An Argument For Constitutional Anarchy

I know I am treading on dangerous ground here. What I am going to say will make many angry but I’m nothing of not borderline stupid. So here goes.

[Image from Pixabay]

I propose a solution to the COVID 19 shit storm we find ourselves embroiled in could be constitutional anarchy (voluntarism). I know right? How can you possibly have a Constitution and a voluntary society? The two are mutually exclusive it would seem. But hear me out.

What we have at the moment is a state gone wild. The shackles are off and they aren't even pretending that they don't want to be dictators. It is difficult to believe so many are going along with it but fear is a powerful motivator. Though if they are scared of seasonal flu they are going to drop a brick when the COVID Stasi kick down their doors for smiling without a permit.

What is a Constitution but a voluntary agreement? Is it not an agreed contract between the people and the state? So if we want a stateless society why can’t we have a contract agreed by all and call it our Constitution?

Obviously the tricky part of constitutional anarchy, with no initiation of force and no coercion, would be that no one has to agree to it. But if enough do, why could we not form a voluntary, stateless society on that basis? All who choose to live in that society would agree to the Constitution. If they don’t then they don’t have to be part of it.

However, I think many will see the advantage of having a Constitution without a state. It could enshrine a system of Common Law, based upon the non aggression principle and Natural Law, which would create a lawful remedy without the need for a state.

All Law could be administered by contract. All justice dispensed by a lawfully convened jury. This would enable a system of Law without the state. If the Judges are nothing more than “convenors” (whose only role is to administrate the ruling of the jury) then judges could not assume “legal powers.”

"Legal" powers would not exist. Only Natural Law, judged by a Common Law Jury, would prevail. This would provide a lawful framework for all, including contracted security services and courts.

The big advantage being that if your security service starts beating people up because they are the wrong colour or trying to force people to pay their arbitrary taxes, pretending they are “fines,” not only could the people end their contract and buy in a better service they could prosecute them in their Common Law Courts.

This sound much better to me than the state system we have at the moment. So called police officers (enforcement officers) can frequently act with impunity because they are protected by the state. In a constitutional voluntary society they could not rough up the people and expect to get away with it.

[Image from Pixabay]

Nor would there be any point in corrupt judges administering unjust rulings. Firstly they would not make any rulings, only the jury could do that, and secondly if they did corrupt the trial they too could be binned and a new convenor contracted in their stead.

They too could then be prosecuted by the community and tried for the harm they have caused. If the people could both live in a stateless society and have the protection of the Law, what’s not to like?

I know many will say that this would inevitably lead to tyranny as those who administer the law would change it to suit their objectives but if “those who administer the law” are the people, randomly selected by lot, then they cannot assume authority. Just as now they would be called for jury service perhaps once in their life.

Furthermore who is to say that “no one can create law” couldn’t be the the first clause of the anarchist Constitution? Natural Law is the whole of the law.

Under such a constitutionally binding voluntary agreement, all community members would know where they stood. Everything that is right, under Natural law, is A Right without reservation or restriction. Everything that is wrong under Natural law (causing harm loss or acting dishonourably in contracts) is Not A Right and constitutes a crime under the voluntary Constitution.

There would be no need to define punishment, or set precedents or any of the legalese bullshit we suffer from today. Punishment would be the sole decision of the randomly selected jury of men and women, based on the evidence presented in the trial. Leaving them all the leeway they need to find the defendant guilty but judge the mitigating circumstances of the offence and punish accordingly or not as they see fit.

I am going to pontificate on these voluntarist musings a fair bit I think. So I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Speak soon.