Might I not end at a place where I would advocate the cessation of all government? And if I reached such a conclusion, would I not find myself aligned with the very forces I sought to oppose in the beginning, namely, the forces of lawlessness, chaos and anarchy?
At this fork in the road, libertarians hesitate, some briefly and some for lengthy periods of time. The choice to be made is a difficult one. To abandon liberty at this juncture and to endorse minimal governments as devices which might prevent license, could cause the devotee of liberty to endorse the active enemy of liberty, albeit in small doses. On the other hand, to pursue liberty to its logical conclusions might end in an endorsement of license, The very antonym of liberty.
It is at this juncture that the word “anarchy” rears its dreadful visage. It becomes incumbent upon sincere seekers after liberty to grapple with this word and to seek to understand its implications.
Anarchy has very ancient roots. It is not wholly essential to probe to the last hidden tendril altho such a probe can be highly instructive. What does appear to be a necessary minimal effort, however, is to explore at least the principal authors of anarchistic thought with the view to discovering what it was that motivated these men.
We can begin with William Godwin of England. Godwin is noteworthy as the “father of anarchistic communism” (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
In 1793 he published the first of several works on this subject entitled, “Inquiry Concerning Political Justice.” He is probably most famous as the author of an anarchistic novel which he named, “Caleb Williams.”
It was Godwin’s thesis that governments are instruments of eternal bickering and war; that wars are fought over property; that the ownership of property privately is the greatest curse ever to beset the human race. As a specific example of tyranny in its worst form, Godwin suggests marriage.
Before we lay the soubriquet “crackpot” behind his name, let us look at the England of Godwin’s time to try to find an explanation for his radical conclusions.
In Godwin’s day (1756-1836) with only a few minor exceptions, all property was owned by the nobility, which is to say by the persons favored by government. The common people owned little save the shirts on their backs. As for marriage, women were chattels, given by a male parent to another male, during a governmentally approved ceremony. The idea of one person actually owning and controlling another, which we would call slavery, and which Godwin saw as the marriage state, was repellent to him. He insisted that females were human beings and as such had as much right to individuality as males.
To cure the malady, which Godwin saw as ownership of property, the early Briton recommended an abolition of governments. It was the government which sanctified and protected property rights, even in marriage. To return to a state of nature (see Rousseau) governments would have to be abolished.