I dislike the word "anarchy". It's ambiguous. To one person it's a political theory characterized by idealized natural law, cooperation, and brotherhood. To another it's a nightmare of chaos and violence in which the strong enslave the weak and take what they want by force.
The original Greek word anarchos translates to "no ruler". According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "anarchy" refers to "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" or the "absence of order". And indeed, this is what most people have in mind when they use it. They think of slavery and incessant warfare; they think of Beirut or Somalia, not Utopia. Unfortunately, like so many English words, "anarchy" has two, opposing meanings. The same dictionary entry lists this as an alternate meaning: "a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government". In other words, the political philosophy commonly called anarchy describes a society in which no one rules over anyone else: each person is free to pursue their own interests without interference. The essence of modern anarchy is voluntary socialism, not unrestrained violence.
In reality, neither could ever exist for long in a world of humans. Both states are contrary to human nature. People are naturally selfish and are almost always looking for a way to get an unfair advantage over everyone else. Yet they are also social creatures; they require interaction with their fellows to exist happily. Eventually they tire of their oppressors and form permanent governments to promote their corporate interests. Anarchy just couldn't happen unless it were forced, and then it would no longer be anarchy. And so, I'm sure you can understand my frustration when people equate libertarianism to anarchy.
Libertarianism is not anarchy (I apologize to those self-described anarchists for my profane use of the word throughout this essay; I use it in its more base sense to more effectively convey my meaning to those most opposed to my own philosophy); minarchy might be a better term. Libertarians are generally rational creatures who understand that with liberty comes responsibility, and that at times people must be forced to accept responsibility. The current state of affairs in America in which citizens are forced to accept responsibility where they have no liberty or are offered liberty but denied responsibility will devolve into chaos long before a libertarian society would do so. The former is slavery while the latter is hedonism, neither of which is compatible with libertarianism.
A slave must work for others and is not allowed to make his own choices in matters of personal morality. In the United States, for one-half of the year you work for others under the threat of violence: if you choose not to work for my benefit, the sheriff will remove you from your home and possibly imprison you. Also in the United States, by claiming some underprivileged or victimized status you are free to kill, steal, and destroy without fear of reprisal. In some cases, if you refuse to live off the stolen lives of others, organizations like Child Protective Services may threaten to take your children.
According to the Apostle Paul the role of government is to be a terror to evil, and so far as government confines itself to that role for which God has ordained it, it does well (Romans 13:1-5). But when it steps beyond those bounds, assuming authority which God has not granted it, government becomes a terror to both the wicked and the righteous. And is that not the anarchy that we fear so much? The rule of whim rather than the rule of law? From this we Christians must ask if the role of government then is to enforce righteousness. (Thanks, Christlib!)
Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. I would extend that thought to say that all of the Law (by the "Law" I mean the laws given by Moses and codified in first five books of the Bible) was made for man and not man for the Law. Paul wrote that God gave the Law to highlight our failings and make God's righteousness evident (Romans 3:19-31). "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
So the Law is important, but it is not all important. To make enforcement of the Law the central purpose of our lives is to commit the sin of the Pharisees whom Jesus called hypocrites. It is not an object to be worshipped, but a template to be applied to our lives as we are able.
Like the law and everything else that God has given us, government is a tool to be used to our benefit, not a master to enslave us. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I am imperfect. I understand God's Word and His Law imperfectly. Would it be right to give me the power to interpret that Law and enforce my interpretation onto you? No matter how wise a leader may be, he will not live forever and someone else will have to take his place. Will that person be as wise? But they will inherit the same power and more, for government does not willingly give up authority, but jealously guards what it has and constantly accumulates more. To give today's wise ruler the authority to enforce his ideas of righteousness, is to give tomorrow's fool the power to enforce his. Washington knew this and refused the power he could have had. To allow government to master us is to invite the anarchy which looms imminent under the current marriage of slavery and hedonism.
There is only one political philosophy in America today that offers to limit government to its God-ordained role: libertarianism. No, not all people who call themselves libertarians are good people, let alone righteous people. But they at least avoid the hypocrisy of others who seek to use government force to enslave the rest of us to their own hedonism. They are willing to hold themselves responsible for their liberty. More importantly, they are willing to hold you responsible for your liberty.
It is a good thing to live your life according to the Law, but it is not the function of the Church or of the Government or of anyone else to force you to do so. It is a choice you must make on your own, and that you must not allow others to make for you.
