“Human rights are a fine thing, but how can we make ourselves sure that our rights do not expand at the expense of the rights of others. A society with unlimited rights is incapable of standing to adversity. If we do not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each of us must rein himself in…A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation: by the principle that we are always duty-bound to defer to the sense of moral justice.”

– Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals

Personal responsibility isn’t just about guilt for wrong actions taken, but also about living deliberately and making choices that guide us towards our goals.  It is recognizing that what we do and say matters, while also not trying to shift blame or obligation upon others, Let us examine personal responsibility in the political arena as well as in life in general.

It is difficult to imagine that there is anyone in these modern times, particularly in the western world, that is not familiar with the standard left-right, liberal-conservative political spectrum model. Linear models are so common because they are easy to understand. You are either X or Y, or some degree of each in between. Unfortunately, they are often misleading in even the best cases. Often a given position, whether a political position or not, involves many different factors. This is why so very often anarchists point out that there is no place on the standard political left-right spectrum model that captures our position. This sort of simple dichotomy is a wonderful tool for controlling the discussion by simply eliminating positions that are fundamentally at odds with your own.

Still they are with us for good or ill so we must try to make the best of them, or change the particulars of the model so that they more closely match reality.

We hear so much about the left-right political spectrum particularly in main stream media where they like quick, easy labels. So, too, with the political elite who find it easy to manipulate the voters by using these labels, often keeping those same voters from examining the policies of the various administrations and politicians. Barack Obama and Donald Trump were able to inspire their respective voter base, despite the fact that very little has changed from one presidential administration to another in the last 20+ years when we look to the actual policies.

We have also seen that the left-right spectrum often ignores the positions of liberty. This is why you find the Libertarian Party trying to describe itself as centrist because they claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. In the end, the spectrum really fails to tell us much other than anyone who is on the spectrum is some form of statist. One result of this has been the two axis model, but this too has its failings and has not caught on in arena of public discourse of politics.

If in political discussions, we must stick with a mere spectrum model, then we can get more accurate representation by focusing on the desire for self-sufficiency versus the desire for security in all things.  Both ends of the political spectrum want to control the lives of others, they just differ on the specific ways and areas to control. The flavor of control is irrelevant, the real chasm between belief systems lay between those who seek to rule and those who do not want to rule over others.

Those who want security want to rule and be ruled, while those who don’t want to rule also don’t want to be ruled. This distinction tells us far more than the left-right statist spectrum.

By definition, anarchists don’t want to rule. If an anarchist says that a given peaceful activity or association should be prevented from existing, then he ceases to be an anarchist. While we may not like certain arrangements others peacefully choose, because we do not want to rule, we don’t seek to prevent those peaceful arrangements, except perhaps through persuasion.

It should come as no surprise that a great many agorists strive to be as self-sufficient as possible. Nor should it be surprising that most people who seek self-sufficiency shun much if not all of the government. Likewise, people who seek self-sufficiency have a confidence in their own knowledge and ability, as well as confidence in the ability to discover the necessary knowledge and abilities to handle the challenges of life.

The reason is likely this one significant difference between statists and anarchists: the attitude towards personal responsibility. In fact, we could describe the entire divide between statism and anarchism as a divide over personal responsibility.

The statist voter seeks government to take care of them, to promise to protect them, to remove their own personal responsibility for their own safety and security. Some go much further than others, but all statist are seeking some form of avoidance of responsibility. There is a reason the government that controls all aspects of our lives is called a “nanny state.” The nanny looks out for and protects the children in her care. That is what statists want to be promised. I say promised because very few of these voter-statists ever actually look to see if the state is actually doing what has been promised.

This isn’t limited to pro-military conservatives or far left socialists. Even the most extreme minarchist is seeking a nanny state. These minarchists call for a night-watchman state. This amounts to having police, courts, and military at the very least. Police to promise to protect them against other criminals. Military to promise to protect them against foreign powers. Courts to promise to protect them from injustice.

What is often overlooked by advocates of this sort of government is that police seek power over others, but at the same time avoid personal responsibility with “qualified immunity” and in-house “investigations.” Courts have even ruled that police can lie to you, but it is a crime to lie to them. They lack any personal responsibility for their actions. There are fewer and even weaker controls on military action, particularly military action abroad. This means that personal responsibility will not exist, or at least not be embraced, and the night-watchman state will grow into the totalitarian state.

It isn’t just the voters who seek to be absolved of responsibility and be taken care of. Police demand immunity for their actions. Politicians write laws and regulations but exempt themselves. Government agents at all levels use a cop-out once dismissed as not justifying any action: ”Just doing my job.” The politician speaks about holding people accountable, particularly with regard to crime, but exempts himself from virtually all responsibility often casting blame back on the voter.

Sadly, this turning of our backs on personal responsibility goes well beyond the political realm, though the political side is likely the cause of a general denial of personal responsibility given how pervasive the state and its propaganda is.

Parents all too often just completely give over responsibility of raising their child to the state, though of course, we should mention that the state requires attendance so not all parents are acting to avoid responsibility, some are just trying to stay out of legal trouble.

In work environments, committees are used to deflect blame. This sort of behavior is part and parcel with collectivism. The collectivist mindset makes you just one of many so you are not responsible, and at the same time, you are one of many so you must be justified in what you are doing. Appeal to popularity is a well-known logical fallacy but we see it used very often in daily discourse to avoid individual responsibility.

How often have you heard in some retail or other business setting, “That’s company policy,”? This is just another way to deflect personal responsibility.

Obviously this is not an absolute, nor is it exhibited the same for every person.  Life won’t allow us to completely avoid some personal responsibility. It isn’t as if you can fall from the ladder you poorly set up and not impact the ground, or drive recklessly and always avoid accidents. At some point, the odds of poorly thought out behaviors catch up with us. What we are looking at here is a trend, a tendency, rather than an absolute in the deliberate decisions made and positions chosen.

In stark contrast to the active politico, anarchists in general recognize that without the state, we are individually (or voluntarily in a collective group) responsible for our own safety, security, and life. Personal responsibility also means that you don’t get to tell others how to live. While the statist often lives by default, just “going along to get along,” the person who accepts personal responsibility lives intentionally. He or she makes deliberate decisions about actions to take, then acts on them.

“Government is based on the failure to be personally responsible.”

This statement is taken in two very different ways depending on which side of personal responsibility you fall upon. The statist uses this line as what he imagines is a justification for the state. He imagines that it is the failure of each of us to be responsible that the state must exist. Naturally, this ignores the irresponsibility of the state as a whole and each person making up the state individually.

The advocate of personal responsibility, the person accepting their own personal responsibility, sees this statement as a fact. The state is a failure in part because it and its agents abdicate personal responsibility and voters support it through abdicating their own responsibility. When people abdicate responsibility, they form a state to fill that responsibility vacuum. We see that the state and its agents fail to accept responsibility and shift all burdens and all blame onto those they rule over leaving no one responsible for anything that happens.

Being an anarchist simply means opposing the state. It does not imply that one must accept personal responsibility despite it being more likely that an advocate of anarchy is more likely to be more personally responsible. While all anarchists must embrace voluntary association, since any collective coercion is the state by another name, the agorist is unique in that the approach is to not merely try to withhold the lifeblood of the state: taxes, but also to seek ways to help others. This effort to help others may be in part unselfish, but it need not be. It is only in serving the needs of others that we can thrive economically. If you want to profit from your garden, you must sell the produce of the garden. While we can do a great deal on our own, none of us can do everything, so ultimately if you want to improve your life, you must seek ways for others to pay you to improve their own. What is this but taking deliberate responsibility for one’s own actions and consequences?

While some anarchists are only complaining about the state, as agorists we are doing something. Of the anarchist community, we are certainly the most likely to embrace personal responsibility. Only agorism has elements of the solution built into the belief. We know that we must take responsibility for making changes. This fact sets us apart from all other forms of anarchism and on the personal responsibility spectrum this puts at the very far end of accepting responsibility.

Though it may be understandable to read this as, or feeling as though we as agorists are superior to other anarchists and statists, that is very far from my intent. As I said in the beginning, simple linear models leave a lot to be desired. Rather than viewing this as one view is better than the other, or about some personal ego driven belief, we should just recognize the differences so we can more successfully bring others to our efforts to promote freedom. The more we know about what motivates others or how they will react to different ideas, the better equipped we will be to move forward our efforts. So perhaps this realization can give us some direction.

How do we bring those who wish to abdicate or avoid responsibility around to the ideas of agorism and personal responsibility? Is there some sort of protection we can offer them to ease their fear of personal responsibility? Can we reassure them that they will be safe and secure, to lessen the impact of personal responsibility on them so that they will feel comfortable coming over to our side?

I don’t have a ready answer, but that is one of the great things about agorism: there isn’t one answer, nor does one person have to shoulder the entire burden. Together, we can find many answers that all work in their own way. We can each contribute something to the wholly voluntary solutions that we know exist.