I would like to draw our readers’ attention to the three collections of essays on anarchism and liberalism. As usual, they are available for free download.

Anarchy must be properly understood as the absence of a compulsory legal system rather than the absence of laws. In this theory, anarchism allows people to submit to a system of laws as long as they do so freely. Anarchism is not a long-discredited idea of social contract: nation-states force their citizens to accept their laws. But what if nation-states were to be replaced with small, fiercely competing jurisdictions? What if each town could set its own legal system? What if people could choose between free-market and communist towns, between religious and libertarian communities?

The anarchist ideal is satisfied if people can freely and inexpensively move to a jurisdiction of their choice. Since cultural environment is an important part of personal identity, and laws defend cultural environment, anarchism must allow people to embrace legislation if they want to. The anarchist challenge is to make the legal system compulsory, but free. This paradox can be solved by proposing a system of competing mini-jurisdictions. As long as a person can freely and inexpensively choose a jurisdiction for himself or herself, and as long as jurisdictions compete for new citizens, people can be said to embrace laws of their own volition.

This version of anarchism produces interesting consequences: Israeli Jews could form their private communities and exclude Arabs, who would be entitled to act likewise in their own villages. Ultra-Orthodox Jews would be entitled to run gender-segregated buses inside their communities, but not on inter-city lines. Public religious observance might be different in Jerusalem’s religious quarters than in the Tel Aviv nightclub district.

Anarchism is a rejection of the monopoly on power exercised by nation-states. By their sheer size and their restrictions on immigration, nation-states suppress the people’s freedom to choose a jurisdiction. In the world of nation-states, changing the jurisdiction in which one lives is generally prohibitively expensive. Not so in an anarchist society built along biblical lines.

The Torah’s ideal is not monarchy, but a network of towns governed by elected judges with almost no legislative powers. Classical anarchist authors would have been proud of such an arrangement.

Though orthodox anarchist theory proclaims the absence of laws, it cannot make people free because armed commissars would quickly become the law. Indeed, they are the first ones to support antinomial anarchism as they do not want to be bound by laws. On the contrary, only a wise system of laws can make people free. But there is no single definition of wisdom, and anarchism dictates that everyone should be able to choose a wisdom for himself. Such choice is only attainable when many different jurisdictions exist side-by-side and compete for potential residents. This type of anarchism can be described as a rejection of monopolistic jurisdiction.

The essays also touch on the economic ethics of anarchism. If biblical commandments are any guide, then a slightly mitigated free market is the most moral economic system. “Slightly” is the key word: anarchism cannot be made into an absolute doctrine, for any absolute theory is unworkable. Rather, the freedom of anarchism must be mitigated at the fringes to remove marginal negative effects.

Finally, the essays deal with the anarchist transformation of existing societies. Instead of opposing these societies’ negative traits—such as corruption, political irresponsibility, and election fraud—liberal anarchists would want to institutionalize those traits, thus allowing for their efficient regulation, given the impossibility of extirpating them.

The Ethics of Decent Society – liberal and anarchist aspects of the contemporary societies.
The Ethics of Free Market – biblical ethics and liberal political theory in the context of anarchism.
The Ethics of Free Society – polemics with anarcho-communists and the high moral ground of the almost free enterprise.