Anarchy And Its Outcomes

In itself, anarchy is merely the state of having a classless society, which, by virtue of being classless, is without a governing body.  In such a system, there is no ruling class, no explicit political framework, and no explicit social hierarchy (except that which is voluntarily and arbitrarily formed by individual people without governmental coercion).  Anarchy is often equated with what might come about due to the absence of government, namely, outright chaos.  However, anarchy itself is not the same as any of its possible consequences.  An ideology is not identical with the events that some of its adherents might bring about.

Anarchy does not have to result in socially chaotic outcomes, but the absence of a governing body does inevitably remove formal protection from what would otherwise be classified as criminal and vigilante activities.  In order to have a society that possesses a somewhat predictable stability, there must be some sort of group or class of people who have both the social or financial power and the moral authority to enforce just penalties for deserving offenses.  Thus, anarchy itself is not intrinsically evil, but it always holds the potential for great danger.

In a society where no one commits any moral offenses that deserve formal retaliation, there is nothing immoral about a state of anarchy.  If someone engages in an activity that deserves a specific penalty, however, anarchy must be abandoned in order to pursue justice.  A formal body that can impose just penalties would be called for by the very nature of morality.  For such a system to be legitimate, its legal punishments could not be dictated by conscience, popularity, or tradition, meaning an intentionally just legal system inevitably requires some form of evidentially supported divine revelation [1].  Without a theonomist framework, there is not even a basis for classifying one act as a crime instead of another.  The idea that anarchy is an innately anti-theistic ideology is completely mistaken, though few would acknowledge this.

The reason why anarchy is not innately vile is simple.  Just because there are no political laws (which is not the same as there being no moral laws) in a region does not mean that people will collectively lapse into violence.  Inversely, the mere presence of governments does nothing to guarantee the absence of moral crimes on its own.  The morality of anarchy is not as simple as some characterize it to be.  Anarchy does not inherently promote violence, but it is not an inherently utopian social condition all the same.  It is neither morally positive nor negative on its own, though people do have an obligation to form some form of governmental body when moral offenses with the ontological status of punishable crimes (that is, actions that deserve terrestrial punishments) are carried out.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-intersection-of-politics-and.html