Coercion, The State, and Anarchy

Coercion, and subsequently the right to use violence, is the state’s sole method for functioning and existing. Without it, the state is powerless to exist credibly. Thus, at the core of political theory is the argument to justify the state’s use of coercion; without this, the state cannot be ethically justifiable. However, can a violent, or otherwise morally dubious act such as coercion, ever be truly justified? If enough good comes of it, surely it could be mitigated, but how much ‘good’ is enough? And can we really ever justify the indefinite use of coercion based solely upon favorable outcomes that have occurred in the past? If we cannot, then the only option that may be justified could be anarchy.

Begin by examining the laws of different countries: we find that the ways in which these laws vary depends largely upon lawmakers in said countries. Often, these lawmakers propose legislation that is most appropriate given their citizens’ behaviors and needs. Ultimately, we end up with different laws in different countries; however, none would make the argument that the laws differ because the people are inherently unequal, with perhaps the superior people requiring less laws while the inferior require more. Yet, how can this different treatment be morally justified?

Traffic laws are an example of this difference: in the USA, traffic laws are generally enforced quite religiously: drive down most any highway during the day for any lengthy period of time, and one will most likely see one, if not multiple traffic stops. In contrast, in China, one could try the same method for days and not see a single stop. People frequently use their own discretion when encountering red lights, and otherwise generally drive considerably more erratic...

... middle of paper ...

...t any time whereas under a state opting for anarchy is generally a crime.

Though effective (and desirable) anarchy may be a rarity thus far though mankind’s history, this does not mean that it must continue to be. Anarchism as an actual way of life may be far off into man’s future, but this writer believes that it is nonetheless there, and that it will be the pinnacle of man’s political evolution. Until then, taking ‘baby steps’ in that direction is an acceptable start; simply understanding that the state is an unjust means of society is already a great beginning. Even if it is impractical in modern society, we should not reject it as a goal on that basis alone. As we are all equals, the Golden Rule demands that we treat others reciprocally and respectfully; how can we as a race hope to achieve this, when the supposed flagship of humanity, the state, cannot do so?