anarchy “Anarchy” means “no ruler” in the sense of no *initiatedly-imposed control by a *state in any form. It can be contrasted with the various forms of state rule—*oligarchy, *monarchy, *aristocracy, *democracy, etc.—as distinguished, for instance, in Aristotle’s Politics (strictly, “cracy” comes from “kratos” meaning “power”; but no real distinction is thereby made). “Anarchy” does not mean “no rules”, or “no *law” (that is “anomy”, or “anomie”), or “no order” (that is “chaos”). *Libertarian anarchists are fully in favour of anarchic rules, law, and order instead of the state’s versions of these; which do approach chaos to varying degrees. *Statists often simply misunderstand “anarchy”. But, in any case, they usually have a strong *prejudice that one *organisation must *run the country.
What little mass-media attention anarchy receives is usually bad. Apart from the confusions just mentioned, in recent years there have been the activities of self-described “anarchists”: occupying buildings, looting, and rioting on the pretexts of being against *inequality, *big business, and high finance. These people are really confused anti-capitalists. *Socialist anarchy could exist in small communes. Only *private-property anarchy is practical anarchy on a large scale. Voluntary *market transactions and *capital accumulation are needed for advanced production. These will always occur unless *coercively suppressed; which in practice would require a state and so would not be anarchic (but such a state could not last long: complete *economic breakdown would quickly ensue). Almost all that libertarian anarchy requires is that the state is *depoliticised until there is no state left. However, there also needs to be a sufficiently *libertarian culture.
Should libertarian anarchists abandon the word “anarchy” because of the pejorative confusions? No: they really are anarchists and cannot long pretend otherwise. The confusions are even a useful and interesting excuse to explain libertarian anarchy. Is it not obvious that libertarian anarchists have no influence at all in the real world? No: that the world is not yet fully anarchic anywhere does not imply that libertarian anarchists are without any good influence (the world is never going to be *Marxian socialist anywhere, but that does not show that Marxists have no bad influence). And such *extremists can cause the perceived middle ground of public acceptability to move; indefinitely far, with time.
More-or-less anarchist societies have most famously included, for hundreds of years, ancient Iceland (on which see, e.g., David Friedman [1945- ])) and Ireland (on which see, e.g., Murray Rothbard [1926-1995]). States eventually grew in these *countries by combinations of error and conquest rather than any inherent instability or weakness with anarchy. Somalia is a recent, if more contentious and less impressive, example: better off than when it had a functioning government and even still improving relative to other African countries under state rule. But that Somalia has a continuing political *“civil war” means that it is far from fully anarchist.
As there has never been a *world government, anarchy has always existed—and without *war in most places—among all the states of the world (although one state will occasionally take over another). This shows that anarchy can be extremely robust and far from inevitably bellicose even while these dangerous *criminal *organisations, states, do exist. Anarchy might also be said to exist in every area of life in which the state does not intervene: in the interstices of state commands.
See also, *bureaucracy; *hierarchy; *meritocracy.
anarchic social order This refers to the social order that arises in the absence of *politically imposed commands or other *initiatedly imposed interventions. It is a form of polycentric order (see Michael Polanyi [1891-1976]), or *spontaneous order (see Friedrich Hayek [1899-1992]); although these also include orders arising within, non-human, *nature.
It is one *common-sense theory of human institutions that someone, or a small group of people, has ultimately to be in charge if chaos is not to ensue. This is generally true of a single *organisation. It is not true of *society, because society is not an organisation but more like an evolving pattern of voluntary interactions. How can social order arise or be maintained without someone’s being in charge? Because of the clear benefits to almost everyone of cooperating in predictable ways and the clear *costs of not doing so (see *game theory). That such anarchic social orders exist is clearly evidenced by such socially crucial things as natural *languages, *division of labour, *markets, *money, and *law.
Attempting to put someone, or some group, in charge of a society—as a *state does—will usually turn the anarchic order into political disorder and, at the extreme, chaos (by an irony, popularly but misleadingly called *“anarchy”). This chaos arises because political rulers—even if not *corrupt—are unable to perform *economic calculations to compare options, as well as their being *procrustean and subject to *capture by sinister interests (see also *concentrated benefits and dispersed costs; *market failure). They cannot control any matters with *economic efficiency. They can only interfere here and there, doing damage all the while. Thus, like an anti-Midas, everything the state touches turns to dross.
However, there can be anarchic disorders too. One example is the dangerously inefficient way that people, if left to themselves, can sometimes leave a large building during an emergency. In such cases, there are anarchic incentives to investigate and test different behavioural rules, physical structures, etc. that will improve the situation. Any political attempt to enforce some apparent solution is also likely to be procrustean.
anarcho-capitalism An *ideology (or social system) that is usually intended to be equivalent to *libertarian *anarchy; but apparently expressed thus in order to be in clearer contrast to “anarcho-*communism”, “anarcho-syndicalism”, or any other type of, alleged, anarchism. However, versions of such non-capitalist ideologies can be compatible with libertarianism as long as they do not flout *liberty: if they are entirely voluntary, including by *contract. See *capitalism; *private-property anarchism; *specific performance.
(These are entries from A LIBERTARIAN DICTIONARY: Explaining a Philosophical Theory [draft currently being revised]. Asterisks indicate other entries.)