///Library--Anarchy? But Who'll Pick Up the Trash?
By Rev. Ryan Voss
It isn't easy being an anarchist. Tell anyone about our political viewpoint and you'll either be laughed at, bombarded with questions, or possibly both. One of the big questions that comes up over and over again is, "who would do the cruddy work if no one had to to make a living? Who would clean the public bathrooms and collect the garbage? Huh? Huh??" Far from being an unanswered nail in anarchism's coffin, though, the question is actually pretty easy to answer, and the answer makes for a good way to show a major difference between truly free societies and the ones we have now.
Human beings are social creatures to the core; very few in the entire human race are both mentally and physically suited to a life of isolation from others, and almost none would find such a situation desirable. Because of this, we group together in communities, the basis of civilization. But those communities require more to function than just a group of people living near each other. There is constant maintenance that must be performed to keep any society running; maintaining physical and social infrastructure, problem solving, and even simply keeping public areas clean are all necessary for the continued survival of any community.
In centrally governed societies (and especially rigidly authoritarian ones), the government shoulders and delegates a large portion of this work ("Hey you, your country needs you to dig a ditch over there. Get to it."). In mixed capitalist economies like that of the US or other Western nations, it is taken care of by a combination of government delegation and private sector activity ("Hey you, I'll give you five bucks to dig a ditch over there.").
So what about truly free societies, those without authoritarian government or corporate power telling people to dig the ditches that need digging? Many of the tasks that need to be done to keep society running are boring, dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unpleasant, so why would anyone do them without being forced to? Here is where we get back to the concept of individual responsibility to the community; the extra liberty afforded by a truly free society must be accompanied by a shouldering of extra responsibility by the individual for the maintenance of that society, or it will rapidly break down into chaos.
Saying that is all well and good, but suggesting that it be put into practice tends to offend modern Western sensibilities. The US in particular maintains a thriving cultural ideal of "rugged individualism," the idea that every person should somehow be a completely self-sustained island, needing no external support. This idea, of course, is garbage, and the extreme vision of individualism it imparts is problematic for the maintenance of a society. Indeed, if the ideal of "rugged individualism" (or even a milder version of it; "tanned and stubbly individualism" perhaps?) were to actually come true, there would be no such thing as society; we would all be hermits in the wilderness, fighting over resources and quickly reaching the state of lawless chaos and might-makes-right that so many wrongly believe anarchism to be about.
Ultimately, it's not even true that people don't already voluntarily shoulder responsibility to their communities. You only need to look at the thousands of hours volunteers put in annually to improve their neighborhoods, solve local issues that government and private-sector interests have ignored, and even improve conditions far away for people they will never meet. How many more people could, and would, volunteer their time and energy if they didn't have to dedicate it to one, two, or more jobs for the privilege of survival?
You can also look to families and close friends for a perfect example of this responsibility in action. People routinely do work they normally wouldn't for the sake of their friends and family, usually with no particular reward in mind. Obviously, it would be a bit of a tall order to suggest that all people treat all other people like close family (just imagine trying to remember all those birthdays!). But recognizing and acting upon a similar, if lesser, responsibility to those who share your community is not so far-fetched, especially if it means the other members of your community will be more likely to do so for you as well.
So where does all of this leave us? For starters, it gives us a legitimate and specific claim against both conservative (favoring "rugged individualism") and liberal (favoring government delegation of community responsibility) social standpoints, as it shows that neither are adequate to maintain a free society. It also provides the basis for an answer to the common question asked of anarchists, "who will do the work nobody wants to do in an anarchist society?" The answer is, of course, everybody to some extent, based on their ability to contribute to that work. Though the idea might be personally offensive to Western individualists (some of whom also count themselves as anarchists), there is nothing wrong with a given community requiring that its members contribute to the work of maintaining that community. It is, after all, only fair that those who share the benefits share the work. Lastly, knowing about this aspect of individual liberty gives anyone interested in increasing that liberty knowledge of how to work towards doing so; personal liberty cannot increase unless individuals accept more of this responsibility, taking the running of their societies out of the hands of government and the private sector and placing it in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
