People v. State

Aspiring to union with what is best in my fellow men, I do not embrace the connotations of the label “anarchist,” though being true to myself and others compels me to reluctantly embrace the label. Anarchism simply and essentially means a deep and radical skepticism towards authority. Our first allegiance should be to the Truth. Authority only has value insofar as it serves the Truth, and unfortunately lends itself to the perversion of the Truth. Paradoxically but truly, anarchism and conservativism (properly understood) are woven together by common threads. Both are humble in their estimate of the wisdom of the self and of other selves, and harbor disdain for “the best laid plans of mice and men.” As G.K. Chesterton wrote:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.

Truth still trumps Tradition, because Tradition, like Authority, only has value insofar as it reflects Truth. But Tradition trumps Authority, because the “democracy of the dead” is a surer and safer servant of Truth than Authority, and because Authority generally depends upon Tradition for whatever Authority it might have.

All of this is by way of preface to a newly discovered paradigm for my legal thinking, embodied in this essay by John Hasnas titled The Depoliticization of Law, and aptly summarized in this blog post by Sheldon Richman, which brought this essay and this paradigm to my attention. It may just allow me to stop calling myself an anarchist.

Follow