The question, that no one can answer about anarchy

There are many interpretations of anarchy, but it is generally used exclusively by everyone in a pejorative (negative) sense. According to most interpretations, anarchy is something to be feared. For anarchy is synonymous with chaos in public use, and every sort of order is better than chaos. However, I recommend something for everyone’s attention. Human civilization was conceived in anarchy, which is a logically and empirically irrefutable fact.

And here’s the question no one knows the answer to: If only a negative interpretation of anarchy is correct, how can civilization exist?

If anarchy were to be understood only in a negative sense, then birth and rise any civilization in anarchy would be inconceivable. There could never be order out of chaos, and human civilization could not exist at all. Just as there would have been no chance of emerging it.

The truth is just the opposite. Chaos and order are two sides of the same coin, which are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Moreover they cannot exist without each other. The opposite of chaos is not order but a balance between chaos and order. Or anarchy is not so much a lack of order, but rather a lack of an active external intervener or central coordinator. But this, of course, is only a more positive interpretation of anarchy than what the masses mean by anarchy.

If we ask anyone what they think of anarchy, chances are Somalia comes to their mind, a school example of a stateless country on the brink of chaos and starvation. This is faith and myth. In fact, everything is the opposite of what people think. The truth is, there are no chaos and turmoil in Somalia, or anarchy as they put it, for that reason because there is no state apparatus, but there is no state precisely because there are chaos and turmoil. As Muslim extremists do not attend Christian worship for that reason because the temple was blown up before it. Consider what it was before, and don’t confuse the reason with the cause.

If the government disappeared in Switzerland, for instance, it would not turn into Somalia. If, on the other hand, there were chaos in Switzerland, there would be no state that could maintain order, just as central government in Somalia did not accidentally collapse. It was unsustainable. People do not understand that it is not the state that creates order, stability, security, but vice versa, the order, stability, security create state. The basis of this, of course, is that the masses do not even understand that they live in an almost perfect anarchy with the illusion of order. The state does not exist in reality, just as a conception in the collective consciousness of people. This is a fiction altogether. Of course, there are institutions and symbols of the state, but its concept is nothing more than an illusion that does not protect anyone.

The concept itself is ridiculous that the entire state apparatus, which is in a negligible minority relative to society, who would fit into a medium-sized hall, would be able to protect the entire society from anarchy. How would they be able to protect the society, if not by society???

Just think about it. If we observe people’s behavior, walking down the street, in shopping malls, or on public transportation, what do we see? Are people endangering each other’s lives regularly? Not at all. No one behaves antisocially. People do not kill, rob, rape each other. But they help each other. The sit is given over to elderly. They help each other up, when they fall. They let each other forward at the entrance, and so on. And they are wild strangers to each other. For non-human primates, this is unthinkable. This is not due to the deterrent effect of state laws, which is inefficient on psychopaths anyways.

Through natural selection, the skills of empathy and compassion were incorporated into human genes, helping the species survive. If all people were antisocial, there would be no state that could maintain institutional order. It is enough to observe the world of prisons and penitentiary institutions, which, moreover, is the area under the maximum supervision of the state. The hierarchy between prisoners is based on violence and not on voluntary cooperation. They have been proven not to be deterred by the laws of the state, for they are committing their crimes in spite of them. Even a Judge Dredd style harshness does not eliminate the crime, neither can prevent it.

In addition, even tribal societies without a state expelled the antisocial and deviant elements who posed a threat to them. The state can only do this because they are not the majority of society.

What is an order of anarchy?

Sound like a contradiction? According to British mathematical, Alan Turing’s equation, nature is itself deeply structured, which has overthrown the Newtonian worldview of many centuries. Is it possible to discover a stable order in it that seems chaotic? Take, as example, the motion of celestial bodies, where perfect anarchy reigns, yet the motion and position of the earth are suspiciously predictable and constant. The same rules apply to nature, which is under direct effect of the position of earth. They work even without human intervention. No man’s son dictates when it will be summer, yet it occurs every year and at the same time. No one adjusts gravity centrally. Sounds obvious, but it isn’t. This is because people do not see the connection between the natural self-organization of society and nature itself.

The countries of the earth live side by side in perfect anarchy, yet violent conflict between countries is less common than civil war, or crime within a country where there is no anarchy in principle. Yet the general public considers both civil war and crime anarchy. There are some kind of military, economic, political agreements between the countries indeed, which is further proof that they coexist in anarchy, and that will be the case as long as there is no world state and world police force that forces a central uniform law on each country. Within a country, this is a situation where the principle of mutual deterrence does not work, so a ruling elite as the sole monopolist of law-making and enforcement forces its will on society. This is a man made imbalance in action, which ironically the people tend to accept as sole criteria of balance.

No one organizes human relationships centrally. For example, sexual selection takes place in perfect anarchy, as a vast area of our lives without us being aware of it, and will continue to do so until there is a police officer next to every person, not every household under government surveillance as in Orwell’s 1984, and no central birth control as in Huxley’s Brave New World. The free market economy organizes itself in perfect anarchy, yet there is no shortage of goods. Many are convinced that self-organization is not sustainable in the economy. However, they forget that food supply is the responsibility of the market in all countries except the communist countries, where there is famine despite perfect planning. So anarchy works, what’s more, this is the only one that works, so much so that without anarchy, no order would be conceivable. But if we still want to replace the laws of nature to some artificial order, who would be so perfect to operate, who, nevertheless, flawless, would not even accidentally abuse it?

I do not wonder after this, if you ask, whether I am an anarchist. But it doesn’t make sense to me. Because it disguises an ideological cliché, and I’m not an ideologist. I am a philosopher, who tries to be both rational and ethical, whatever that means.