In this essay I will argue whether we should agree with the anarchist and if law should be abolished as it is an institution that is capable to be destructive.
However first I shall start by defining what exactly anarchism is. There is not one single definition of anarchism; it can be defined in a number of ways, both positively and negatively. Positively it can be defined as the aim of decentralisation and the want for freedom and autonomy. It can be defined negatively as the rejection of state and authority. (McLaughlin: 2007) Therefore from these definitions I will adapt a thesis upon which I will work on throughout my essay.The thesis that I have come up with is that the freedom of the individual is far more important than order and security that is given by the state.
With this in mind I will argue the case for and against hence coming up with a conclusion as to whether we should agree with anarchists and abolish the law. In this essay I will look at a number of anarchists and analyse what they argue such as Kropotkin, Godwin, Stirner and Bakunin. Along with this I will also look at conservative principles such as their need for a strong state to implement punishment and libertarian principles such as Sumner's argument for a minimal state.Firstly looking at Kropotkin, he argued for an egalitarian society, in which all the people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights. His claim was that the state exploits people and only gives power to the limited minority. Following up on this he was keen to show the uselessness of law and he did this by making three categories.
These were protection of property, government and persons. Laws that concern property are said to 'rob the producer'. Sugarman: 1983) Therefore Kropotkin argued that the laws on property guaranteed no right for enjoyment, either to the individual or to society. (Kropotkin: 1927)All that property laws do, argued Kropotkin, is to take away from the producer. So it could be argued that the law is just a system that robs the people within the society and is a dominating of the majority by the minority (Sugarman: 1983) In this case, if laws do exploit people by the means of property and do not allow people to be free then law should be abolished. The second category Kropotkin formed was laws that protect government power for example constitutional laws.
Sugarman: 1983) Kropotkin argues that the mission of any form of government is to protect and to maintain the privileges of the ruling class. (Kropotkin: 1927)Unlike the US, the UK, has no single entrenched document which outlines the fundamental rights of citizens, it can be best described as an uncodified constitution. This means that the laws and rules are not found in one single document but over a variety of sources. With having a codified constitution means that the basic rights of the citizens are protected and along with this the sovereign authority is identified.Therefore it is arguable that with the UK having an uncodified constitution rights of the citizens are weak and are not safeguarded effectively.
And so in this sense we could agree with the anarchists and it would be best for law to be abolished. On the other hand with the constitution being uncodified means it is flexible hence it is possible for it to change citizen's rights that reflects social change and circumstances. With this it could allow individuals more freedom as society and time changes. The third category Kropotkin developed is the protection of the person.
He states that most crimes within this category are from people trying to posses other people's wealth. (Sugarman: 1983) His argument for this category is that even the fear of punishment has not stopped murder or any sort of crimes. Emma Goldman (1917) stated in 'Anarchism and other essays' that the most meaningless apology for authority and law is that they operate to diminish crime. (Goldman: 1917) However findings from the British Crime Survey (July 2008) has decaled that crime rates are falling. The risk of becoming a victim has fallen, in 1995 the risk was 40% and by the year 2008 it had fallen to 22%.The home office also stated that they aim to reduce this even more.
Taking this into account, authority could be said to be more important than freedom, if law aims to reduce crime rates and therefore protecting those who are at harm. With Kropotkin analysing these three categories, he came up with the conclusion that law is useless and hurtfulness. (Kropotkin: 1927) However, law does serve to protect the people from violence and crime so it would not be a wise idea to abolish law as statistics have proven that crime rates have decreased hence law is proving to be beneficial.Conservatives argue that people fear isolation and instability moreover they are drawn towards being safe. Therefore this had led conservatives to place emphasis upon the importance of social order which secures stability and predictability along with providing security in an uncertain world. Unlike socialists or liberals, conservatives believe that crime is not a result of inequality or social circumstances but because of human instincts.
This therefore explains the reason for having a strong government and a strict punishment regime. So the role of law is not to uphold liberty but to preserve social order.To show support for this, the government have been thinking to put a minimum price on alcohol. Their reason for doing so was to reduce abuse that mounted from alcohol consumption. Their suggestion of 'imposing a minimum price of 50p a unit of alcohol wherever it is sold is aiming to save at least 3,000 lives a year'.
(Tony Helm: 2010) Law is not destructive but in this case the opposite. Law can seek to help society and place order within it so individuals within society have a chance to lead a peace and harmonious life. However Bakunin was very much against any form of governing system.He stated that, " the liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognised them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual".
(Bakunin: 1882) Here Bakunin states that natural laws are necessary and manifest themselves within the social and political world.Disobeying these natural laws is out of the question even if we are unaware of their existence as naturals laws are the basic need for our survival. Bakunin: 1882) He places stress upon the fact that 'without them we are nothing'. And anarchists argue that the only way possible to get freedom is to deny authority and Bakunin wanted the rejection of all kinds of authority. (Marshall: 1993) It can be argued that authority is seen as a form of domination as it involves the exercise of power over someone else. (McLaughlin: 2007) Taking this into the account the authority exercised by government in terms of the law is not seen as domination but merely to protect individuals in society and that can be seen with the alcohol example I gave earlier on in the essay.
Following on, a powerful state is needed in order to enact forceful laws upon humanity. This is the conclusion Hobbes came up with to individuals being selfish and power-seeking. (Goodway: 1898) Hobbes argued that there would be a war within everybody in society, if there were no laws and the state to be abolished. So Hobbes placed order and security above freedom. He argued that in the state of nature, men had freedom and this was where no government existed. However this only led to breakouts of wars against all.
Therefore he came to a conclusion that a state was needed to control the excess of freedom that had existed in the state of nature. Therefore without a state hence without laws, society would be a chaos and no form of order would be about. So as Anarchists argues that law is destructive upon society, we could dismiss this very statement. Law is needed to create a civilised society with some order and that without law; society can be destructive with the outbreaks of war. Along with this law is also needed to outlines citizens rights.However it does not mean that individuals would have less freedom, the law is there to keep order and punish those who create harm to others or to society as a whole.
However Stirner, even though he thought the same as Hobbes about individuals, came up with the opposite conclusion. He believed that it would be completely achievable and desirable to create a union of egoists. (Goodway: 1898) He was an individualist anarchist and believed the individual to be supreme. Stirner argued that it was possible to abolish the state because everyone within society is equal in more or less all aspects of power and ability.With this he thought that as humans are fundamentally selfish it is possible to appeal to this selfishness to make contractual agreements between themselves to try and avoid violence and conflict with each other, along with the chance to follow up on their own personal interests.
(Sugarman: 1983) Bearing Stirner's view in mind, it is difficult to see that with a free society those individuals would not resort to violence to settle their disagreements. As he argues that individuals are equal in some way, it is also arguable that all human beings are different and aspire to different things within life.Without obligation or even the threat of force it is hard to say that agreements would be binding. Godwin is also another anarchist who rejects the idea of government. He refuses to believe that the justification of government can be found within the social contract. (Marshall: 1993) Anarchists have a positive view on human nature as opposed to social contract theorists.
Whereas social contract theorists, such as Hobbes and Locke, argue that humans are selfish and self seeking, anarchists believe that humans have a capacity of rational understanding and empathy.Within the state of nature a natural order would prevail, so because of this there is no need for making a political order and would be quite unnecessary to do so. (Godwin: 1793) A social harmony will develop as individuals with start to recognise that their common interests that connect them together are far more important and stronger than their selfish interests. However this particular anarchist way of thinking is far too optimistic.
It is arguable that humans can be selfish and look out only for themselves.Anarchists have usually supported their arguments through the use of historical examples. Heywood: 1999) For instance, Kropotkin used the example of the medieval city states. He argued that "for thousands and thousands of years this organisation has kept men together, even though there was no authority whatever to impose it". (Kropotkin: 1989) With this he also argued that it had led to the development of mankind. Though the problem with this is that there is a huge difference between traditional societies, such as the medieval city states, and with the urban, industrialised societies we live in today.
Traditional societies solved their problems through their customs and traditions.Such societies were easy to solve their problems as they were relatively small allowing social intercourse to be carried out on a personal level. On the other hand the industrialised societies we live in today are much more complex, large and highly differentiated. Due to such diversity within the millions of people that live in these urban societies it is necessary to have law and a government to enforce these laws.
Hence we should not agree with anarchists to abolish law because law is needed to keep the modern society, we live in, civilised.Therefore we could argue for a minimal state as opposed to going to the extreme and agreeing with anarchist to abolish the law. Sumner was a conservative libertarian who argued for self ownership, justice and the law of a minimal state. In this he argues that the state is used to steal from the rich, which he defines as completely unjust and wrong. Sumner slates pauperism and says that people who do not earn enough to protect themselves lack themselves with morals and it is terrible that a man has to surrender his own needs for the basic pauper.
Sumner: 1881) The state is wrong to divert resources from the rich to satisfy other people's needs. Therefore liberty is not something you are born with but something you get through work and effort.So in this case, it is arguable that abolishing the law completely is far too extreme, as wanted by anarchists. As Sumner argued, the state is best serving a minimal role and there to protect individuals, for example security of people against crime. Sumner: 1881) And so laws are needed to give punishment to those that are anti - social within society and protect those that are not.
To conclude, should we agree with anarchists and abolish the law? Firstly law is placed upon society and individuals, not to uphold liberty but merely to act as a protector for the individuals. With modern society today and the vast number of people there are, it is necessary to have some sort of authority to keep people informed of their rights and to create order within society.We can emphasise with Kropotkin's view that laws merely take away freedom from individuals however law is also there for punishment, for those who are a threat to people or to society as a whole. Sumner's argument of a minimal state looks appealing to me, as the state should be there to protect individuals and nothing else.
People have a mind of their own and are capable of making their own decisions and should not be left up to the state. So I think that anarchists go to the extreme in suggesting that law should be abolished as law has proved to be beneficial as shown in the essay earlier, crime rates have decreased.
