What do you think?
Rate this book
The Conscience of an Anarchist: Why It's Time to Say Good-Bye to the State and Build a Free Society
Anarchy happens when people organize their lives peacefully and voluntarily— without the aggressive violence of the state. This simple but powerful book explains why the state is illegitimate, unnecessary, and dangerous, and what we can do to begin achieving real freedom. Gary Chartier is Associate Dean of the School of Business and Associate Professor of Law and Business Ethics at La Sierra University. He is the author of Economic Justice and Natural Law and The Analogy of Love. His byline has appeared in journals including Legal Theory, the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, and the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence.
129 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
5 people are currently reading
197 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 9, 2011
Gary Chartier has raised the bar in his new book The Conscience of an Anarchist. 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.
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.
August 5, 2013
Gary Chartier is a self-described "leftist" and its clear from his book that he is a leftist. However, the "left vs right" spectrum works differently for market anarchism than it does for statism.
Specifically, many libertarian anarchists and anarcho-capitalists who do not label themselves as left wing will find that they do not disagree with many, if any at all, of the views on justice that Chartier presents in his book. A wide variety of anarchists will agree with Chartier's criticisms of the State.
While Chartier makes several consequentialist arguments against the state, many readers who oppose the State on principle will find that Chartier's consequentialist arguments do not come into conflict with any principled arguments against the state, but instead just support them.
For example, on the subject of tariffs Gary Chartier writes:
"I remember arguing about tariffs with dad when I was a high school student. I didn't understand basic economics then. But I knew there was something wrong with treating goods and services differently because they came from other countries. It was chauvinistic, nationalistic, discriminatory.
"Now I realize too how much tariffs disadvantage ordinary people in the territory of a state that imposes them-while benefiting elites. Tariffs are, effectively, subsidies by the state to favored industries and firms. A state's tariffs may not actually exclude goods or services from outside its borders. But tariffs can make these goods and services a lot less attractive to purchasers inside its borders. In so doing, it props up wealthy, well-connected businesses that don't want to be undersold by foreign producers. The foreign producers become victims of nationalistic bigotry-but so do the state's own subjects, who cannot obtain goods and services as inexpensively as they otherwise could and who are forced to subsidize privileged businesses. A particularly stark example: agricultural subsidies, which prop up inefficient agribusinesses at the expense of foreign agricultural producers, and which therefore constitute significant, ongoing sources of poverty around the world." [page 33]
Even though Chartier makes consequentialist arguments against tarriffs, those who believe that tariffs are unjust because they violate peoples' rights (specifically peoples' right to sell goods to others without giving a certain percentage of what they make to the state) will find that Chartier's consequentialist arguments do not conflict with their principled views of justice.
Libertarian anarchist Jacob Huebert wrote a great introduction to "The Conscience of An Anarchist" titled "How Does An Anarchist Think?" that I highly recommend.
My full blog post: The Conscience of an Anarchist
Specifically, many libertarian anarchists and anarcho-capitalists who do not label themselves as left wing will find that they do not disagree with many, if any at all, of the views on justice that Chartier presents in his book. A wide variety of anarchists will agree with Chartier's criticisms of the State.
While Chartier makes several consequentialist arguments against the state, many readers who oppose the State on principle will find that Chartier's consequentialist arguments do not come into conflict with any principled arguments against the state, but instead just support them.
For example, on the subject of tariffs Gary Chartier writes:
"I remember arguing about tariffs with dad when I was a high school student. I didn't understand basic economics then. But I knew there was something wrong with treating goods and services differently because they came from other countries. It was chauvinistic, nationalistic, discriminatory.
"Now I realize too how much tariffs disadvantage ordinary people in the territory of a state that imposes them-while benefiting elites. Tariffs are, effectively, subsidies by the state to favored industries and firms. A state's tariffs may not actually exclude goods or services from outside its borders. But tariffs can make these goods and services a lot less attractive to purchasers inside its borders. In so doing, it props up wealthy, well-connected businesses that don't want to be undersold by foreign producers. The foreign producers become victims of nationalistic bigotry-but so do the state's own subjects, who cannot obtain goods and services as inexpensively as they otherwise could and who are forced to subsidize privileged businesses. A particularly stark example: agricultural subsidies, which prop up inefficient agribusinesses at the expense of foreign agricultural producers, and which therefore constitute significant, ongoing sources of poverty around the world." [page 33]
Even though Chartier makes consequentialist arguments against tarriffs, those who believe that tariffs are unjust because they violate peoples' rights (specifically peoples' right to sell goods to others without giving a certain percentage of what they make to the state) will find that Chartier's consequentialist arguments do not conflict with their principled views of justice.
Libertarian anarchist Jacob Huebert wrote a great introduction to "The Conscience of An Anarchist" titled "How Does An Anarchist Think?" that I highly recommend.
My full blog post: The Conscience of an Anarchist
February 17, 2021
Certamente uma ótima introdução para quem está buscando entender o que é o anarquismo, ou mesmo apenas tentando entender como poderia funcionar uma sociedade sem o controle centralizado do estado.
O livro levanta diversas questões sobre as funções que o estado assume e suas consequências. Também especula como seria uma sociedade sem o estado.
Existe uma clara tendência de preocupação com as classes mais pobres ou pessoas que estão na base da pirâmide do poder no discurso do Gary Chartier. Boa parte da argumentação do livro vai na direção de que o estado, mesmo no uso de políticas bem intencionadas, favorece o acesso a recursos econômicos e políticos aos que já tem mais acesso, restringindo e até mesmo criminalizando o acesso dos mais vulneráveis. Tenho a mesma convicção moral.
Uma coisa legal que o autor me apresentou foi a ideia de anarquismo como processo. O livro não tenta me convencer sobre uma forma de sociedade mais perfeita, mas tenta me mostrar que uma sociedade mais livre, com poder descentralizado, com pessoas mais autônomas, pode dar vida a diversas formas de comunidades capazes de abraçar todo tipo de cultura e estilo de vida.
O livro levanta diversas questões sobre as funções que o estado assume e suas consequências. Também especula como seria uma sociedade sem o estado.
Existe uma clara tendência de preocupação com as classes mais pobres ou pessoas que estão na base da pirâmide do poder no discurso do Gary Chartier. Boa parte da argumentação do livro vai na direção de que o estado, mesmo no uso de políticas bem intencionadas, favorece o acesso a recursos econômicos e políticos aos que já tem mais acesso, restringindo e até mesmo criminalizando o acesso dos mais vulneráveis. Tenho a mesma convicção moral.
Uma coisa legal que o autor me apresentou foi a ideia de anarquismo como processo. O livro não tenta me convencer sobre uma forma de sociedade mais perfeita, mas tenta me mostrar que uma sociedade mais livre, com poder descentralizado, com pessoas mais autônomas, pode dar vida a diversas formas de comunidades capazes de abraçar todo tipo de cultura e estilo de vida.
August 12, 2021
This reads optimistic and passionate, and I like Gary for that. It's clear to the reader that he is writing about a topic that is near and dear to him, and that the future society that Gary imagines without a state is one that looks clearly superior to societies with states in them to Gary.
The main problem with this book is that (repeatedly) the author simply asserts that better alternatives WOULD exist if we just got rid of the states. He is so convinced of this that he doesn't seem to consider it necessary to actually describe what those alternatives would be, how they would come into being, or how a stateless society would avoid rapidly devolving into pure might makes right.
There's mainly two areas where this is a showstopper:
First, how does a society with no organization holding a monopoly on violence avoid being taken over by a neighboring society that does have an army? Or by some local warlord which has one? Secondly, how do we ensure that there exists some minimum set of rights and services that are accessible to literally everyone? (He might not care about the latter; some anarchists are OK with letting people die if they can't manage to feed themselves or pay for medical treatment for themselves.)
He uses Somalia as an example of a society that do well without a state. It's pretty difficult to take this seriously. Somalia can be found at, or near, the WORST end for living-conditions in the world for most indicators of well-being. At the same time, when he talks about the abuses of the state, he often uses worst-in-class examples while making no mention at all of how untypical these are. As an example he dedicates quite a bit of space to describing the power-abuses and the violence that American police engages in, but at no point does he mention with even a single word that police in most European countries tends to be 2 orders of magnitude less violent. 98% of the Americans killed by the police this decade would still be alive if American police was as violent (on a per-capita basis) as the police in the UK or Germany already are.
This is a problem because he argues that the state is inherently rotten to the core, and that no substantial improvement is POSSIBLE, and that therefore doing without it is the only possible way to have significant progress. But that claim isn't true if problems he describe can demonstrably be reduced by a factor of 10 or more -- most people would consider that to be significant progress.
My problem here isn't just that I disagree with him. That's fine. My problem is that he doesn't even seem to TRY to argue the case that the title claims he is going to argue. Instead he cherry-picks problems that states have, most of which are perfectly true -- and then just asserts that these problems would go away if we simply removed the state; because something better would magically show up. But that latter part can't simply be assumed.
I agree that many of the problems he lists with states are genuine. I just don't see him making any attempt to explain why they can't be solved, or at the very least drastically reduced while still having a state.
Some examples: Overly long copyright-periods and patents are a problem, yes -- but nothing prevents us from having a state but shortening these periods or for that matter eliminating them entirely. Violence from the police is a problem -- but police-forces that are a LOT less violent than Americas exist. The war on drug is unjust and causes a lot of harm -- but jurisdictions exist where drug-laws are substantially less draconian -- he mentions mariuana, but seemingly doesn't find it worth mentioning that you can buy that completely legally in several US states. (and countries in Europe)
Ultimately, I think this ends up being convincing only to the people who are already convinced and therefore do not need any actually supporting argument. For the rest of us it tells us why Gary thinks so -- but without any real attempt at telling us why we should agree with him.
The main problem with this book is that (repeatedly) the author simply asserts that better alternatives WOULD exist if we just got rid of the states. He is so convinced of this that he doesn't seem to consider it necessary to actually describe what those alternatives would be, how they would come into being, or how a stateless society would avoid rapidly devolving into pure might makes right.
There's mainly two areas where this is a showstopper:
First, how does a society with no organization holding a monopoly on violence avoid being taken over by a neighboring society that does have an army? Or by some local warlord which has one? Secondly, how do we ensure that there exists some minimum set of rights and services that are accessible to literally everyone? (He might not care about the latter; some anarchists are OK with letting people die if they can't manage to feed themselves or pay for medical treatment for themselves.)
He uses Somalia as an example of a society that do well without a state. It's pretty difficult to take this seriously. Somalia can be found at, or near, the WORST end for living-conditions in the world for most indicators of well-being. At the same time, when he talks about the abuses of the state, he often uses worst-in-class examples while making no mention at all of how untypical these are. As an example he dedicates quite a bit of space to describing the power-abuses and the violence that American police engages in, but at no point does he mention with even a single word that police in most European countries tends to be 2 orders of magnitude less violent. 98% of the Americans killed by the police this decade would still be alive if American police was as violent (on a per-capita basis) as the police in the UK or Germany already are.
This is a problem because he argues that the state is inherently rotten to the core, and that no substantial improvement is POSSIBLE, and that therefore doing without it is the only possible way to have significant progress. But that claim isn't true if problems he describe can demonstrably be reduced by a factor of 10 or more -- most people would consider that to be significant progress.
My problem here isn't just that I disagree with him. That's fine. My problem is that he doesn't even seem to TRY to argue the case that the title claims he is going to argue. Instead he cherry-picks problems that states have, most of which are perfectly true -- and then just asserts that these problems would go away if we simply removed the state; because something better would magically show up. But that latter part can't simply be assumed.
I agree that many of the problems he lists with states are genuine. I just don't see him making any attempt to explain why they can't be solved, or at the very least drastically reduced while still having a state.
Some examples: Overly long copyright-periods and patents are a problem, yes -- but nothing prevents us from having a state but shortening these periods or for that matter eliminating them entirely. Violence from the police is a problem -- but police-forces that are a LOT less violent than Americas exist. The war on drug is unjust and causes a lot of harm -- but jurisdictions exist where drug-laws are substantially less draconian -- he mentions mariuana, but seemingly doesn't find it worth mentioning that you can buy that completely legally in several US states. (and countries in Europe)
Ultimately, I think this ends up being convincing only to the people who are already convinced and therefore do not need any actually supporting argument. For the rest of us it tells us why Gary thinks so -- but without any real attempt at telling us why we should agree with him.
February 10, 2018
This is a fantastic introduction to the ethical issues involved in rejecting the State, and advocating for a stateless society. While the book does touch on other issues as well (like the economics, and national defense), the bulk of the arguments are moral in nature, which is refreshing given that most works tend to focus their analysis on economics. Also, this book is about general anarchism and does not specifically defend any particular sub-group within anarchism (like anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism), making it a great resource for those either first exploring anarchism, or for more experienced anarchists who want to reinvigorate their enthusiasm for living outside of the State without arguing about which variety of anarchism is best.
August 17, 2021
This is a good introductory text to Anarchism. The Conscience of an Anarchist features several principle stands and plenty of consequentialist arguments. One of Gary's main insights is into the nature of corporatism- how big business and big government go together.
He unveils a number of central problems with this cronyism and provides evidence from the USA, the military industrial complex, and corrupt legislation, which looks after the interests of the corporate elites. Such legislation makes it difficult for small businesses, start-ups, and people looking to act outside the system. Chartier calls these elites 'privileged'. This a lot more justified than how that is used by CRT advocates and Chartier is more genuinely radical. He is fighting the battle where it needs to be fought and realises who the real enemy is.
He unveils a number of central problems with this cronyism and provides evidence from the USA, the military industrial complex, and corrupt legislation, which looks after the interests of the corporate elites. Such legislation makes it difficult for small businesses, start-ups, and people looking to act outside the system. Chartier calls these elites 'privileged'. This a lot more justified than how that is used by CRT advocates and Chartier is more genuinely radical. He is fighting the battle where it needs to be fought and realises who the real enemy is.
June 29, 2018
It's a great read for someone who needs convincing that the State is not a force for good, not even for necessary evil, bringing forth really good arguments in different domains of life. It's also quite short which makes it more digestible for that end. I don't need any convincing in this aspect but even I've found some tidbits that made it well worth the (short) read.
July 27, 2013
"The Conscience of an Anarchist" is a straightforward and practical introduction to anarchism. The most striking insight for me was in the first paragraph in the introduction, which points out that governments depend on the use of force, and therefore lack legitimacy. This statement rings true if you reject the use of violence as a just way to maintain order.
I appreciate many aspects of this book, particularly the positive vision held by Chartier that people do not require the state and a voluntary society can fill any void required to take care of one another.
Chartier does not offer a vision of utopia, and he humbly admits as much. The truth is that anarchy would look very different depending on geographic and cultural boundaries, experimentation would be necessary, and not everything will work.
I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in various political philosophies and can let go of the state long enough to have fun imagining what a stateless society could look like.
I appreciate many aspects of this book, particularly the positive vision held by Chartier that people do not require the state and a voluntary society can fill any void required to take care of one another.
Chartier does not offer a vision of utopia, and he humbly admits as much. The truth is that anarchy would look very different depending on geographic and cultural boundaries, experimentation would be necessary, and not everything will work.
I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in various political philosophies and can let go of the state long enough to have fun imagining what a stateless society could look like.
June 10, 2011
I thought I already wrote that, I hope it got saved and I hope this does too.
Very clear explanation of anarchism that demystifies anarchism beyond the punker image. It is very well explained. Many people especially some who believe they believe in was is stated as "limited government" who will not even entertain the notion of anarchism, and see "anarchists" as bomb throwers, and see anarchy as chaos, may, suddenly discover that, an anarchist is actually what they are. And will realize it is not such a crazy idea afterall, and that no idea makes more sense.
Very clear explanation of anarchism that demystifies anarchism beyond the punker image. It is very well explained. Many people especially some who believe they believe in was is stated as "limited government" who will not even entertain the notion of anarchism, and see "anarchists" as bomb throwers, and see anarchy as chaos, may, suddenly discover that, an anarchist is actually what they are. And will realize it is not such a crazy idea afterall, and that no idea makes more sense.
November 1, 2012
Having read other works of Chartier's I had complete faith that he could write a book that lived up to the title... and my faith was rewarded. This book is an excellent introduction to anarchism and will be the second book I give my liberty-curious friends (after The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible). Get it, read it, and pass it on!
July 18, 2012
An amazing introduction to market anarchism, and anarchism in general, in the form of one man's manifesto. I would give this book to anyone wanting to know not only what anarchism is but WHY one would be an anarchist.
June 22, 2015
A bit wordy but for a good reason! Great read.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews