The Case for Trivial Anarchism
An analysis of proceduralist, legal obligation and political authority arguments against anarchism
I. Trivial Anarchism Defined
Think of the nature of a utopian society in which everyone lives up to their moral obligations according to whatever your moral theory is. Hardly anyone would envision an ideal society in which people steal, murder, trespass, cheat on their spouse or any other clearly bad action. If you are the type of person who thinks everyone should go to church, then imagine everyone does this. If you are the type of person who thinks everyone should donate 10% of their income to effective charities, then imagine people in this society do.
In this utopia, the laws were exactly how you would like them to be. Your wildest policy dreams could be implemented whatever they may be. If you’re a liberal, you can have universal basic income, wealth redistribution, subsidized housing, legalized gay marriage, reparations and anti-discrimination policies. If you’re conservative, you can have border control, strict policing and drug prohibition.
If you think for a second about what the laws would be, you might notice there would be a problem of sorts. If everyone fulfilled their moral duties, government would not be necessary. If nobody committed murder, theft, assault and so forth, you would not need laws to prevent people form doing this. You would not need police for enforcement or prisons for confining criminals. If nobody created drugs that were unsafe or prepared food in an unsanitary way, then you do not need regulatory bodies to check on them. If people donated a large portion of their income to charities, you would not need to tax them.
Government is an institution that punishes people who do not conform to the law but if everyone behaved as the law wanted, then you would not need the government. I think this position could be called something like being a Trivial Anarchist. In a utopian society with perfect actors that follow all their moral obligations, you would be an advocate for anarchism but in some sense this is a trivial point because we do not live in that world. This does not mean you want to reduce the size of government under present conditions.
Within the philosophy of anarchism, there are the extreme anarchists who would end the state immediately and there are those who are more hesitant. In an essay entitled “Do You Hate The State?”, Murray Rothbard critiques some Anarcho-Capitalists for being too gradual in their approach compared to his more radical “abolitionist” approach:
The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed.
Relative to the trivial anarchist, the Button Pusher Anarchist would be toward the opposite end of the anarchist spectrum with the always-and-everywhere button pusher being the furthest extreme. So, wouldn’t everyone be on this spectrum as at least a trivial anarchist? I think no and the reasons that they would not be tell us a lot about political reasoning and ethics. I will argue that there is not a good reason to not be a trivial anarchist.
II. Instrumentalism and Proceduralism
In discussions of democracy, different justifications for the institution are provided. Someone may say that democracy is a good institution because it creates peace and thriving economic conditions. This is an instrumentalist argument. It takes the stance that democracy is good because it gives us good things. If other institutions were better, the institutionalist would probably want to switch systems.
There are other arguments which are about the process itself. For example, one could argue democracy is good because it allows a nation’s people to shape their own institutions and allows everyone’s voice to be heard. These types of arguments are proceduralist.
Proceduralism is the thesis that some way (or ways) of distributing power or making decisions is intrinsically good, just, or legitimate.
Pure proceduralism, the most radical version, holds that there are no independent moral standards for evaluating the outcome of the decision-making institutions.1
Pure proceduralism is not popular because it has absurd and revolting conclusions. For example, a democracy that elects a leader that commits atrocities would be the most good, just or legitimate option because the election process was good. Most people are a blend of proceduralism and instrumentalism. They believe in the institution of democracy to some extent and value the process but they also care a lot about the outcomes that it produces.
I would consider myself a pure instrumentalist. The only thing that matters is the outcomes that are produced. I want my policies to win. If letting children vote achieved my policy goals, I would support it. If raising the voting age to 45 and above achieved my policy goals, I would support it. Do I support the electoral college, DC statehood, gerrymandering, campaign finance laws or voter ID laws? It depends on what policies it would produce.
You could object that I should have at least some proceduralist considerations but the consequences of elections are important and the value of voting is either really small or non-existent. Does a gang of robbers out-voting a lost traveller about whether to steal from the traveller make the action anymore ethically acceptable? I would probably say no or maybe but ever so slightly if so. Presidents command influence over trillions of dollars, the wellbeing of hundreds of millions and the lives of many foreigners and soldiers in US war zones.
Imagine two Central European presidential candidates: Novak and Vesely. They will be the exact same in all ways except Vesely will invade Ruritania and kill 100,000 people for no good reason. You can tell the future. You’re in charge of counting the votes and notice that Vesely won by 99,999 but you can switch the number so that Novak wins by 1 vote, essentially switching the vote of 100,000 people. Would this be ethical? I think I would switch the votes. I value a life over a legitimately counted vote. How many deaths would it take for you to change the votes? Please don’t tell me people can’t tell the future or that more than one person counts the votes.
I believe that someone could reject trivial anarchism if they had proceduralist beliefs. That would mean that an ideal situation in which everyone was acting totally morally was not good enough. You would also have to have votes on issues. If you imagined a society in which everyone had the right to vote for what they believed, then they would likely vote for things that are ideologically appealing (I am skeptical of the self-interested voter theory2). The result would be that it would be necessary for government to enforce laws which people would not voluntarily follow even if they were acting morally. It is imaginable that the will of the people is not congruent with perfect moral action.
III. Discrepancy Between Moral Obligation and Legal Obligation
There is another reason someone may reject trivial anarchism regardless of proceduralist concerns. Someone could believe that you do not have positive moral obligation to do things like donate to the poor but that the government should enforce laws that take money from people. This would mean perfect law is more demanding than your moral obligations.
While I do not think that people would admit they feel this way, I think this stance is common. There is a common refrain among conservatives towards liberals:
If you really want to raise taxes so much, then why don’t you donate to the government?
This could be said with varying levels of snark and in some contexts it may be inappropriate because the person may not be the target of the desired tax increase. But I do think that this is getting at something important. This point jumps to my mind when I see an article like “These Billionaires Want The Ultra-Wealthy To Pay More In Taxes” with a quote like this:
At least a dozen billionaires have made public statements that call for the super-rich to pay more in taxes. On Monday, Salesforce chairman and cofounder Marc Benioff penned the latest in a string of billionaire op-eds calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. The California software entrepreneur, who ranked No. 93 on The Forbes 400 list of richest Americans released earlier this month, wrote that “increasing taxes on high-income individuals like myself would help generate the trillions of dollars that we desperately need to improve education and health care and fight climate change.”
For some reason, I doubt that he donates his money to the government. In fact, hardly anybody does. From what I found, in 2020, $1.6 million was donated as a gift to “reduce debt held by the public”. That may sound like a lot but the government spent $6.55 trillion in 2020. I can reasonably say that he does not donate the equivalent of what he believes he should pay in taxes because if he did the number would be greater than $1.6 million.3 Are these billionaires acting in a consistent manner or is this hypocrisy?4
It seems odd to me to think that someone would want the government to punish them for doing what they are doing currently (not paying “enough” in taxes or charitable contributions). You would think that if this billionaire felt that improving education, health care and fighting climate change were so important you could use coercion to solve it then you should be morally obligated to do it without coercion.
I want to provide an example to demonstrate the weirdness of this. There is a famous thought experiment popularized by philosopher Peter Singer in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in which he asks the reader to imagine a drowning child. Here is a description5:
Your route to work takes you past a shallow pond. One morning you notice that a small child has fallen in and appears to be in difficulty in the water. The child is crying in distress and it seems is at risk of drowning. You are tall and strong, so you can easily wade in and pull the child out. However, although you'll come to no physical harm if you rescue the child, you will get your clothes wet and muddy, which means you'll have to go home to change, and likely you'll be late for work.
In this situation, do you have a moral obligation to rescue the child?
It is as if you would say that you do not have to save the drowning child but the drowning child should be saved. In fact, the drowning child should be saved so much so that use of coercion is necessary. It would be like you saying if you had a gun, you would hand it to someone else and say “coerce me and others like me to save the child.” That person would take the gun and then point it at you and then you would save the child happily. Something seems off about this position.
IV. Political Authority
Some believe there is actually a duty to obey the government and that the state has a right to rule. This position is a belief in political authority. If the state is legitimate, then you should not abolish the state and the ideal society would be one in which people obey the government. Rejecting trivial anarchism because of political authority could make sense depending on what one’s justification is for political authority. The Democratic justification was discussed in the proceduralism section.
The consequentialist justification for political authority is the Hobbesian position against anarchy. It is the belief that without a government, things would be really bad. In his words “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”6 If everyone behaves well, as stipulated in the thought experiment, then life would not be like this. Therefore, there would be no legitimate political authority.
If one was an advocate for the Divine Right of Kings, then one could see that a king had a right to rule regardless of the behavior of his subjects. Hardly anyone advocates this position so I will not devote time to rejecting the divinity of kings, a time consuming task.
The social contract argument is very popular. It usually takes the form that we tacitly consent to being ruled by the government In a world with ideal behavior, what would the government do? If there is no proceduralist considerations and no difference between legal and moral obligation, then this state would only interfere with society in unnecessary and harmful ways. It would be weird to have a government which is not necessary or desirable in the consequentialist sense but it exists because everyone consented to it by remaining where they are. This makes me think that social contract theorists would admit that it is actually for consequentialist reasons when pressed. I have never heard of someone who was a social contract theorist but thought government was not necessary.
If someone says that you continue to remain in the territory despite claiming you are oppressed by the government therefore the government is legitimate, they would have to assume that a government has a right to lay claim over the area in the first place. If I was a mafia boss and claimed a neighborhood in New York and then went and collected taxes, it would not be a good justification to say that the residents of the neighborhood should just leave. I would have to justify me laying claim to the neighborhood first.
Perhaps you would say that the citizen accepts services provided by the government. Maybe it’s like eating in a restaurant and not paying. If you are receiving services for which you have to pay regardless of whether or not you consent, in other words “an offer you cannot refuse”, then it is not analogous to services provided by a private business. If the mafia provided protection from other gangs, would that mean the mafia was legitimate in its collections?
One could argue that natural rights are real and ought to be protected by the government. But the government would only violate natural rights and not do more to protect them because nobody would be violating anyone’s rights in the ideal society. Government is the existence of an entity which takes away some rights to protect some others. Without other forms of justification for political legitimacy, under a natural rights viewpoint, taxation is equivalent to theft. To think that we should advocate taking some rights to prevent the taking of others is weighing and evaluating tradeoffs. It is in some sense meta-consequentialist. A non-meta consequentialist would believe that rights can never be violated, no matter what, and be an anarchist a la Rothbard.
V. Conclusion
What all does this matter? The point is that if you believe in this trivial form of anarchism then you believe that we should abolish the state in a world in which everyone acts according to their moral obligations. Although I am likely unsuccessful, I hope to have convinced you that proceduralism is not a legitimate justification, that legal obligations are equivalent to moral obligations and that non-consequentialist political authority arguments are without merit.
The conclusion would be that the only legitimate justification for government is consequentialist in nature if it exists. It is the belief that things would go poorly under any form of anarchy and that is why we need a state. This is a major change in political thinking. It means if a stateless society would function better than one with a government, there would not be a reason to have a government. I do not actually believe in political authority because I believe that there is no good justification for government, including the consequentialist one.
The task of convincing someone that consequentialist concerns about anarchy are not as warranted as concerns about the existence of government is too much for an essay of this size. It involves an extended discussion of possible objections, hypothetical scenarios and usually a lot of economic reasoning. For this type of argument, see David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom or Edward Stringham’s Anarchy and the Law.
VI. Discussion Questions
Are you a pure instrumentalist, instrumentalist, proceduralist or pure proceduralist? How much harm would you allow to take place to make sure the vote count was correct?
Do you believe that legal obligations should match moral obligations?
Do you believe in a form of non-consequentialist political authority that I did not address or do you think I failed to address one properly? Lay out your argument.
In the sense in which I described, are you a trivial anarchist? (trivial anarchist: If everyone fulfilled their moral obligations, then government would not be necessary.)
Brennan, Jason. Against Democracy. 10 - 14. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2017
See: The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan
Please let me know if you find this number to be incorrect. I didn’t find any other examples of donations to the US federal government.
Perhaps they donate the equivalent to a charity that they feel accomplishes the desired tasks more efficiently than the government. If this were the case, it is feasible to imagine a consistent argument in which they feel they are fulfilling their obligation in a more efficient manner but in an ideal world taxes would be higher and they would pay those instead.
https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/
Hobbes, Thomas "Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.". Leviathan.