AN ANARCHIST ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

As news coverage of the Fort Hood massacre spins out, I listen with mixed reactions. One keeps surfacing; violence begets violence. As the militarization of foreign policy (and society) continues, every aspect of life becomes more prone to violence -- from school yards to casual encounters with the police.

As an anarchist, I reject the idea of national defense...on so many levels. (For a solid analysis of some of them, I recommend Jeff Hummel's lecture "War Is The Health of the State.") To be clear, by national defense I mean the idea that government can properly assume my right of self-defense against foreign 'threats' and administer it on my behalf without any possibility of my withdrawing from the alleged 'benefit' or competing with the 'service' rendered by acting privately on my own behalf. In short, through national defense, government claims a monopoly over my right to self-defense when it applies to foreign powers, including foriegn individuals. The government does not merely demand that I finance the 'service' but also that I participate in it by surrendering my civil liberties (e.g. the right to disclose info re: national security) and my very body should it be necessary and of use (e.g. the draft).

I don't know where to begin about what is wrong with the foregoing and, happily I don't have to "go basic" because that is well-trodden ground within the anarchist/anti-war movements. Instead, I'll touch on one of the least discussed objections to the nationalization of my right to self-defense. Let's say I had no problem with the coercive funding of national defense, the collectivization of rights, the inevitable suspension of civil liberties, or the mass murder of foreign civilians, I would still object to the usurpation of my right to decide how, when and where I am to be defended. I am entirely shut out of a process that should be entirely under my control.

Even if --as I sit here on a farm in North America -- I agree that Afghanistan is a huge threat to my safety, my agreement says nothing about what to do about the threat. A parallel would be if someone were stalking me. I might agree with X (the government) that the stalker is a threat but our initial accord only springboards into the most important decisions about the situation: what strategy will stop the abuse, how much am I willing to 'pay' (not merely in $ terms), when is the threat great enough to act upon, should other people be involved, how should the stalker be punished...? Such questions about my own safety should be answered according to my own best judgment. But the government claims absolute jurisdiction over the answers; it not only dismisses my input, it also punishes me if I act on my own behalf. I become a criminal for exercising the right of self-defense against an agreed-upon threat.

People miss this point. It is not merely that I object to a military juggernaut being sent to murder, rape and quash the liberties of other people in my name,. That is stage one of my objection. It is also that I am precluded from exercising any other option. I am precluded from the how, the when, the why and the where of it. Once you admit the propriety of "national defense" -- of a collectivized solution to your personal safety -- then you relinquish all control over your own self-defense. Your safety becomes nationalized, politicized, and used as a weapon against you if you question. All of which means your safety was never the issue in the first place.