I’ve struggled with this a long time, myself, at times considering myself an anarchist, too.
I think there are some basic premises that should be established, though –
- Do we keep in mind that all interactions are between individuals? That government, corporations, law, nations, etc, are abstract constructs?
- Do we account for man’s fallen nature in determining the form of our society?
- Do we allow for the protection of the innocent?
- Are we striving for a perfect society?
- What purpose are we trying to serve by creating an anarchist society?
I see a lot of recurring themes in anarchist thinking, the almost extreme idealization of an anarchist society. At the same time, we’re led down an equally dubious path, of assuming that people in government are the wisest and smartest of all people (taking a quick look at Congress should dispel that notion). We also assume that people in government are not self-serving and corrupt…this is a paradox, because some call for government because we need government to protect us from the lawless and corrupt, but government is made up of people who are no more perfect or flawless than anyone else.
The argument to extremes that anarchism sometimes entails implies to me that it is a philosophy which is ultimately grounded in the abstract, not the concrete. There are some tortuous arguments around protecting the rights of the unborn, as well as how to deal with roads, and so on. In this sense, it’s not radically different from Marxism that also strives to answer objections with ever more dubious abstractions. (this division is also a mark of Protestantism, as shown by the hundreds, if not thousands, of Protestant denominations that try to distinguish themselves through division)
If we considered the absence of government, would we also consider the great evils which might arise? (child exploitation comes readily to mind) In rejecting anarchism, do we consider what corrupt people in charge of an unrestrained state will bring? (political murder, oppression, looting all come to mind) Do we instead recognize the evils present in either extreme and work to try to provide fairness and relative freedom within a system?
And coming full circle, there is the question of being a Catholic Anarchist. I tend to equate it with being a Catholic Marxist, a Catholic Republican, Catholic Democrat, Catholic German, Catholic American, whatever. Are we trying to merge an earthly identity with our religious identity? Much is made, by opponents of the Church, of the great influence that the Church had over the medieval world, but this was when the idea of “Christendom” was still alive and well. People viewed themselves as Christians primarily and national identity, the way we understand it, was not even on the radar at the time (the French Revolution staked out this territory in a definitive way only at the expense of the Church by force). Do we accept that our faith is the primary arbiter in our lives and that everything else is second to it?
I hope that is some food for thought in wrestling with the question. I don’t care much for politics (seeing most people seeking political office as self-serving and looking for power), but I would fall somewhere between the libertarian and conservative groupings. Most crucial, I think the problems we have are not so much a product of the systems and organizations we have, but of the moral and ethical character of people administering them. After all, who was it – Madison, maybe? – that said a people could only remain free if they remained moral.
