Law and Order

The claim that Archism (support for centralized authority and state privileges) provides superior societal stability is frequently cited as justification for state authority. But how well does this claim hold up under scrutiny?

The Archist Stability Argument

Archists argue that centralized authority, empowered with special rights (e.g., coercion, monopoly on violence), is necessary to maintain law, order, and stability. Empirical evidence cited typically includes:

• Historical examples of centralized states reducing interpersonal conflict (e.g., post-feudal Europe).

• Authoritarian states achieving long-term internal stability (e.g., Singapore, Saudi Arabia).

• Failed states demonstrating instability from weak central authorities (e.g., Somalia, Libya post-2011).

This logic rests on assumptions such as:

• Central enforcement reduces interpersonal retaliation and chaos.

• Authority resolves coordination and public-goods dilemmas efficiently.

Anarchist Critique of Archist Stability

However, anarchists challenge this assertion, emphasizing critical issues:

• Misattribution: What Archists call stability might actually represent repression, with violence and instability merely suppressed rather than resolved.

• Correlation vs. Causation: Stability correlates more closely with the rule of law or mutual cooperation, rather than authority itself.

• Hidden Violence: Archist stability often involves state-sanctioned coercion, imprisonment, and threats—essentially structural instability disguised as order.

• Decentralized Stability: Historical and modern examples demonstrate that decentralized, anarchistic societies (medieval Iceland, historical Celtic Ireland, contemporary autonomous regions) can sustain stability voluntarily.

The Cost of Archist Stability

The most significant problem emerges clearly when examining the costs:

• Economic Cost: In typical liberal democracies, the total tax burden—explicit and implicit—frequently consumes around 35-50% of individuals' earnings. This resembles a state-run protection racket, where citizens pay under threat of severe punishment.

• Ethical Cost: Systematic violation of ethical symmetry—where the state claims rights above individuals, justifying coercion.

• Social and Psychological Cost: Normalization of coercion undermines individual autonomy, agency, and trust within society.

Conclusion

Thus, the Archist claim of superior stability is conditionally valid but ethically problematic. Stability achieved through coercion and ethical asymmetry carries enormous economic, social, and moral costs. An honest appraisal must acknowledge that the "order" Archism promises is inherently extracted through institutionalized coercion, placing significant burdens on individual freedom and ethical consistency.