. We have a sort of custom of letting the other person speak, and responding to what the other person says. There is an order to the conversation even though there are no statutes, and government regulating what we are allowed to say. There is anarchy everywhere in everyone’s life. The moment you gave up arranged marriages there was anarchy in marriages, and that has produced a lot of loving couples and children raised by loving couples. So, its really the majority of instances where anarchy prevails.
J: Interesting. Yeah that is actually an optimistic way to look at it for sure. Just to look at it in this conversation. I like that. I think it’s a good way to end this conversation.