Book Analysis - Larken Rose's 'The Most Dangerous Superstition'

“The reason the myth of authority needs to be demolished is precisely because there is such thing as right and wrong, it does matter how people treat each other, and people should always strive to live moral lives.” (Rose, 2012:2)

Larken Rose's anarchist proposal emphasises that 'the source of most violence, theft, assault and murder in the world is the belief in ‘authority’' (Rose, 2012 p.1). “This belief, which includes all belief in ‘government’, is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contradictory to civilisation and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in ‘authority’ is the arch-enemy of humanity” (Ibid). “The superstition of 'authority' is the idea that some individuals have the right to forcibly dominate others, and that those others have a duty to comply.” (Rose, 2012:99) 

In politics, anarchy’s etymology should not be found in ‘absence of arché’ as in absence of foundation or principle. Political anarchism, when proposed in conjunction with Natural Law, is not aimed at a lack of principle but the opposite, that the principle is above ALL men, thus making us all equals under that principle. The proper etymological meaning of anarchy is therefore ‘absence of ruler’; as referring to absence of men ruling other men. If political anarchism is proposed without an overarching principle such as Natural Law and its representations, it certainly would mean chaos. On the contrary, when suggested in alliance with such law, with an emphasis on men’s innate sense of right and wrong and justice, it would certainly mean the maxim expression of freedom. 

Rose's book has been a source of inspiration for me, it has been an intellectual exercise of deconstructing deeply entrenched beliefs about government. The book talks about the effects of the superstition on the masters, the enforcers, the targets, the spectators, and the advocates. It is a sound reflection that puts together psychological studies (such as Stanley Milgram's experiments) and sociological theories that are widely known and accepted and links them with the basic idea of 'authority' as being the source of all evil. 

Let's rephrase, what creates evil is not that a bunch of men decide they are the authority, but the masses' blind obedience to any authority just because it is portrayed as an authority. He states: “the problem is not that evil people believe in ‘authority’; the problem is that basically good people believe in ‘authority’, and as a result, end up advocating and even committing acts of aggression” (Rose, 2012:4). 

“Most of the evil and injustice committed by human beings is not the result of greed, or malice, or hatred. It is the result of people doing what they were told, of people following orders, people “doing their jobs”. (Rose, 2012:82) “History is full of examples proving that Edmund Burke was right when he said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” (Rose, 2012:95)

 

The book is full of gems and food for thought, one might agree more or less with the propositions but they are undoubtedly provocative and brave. The arguments are not at all new, but they are written in a very clear and raw manner. The whole idea reminds me of the book titled 'The Law' of the French political philosopher and economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850). What happens when the 'law' becomes a weapon against the people instead of a tool for good? Bastiat writes: "when plunder is organised by law for profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try to somehow enter into the making of those laws". Which in turn, therefore, renders the 'law' meaningless. An example of that is found in anarchists' opposition to taxation because it is not voluntarily given but by fear and coercive means by the 'mere thugs', as Rose qualifies them. He writes: 

"Even if one believes that some of what he surrenders [income tax] is used to fund useful things (roads, helping the poor, etc.), to be proud of having been threatened and coerced into funding such things is still strange. [...] By analogy, a man may feel good about having freely given to someone in need, but he would not take pride in getting robbed by a poor man" (Rose, 2012: 83).

Perhaps one of the most interesting mental exercises of the book is a part in which Rose intends the reader to get into a politicians shoes and analyse why they might do what they do and act in the way they act. He asks: 

"If you were in charge, how would you improve things? Consider the question carefully before reading on. When asked what they would do if they were in charge, almost no one answers, “I would just leave people alone”. Instead, most people start imagining ways in which they could use the ability to control people as a tool for good, for the betterment of mankind. If one starts with the assumption that such control can be legitimate and righteous, the possibilities are endless” (Rose, 2012:48) 

Hitler, Stalin, Mao... they all thought they were doing something good for humanity, but perhaps the most valuable insight is not in the 'how to do things better or improve humanity' but in the 'from where' do we do it? If one thinks and acts from a position of fear, and thus fear of what the Other might do, then the outcome will most certainly not be freedom as you would feel the urge to control the Other's actions. Moreover, if the mere idea of government is based on a fallacious argument, what can be expected to result from it? The fallacy is to believe that 'the people' can be at the same time master and slave through, for example, suffrage. That is a highly irrational and illogical way of thinking. “It is foolish to look to 'government' as the solution to human imperfection [...] Once the master is on the throne, he does not care what his slaves were hoping he would do with the power they gave him” (Rose, 2012:30). “Once the people create a master, the people, by definition, are no longer in charge” (Rose, 2012:30). 

“Perhaps the most valuable thing the “Great American Experiment” accomplished was to demonstrate that “limited government” is impossible. There cannot be a master who answers to his slaves. There cannot be a lord who serves his subjects. There cannot be a ruler who is both above the people and subordinated to them.” (Rose, 2012:149)

It is such the cognitive dissonance of this argument on the mainstream discourse that it will be justified on the grounds of 'there is a law to limit the powers of whoever is in government'; but those mechanisms have failed uncountable times in history and the most horrific acts have taken place because of that 'belief'. What stops legislators from legislating in their favour? Separation of powers? The truth and the reality shows us that “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” and “due process” are meaningless if the masters and those assigned to limit them are both part of the same organisation” (Rose, 2012:49).

But, what if we think about the fallacious argument as adverting that the mere concept of government is immoral and illegitimate? Rose explains that:

“All statism is based entirely upon the assumption that people can delegate rights they don’t have. […] Each person has the right to “rule” himself [and so] he can, at least in theory, authorise someone else to do it. But a right he does not possess, and therefore cannot delegate to anyone else, is the right to rule someone else. And if government ruled only those individuals who had each willingly delegated their right to rule themselves, it would not be government.” (Rose, 2012:36)

If one cannot delegate the right to rule somebody else, the concept of democracy tumbles down immediately. But also 'politics' as deciding on behalf of others how these others should live their lives constitutes an immoral business from the beginning, and thus, how can we expect to achieve moral results? Immorality cannot produce morality.  

Perhaps anarchism is a utopia; perhaps is a utopian moral duty which we all should at least strive for. It is nonetheless a healthy and intellectually challenging exercise to do, in a Cartesian way, to deconstruct and question firmly established pressumtions and beliefs about everything we take as a given. More importantly, I would propose, is to question those who occupy the seats of power and their justifications for doing what they do. As that is the only mechanism we all have to protect our rights from tyrannical hands. Perhaps anarchy is impossible, perhaps it is not even desirable; we might not know in our lifetime. The questions it proposes are certainly necessary for anyone who qualifies as a political philosopher.  

To conclude, about an anarchist society Rose proposes that:

In a world without rulers, “if someone did not feel justified in doing something himself, he would not feel justified in asking someone else to do it, nor would he feel justified doing it himself on someone else’s behalf.” (Rose, 2012:161)

 “Statists have been trained to be terrified of this infinitely more complex type of society, where there is not one master plan but billions of individual plans, interacting with each other in innumerable different ways.” (Rose, 2012:155)