Darryl Perry: ‘Chartier’s “Conscience”: A Vision of Better Tomorrows’

Boston Tea Party national chair Darryl Perry via Free Patriot Press and IPR email:

Gary Chartier has raised the bar in his new book The Conscience of An Anarchist: Why It’s Time to Say Good-Bye to the State and Build a Free Society. Chartier begins by asking the (non-anarchist) reader to “open your mind to anarchy” writing, “As an idea, anarchism is the conviction that people can and should interact on the basis of peaceful voluntary cooperation… without the state.” Chartier’s introduction continues as he explains why he’s an anarchist, with each reason listed he gives a brief synopsis of the chapter dealing with the listed reason(s). Chartier writes (and most – if not all – anarchs agree) there is: no natural right to rule, the state lacks legitimacy, the state is unnecessary, the state tips the scales in favor of privileged elites and against ordinary people, the state tends to be destructive, the state restricts personal freedom, and a stateless society would provide opportunities for people to explore diverse ways of living fulfilled, flourishing lives.

Chartier begins by looking at the “official” political theory of these United States as laid out in the Declaration of Independence with the central phrase being that “governments acquire ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed’.” Chartier explains, since no one has a natural right to rule and governments supposedly acquire and retain power through consent of the governed, it should rest on the rulers to prove they have consent to rule. However, they instead use force to coerce consent. Some argue that voting and/or remaining in a given location are ways of “giving consent” – this is certainly not true. Neither is it true that you should consent to the state because everyone else has and it’s “only fair” that you do as well, even if you accept some supposed benefit provided by the state by force. If there is no real way of showing consent and no real way of not consenting, Chartier writes, “it looks as if the state… isn’t legitimate.”

“Even if it’s not legitimate, some statists will say, the state is useful,” he writes, “we need it, according to the argument, because the threat of state violence is necessary to prevent us from each other’s violence.” Chartier skillfully dismantles this argument as well as the argument that states need a monopoly on the threat of force, even showing how some who support the state will acknowledge “that a single, absolutely powerful agency isn’t needed to keep the peace.” Chartier also dismantles the claim that we need the state to manage the economy and explains the practicality of anarchy by giving real world examples (both past and present) of anarchy in action.

“The state creates and reinforces privilege,” writes Chartier, “special rules for special people, maintained by the threat or use of force.” He shows how states not only create a class of elites, but also protects them with various regulations – patent and copyright protection, immigrations restrictions, licenses and banking, credit & money – and subsidies – tariffs, transportation, eminent domain, research & development, bailouts, tax deductions ans even military force. Chartier further explain how the state makes hierarchies and creates poverty, “there’s good reason to think that a stateless society would be freer, more efficient, less hierarchical, less impoverished than a society overseen by a state.”

Chartier next examines something that would most likely not exist (despite statist arguments to the contrary) in a stateless society: war. Absent the state, standing armies would not exist, only militia comprised of ordinary men (and women) willing and able to organize to defend themselves and their families from attack. Since these men would need to provide for their families, it isn’t feasible that this kind of militia would go out looking to fight long costly wars. “Anarchy doesn’t offer utopia. But it does offer more peace and safety than the state.”

A stateless society would be a society without “crime.” That’s not to say there wouldn’t be theft, rape and robbery (which all occur even with a state); those after all are offenses against people, “crime” in the true meaning of the word is “an offense against the king (or the equivalent).” Chartier examines many “crimes” and the violence used by the state to deal with these situations in which the “suspect” had harmed no one and in many cases the “suspect” was “executed” by the state. “Whether your issue is free speech, privacy, sex, the drug war, or police violence, the state is the enemy of personal freedom… As long as there is a state, personal freedom will be in serious danger.”

Chartier ends by sharing a vision; a vision of a stateless society with different kinds of communities, a society where anarchy is about discovering what works and what doesn’t (and it should be obvious the state doesn’t work) and a society abundant with stateless goodness. How do we get there from here? It starts with you! There are many roads that lead to a stateless society and Chartier does a fine job of explaining many of these roads to statelessness which ends with “a better world, a world more free, more peaceful, more humane than the one we live in now.” It is this vision of a better tomorrow that inspires me (and hopefully you, as well) to continue down the road towards a stateless society.


In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us

Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com

2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377


IPR comment by Gene Berkman: Gary Chartier is Chair of the Riverside County Libertarian Party (www.rclp.org) since January 2011.

He wrote this book in response to Wayne Root’s “Conscience of a Libertarian.”

19 thoughts on “Darryl Perry: ‘Chartier’s “Conscience”: A Vision of Better Tomorrows’

  1. Gene Berkman

    Gary Chartier is Chair of the Riverside County Libertarian Party (www.rclp.org) since January 2011.

    He wrote this book in response to Wayne Root’s “Conscience of a Libertarian.” Perhaps you should list this post under “Libertarian Party”

  2. paulie Post author

    Thanks!

    We got in touch, I’ll be getting a copy in exchange for a book review. Since Gary is Riverside County LP chair, I think I can publish it here, and maybe send it a few other places.

  3. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorcement

    [a] where is a open link thread?

    [b] why isn’t such on the side panel?

    [c] and in south east FLorida:

    * * Miami-Dade voters recall Mayor Carlos Alvarez

    HIALEAH, Fla. | Mayor Carlos Alvarez of Miami-Dade County was removed in a recall election Tuesday as voters punished him for raising property taxes and increasing the salaries of his aides at the height of the recession.

    With 100 percent of the votes counted, 88 percent voted to oust Alvarez.

    Last year Alvarez pushed through a budget that raised property taxes for 40 percent of homeowners to avoid laying off firefighters and other employees.

    The recall campaign was led by billionaire car dealer Norman Braman ………..

    Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/15/2728629_miami-dade-voters-recall-mayor.html?storylink=omni_popular#ixzz1Gk3YnPxZ

  4. paulie Post author

    Lake, I already answered this on another thread. We’ll do this one more time, after that off topic comments may be taken down.

    a] where is a open link thread?

    On the front page at all times. There are only 20 articles there. If that’s too difficult for you, use ctrl+F and look for open thread.

    why isn’t such on the side panel?

    Again, asked and answered previously. There are not enough open threads to make it a separate category.

    You’ve been able to find the open threads in the past, I don’t know why you’re having a problem with it now.

  5. Robert Capozzi

    dwp: Chartier skillfully dismantles this argument as well as the argument that states need a monopoly on the threat of force, even showing how some who support the state will acknowledge “that a single, absolutely powerful agency isn’t needed to keep the peace.”

    me: I still am not getting this argument. An affluent, resource-rich territory has a State today. Tomorrow, it has no State. Are Chartier and Perry suggesting that tomorrow is better than today? All else equal, is domestic tranquility optimized in a stateless society and if so, how so?

  6. Gains

    RC @ 13:

    I don’t think that either of them are suggesting what you say in that frame or in that actuality.

    Personally, I am trying to wrap my head around this “Domestic Tranquility Optimization”. Is this some real scale or goal. You seem to infer by not acknowledging other goals that it is an exclusive one?

  7. Robert Capozzi

    g, nope, DTO is not a real scale. I’m not sure how we could arrive at a satisfactory metric. My gut tells me, though, that DTO is higher in, say, the US over Somalia, all things considered.

    As for frames, I see politics (vs. political theory) as being the art of the possible. However, if theory becomes totally disconnected from practice, theory is IMO rendered useless.

    As a lessarchist, I certainly advocate moves in the direction of anarchy. DTO would (or should) be considered along that path. Rate of change tends to lead to dislocations that are unacceptably large, as DTO might suffer jarring adjustments.

    Unless Chartier has come up with a serviceable path toward an end state that he desires (and I might!), he’d need to offer some pathbreaking justification for the theory of outright anarchism. The ones I’ve read previously I find far too porous for my tastes, more science fiction than grounded theory.

  8. Gains

    RC @16:

    I can see where you are coming from and I think you would love it if you expected the right frame. To me, Chartier’s book is very practical. It is an appeal and I think it pulls more from the “Principled Left” as Mr. Chartier would call the set of people. It is very “right now” in that world’s mindset as I perceive it. The left is shifting just like the right is, but the shift is different and he grabs that ephemeral change and leverages it. It feels to me like he captures a lot of what a disillusioned progressive would find appealing and pulls them to our side.

    I leave this all a little loose because when it comes to some things: One man’s theory is another mans tried and true methodology. What is “practical” is purely up to the practitioner and I try and avoid applying that filter widely to groups, like the LP. There are too many people and way too many possibilities.

    I am old and wise enough now to also know that what is or isn’t possible is not really something I should try to define for anyone (even myself). I would be wrong way too often; and when I was right, I would be too likely a culprit in its failure.

  9. paulie Post author

    My gut tells me, though, that DTO is higher in, say, the US over Somalia, all things considered.

    If you are going to compare Somalia to anything, compare it to Ethiopia, or the Sudan, or Somalia under Barre, or compare parts of the country controlled by extended families in overlapping territories with other parts of the country controlled by warlords or a self-declared “national government.” Comparisons with the US are not realistic for numerous reasons.

  10. paulie Post author

    Unless Chartier has come up with a serviceable path toward an end state that he desires (and I might!), he’d need to offer some pathbreaking justification for the theory of outright anarchism. The ones I’ve read previously I find far too porous for my tastes, more science fiction than grounded theory.

    I guess you’ll just have to read the book if you want to see whether he has.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *