Anarchy: The Way to Go

An example that demonstrates anarchy is in the movie, Accepted. Bartleby Gaines decides to create a new college when he is not accepted to any existing colleges. At first Bartleby was obeying the system; he tried to get into a recognized institute by following their process. When that strategy did not work, he decided to exit the system to which he disagreed with. As metaphorically “retreating to the mountains”, he retreated to an abandoned building out of the way. He then notices issues with other colleges, how they restrict students’ intellect, and how students punish others for not fitting in. So Bartleby now cannot simply obey nor can he simply leave; he is too aware of problem the current system creates. Bartleby quickly realizes he cannot destroy the entire system of higher education; so he fights it by working within their system. He appears before an accreditation board, describes his individual college and the reasons why it is important for this college to be approved. It goes against the common educational experience, opening the doors for innovation. He explains what is wrong with the current situation, and how his particular institute can address the problems.  He follows their process for accreditation; yet, he still revised the system because of how his college individual processes on its own campus. Bartleby challenges the process, while working with the process to improve it. In the end, Bartleby did what was morally right.  While this example deals with education, the focus of this paper is the law.

There are many ways of looking at law. Is it right? Is it fair? Should we obey? Should fight? In order to answer these questions, one must answer the question, “Is the law, or authority legitimate?” Knowledge of a law’s legitimacy aids in one’s discussion making to obey, disobey and protest in order to improve it, or disobey and leave the law’s limits. If a law is indeed legitimate, there is a moral obligation to obey it, to support it, and to not interfere with it.  One obeys the law by simply not breaking it.  One supports it by paying taxes and teaching younger generations to follow such laws. One does not interfere with authority and law, for instance, when one refuses to lie to the police during an investigation. One knows if an authority is legitimate if the request in not immoral, if it is made by a legitimate process (i.e. due process). Anarchists argue that state commands could not be legitimate and must be broken, with good cause.  The anarchist position is controversial; however, there is some validity to their stance.

There are three reasons to obey. One should obey the law if it is morally right. If it is moral, one is obligated to. One could obey the law they fear the law. One fears the law because the law has power to punish those who disobey the law without justification. One may also obey the law through submission. One simply lies to oneself about the laws morality, pretending it is moral so that one can easily follow it.  To anarchists, this logic is unacceptable.  Not only is it unacceptable, it is immoral not to sincerely judge the law. If it is morally sound request from the state, then obey; if it is wrong, then do not obey. If one does not stop to question it first, one is acting immorally. To “go against the system”, one may take a few different paths. One may fight the law, and revise the system from within. One may destroy the system entirely, and replace it with a new system. Or, one may simply exit the state’s jurisdiction that is confined by the system.

Law and the authority that creates law, although not one hundred percent right, still carry a higher moral weight than if one simply exited society to live off their own rules. This perspective is the Service View. This theory is very Utilitarianism in thought, since it is numbered based. For instance, my actions, when I rule myself, meet my needs and morality about eighty-nine percent of the time; yet, if I obey the law, percentage rises to ninety-five percent of the time.

Since I appear to be more successful when obeying authority as opposed to disobeying it, I therefore should obey it one hundred percent of the time. This decision, according to this view, is the only logical decision. There are several issues with this argument. If the state decides the numbers, not me or another high level being; this leaves room for the state to deceive society by proving false numbers. Furthermore, the law is not one hundred percent right; following the law one hundred percent of the time may lower my percentage. It is morally wrong to simply follow without question due to this fact. It is still morally wrong to exit the law territory without of trying to correct the wrong.  Fighting and revising must take place before one can leave.  One may leave when there is proof that revisions have not addressed the problem, there are still signs of insincerity and when continuing to fight causes for harm than good. For instance, if one continuous fights, eventually people stop listening to the message. Furthermore, if one focuses on the fight for too long, one may lose sight on other important aspects of the situation. Time then is better spent leaving, or creating a new jurisdiction.

            In conclusion, when looking at law there are several choices: obey, fight and revise, destroy and leave. One should obey if the law is legitimate, and the law does not ask for an immoral action. One could also obey out of fear of punishment, or ignorance of the law’s immorality. One may destroy the law, and start a new system if one finds the current law unjust. One may fight the law and revise it from within the system. One may also leave the law’s jurisdiction, but only if one has tried to correct the law. To leave beforehand is immoral, as well.