Like most anarchists, rational anarchists believe in the non-initiation of violence. We believe that it is the goal of all ethical agents to live in peace. Despite this belief, violent encounters are sometimes part of the human experience.
Violence stems from ignorance, fear, and the want of ethics. The ignorant employ violence because they are not sufficiently rational to accomplish their ends through reason. The fearful employ violence because they perceive the world as dangerous and believe that violence is necessary for their protection. The unethical employ violence because they lack an understanding of the good. Your average police officer employs violence for all of the above reasons.
As an individual with a love for liberty, the anarchist is often a victim of those motivated by these three causes. Some fear us because they are ignorant of what it is that we believe. Some oppose us because we are the antithesis of their ethical nature (that is, the ethical is the antithesis of the unethical).
Anarchists are frequently the victims of the police. Of all philosophical movements, anarchism is the most offensive, in the eyes of a police officer, for it negates their sense of self worth. Authority is the source of a police officer's sense of self. The average police officer rates low in intelligence, has poor social skills, and experiences the world from a position of ignorance, fear, and lack of ethics. The anarchist, as the antithesis of these qualities, embodies all that the police officer is not: courageous, ethical, and intelligent. Thus, of all individuals, an anarchist can expect to find herself/himself most frequently at odds with the police officer.
With the police officer the primary source of violent conflict for anarchists, we will focus our discussion on the relationship between the anarchist and the police officer.
When an anarchist plans to attend a protest, the anarchist should not view the protest as an opportunity to do battle with the police. The protest, an expression of liberty and cause, is the end to attain. Violent confrontation with police is not.
If one does not reason too deeply, one might conclude that, given the fact that the police will likely resort to violence, an anarchist should bring weapons to defend herself/himself. The assumption that one is making, when one reasons this way, is that the only recourse in response to police violence is the return of violence. While this certainly may be true, from time to time, it should not be viewed as the general rule. The general rule should be that one will flee violence. This is not because one is a coward. This is because it is rational to conclude that a battle against the state, armed to its teeth, will result in a defeat for the anarchist.
By bringing weapons to a demonstration, the anarchist gives the police an excuse to deny the rights of free assembly and free speech. Additionally, it conveys, falsely, that violence is the intent of the anarchist.
Now, one may ask, what if the police are actually harming people and they have nowhere to run? In such a case, the only ethical thing to do is to fight. If this choice is made, then it must be made firmly. If the lives of others or the life of oneself is at risk, and there is no alternative, then violence may ethically be employed in the defense of others and oneself.
Another consideration is the use of violence to protect nature from eminent harm. Once again, the principle of necessity must be applied. If an action is to deny a species its existence, then an ethical agent will act to defend the species. However, the action should not begin with violence. Violence should be employed when there is no alternative. Laziness of imagination is no excuse to employ violence before it is necessary. There are many things one can do before resorting to violence, including putting one's very life on the line in peaceful interference. If violence is employed, it should not be employed against individuals, but rather against the means of destruction. Violence against individuals should only be employed in self defense and in the defense of others.
Finally, we come to the big question. Does rational anarchism support the use of violence, against government, as a means of revolution. To answer this question, we must be more specific. If the purpose of the revolution is to bring about an anarchist society, the answer is no. No anarchist society can come into existence when people believe in the need for government. Government only exists when people believe it is necessary. Thus the existence of a government is proof that a society is has not yet made the requisite paradigm shift in its conceptual framework.
If the question is whether revolution should be employed to reduce tyranny, then the answer is yes, provided it is the only means available to bring about greater freedom. So long as the means exist to communicate, organize, and act, constructive means should be employed. It is only when a government becomes sufficiently burdensome that reason can no longer be employed, that one should resort to violence to overthrow a government.
|