Introduction

In everyday conversations and casual discussions, freedom and anarchy are often viewed as interchangeable concepts. However, they are separate and fundamentally different concepts. This is especially important for those who wish to comprehend the philosophical, political, and social scopes and implications of these ideas. People respect liberty in the democratic world, while anarchy is regarded as disordered and instability. Hence, this paper will elaborate on the definitions of liberty and anarchy, the effects of anarchy on society, and how liberty is not equated to anarchy.

Concept of Liberty

Conservative liberty implies complete control over how one’s life, speech, action, or political opinion is dictated by specific individuals in authority. This includes a variety of freedoms such as personal, political, and economic. In a more condensed and less philosophical context, People often use political freedom as the definition of liberty that allows them to act as long as they do not interfere with other people’s freedom rights.

Two common types of liberty exist: positive and negative liberty. Positive liberty is concerned with what people are able to do according to their potential so long as the opportunities meant to realize that potential are available, and obstacles to development are eliminated. In negative liberty, on the other hand, it is a concern of freedom from being impeded especially by the state or any other person.

In democratic societies, liberty is viewed as a right and even a social value that is protected by a variety of legal instruments such as constitutions, declarations of human rights and others. The idea is to allow every individual the right to pursue his or her life’s purposes and aspirations, but only up to the point where law and order are respected, that is, one person’s freedom does not result in the infringement of the rights of another.

What is Anarchy?

The opposite of liberty is the state of anarchy. It is the state of a society that has no centralised control in the form of authority, no one or means to enforce the law and no order for a social or political system. In the governmental studies academic endeavour, the term anarchy is often used to suggest lawlessness, disorder and chaos. Self-governance and voluntary cooperation of individuals are still termed anarchy by some philosophers of the class.

Anarchy, in its colloquial, is the term to denominate a radical disorder that results from the disappearance of the political and legal order of the society, that is, the State. Anarchy often comes about in contexts where the government is either ineffective or passive, resulting in violence, disintegration of the economy and violation of fundamental liberties.

The theoretical discussions on anarchy appear to provide a more convincing explanation of anarchy, especially the works of those who consider active anarchy as the work of men such as Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman. They contended that order could exist without coercive political structures because, in her new society, men would volunteer to self-govern. Still, anarchy in the practice of realisation proves to be a rather violent and unstable situation since, without a supreme government to resolve disputes between conflicting interests, violence and disorder tend to reign supreme.

Results of Violent Disorder

A lack of governance or statehood is referred to as anarchy in any society or country. This disturbing factor can lead to negative results such as violence. Why, because in a disorganized society where the centre is lacking, people will use force to fend for their interests. Consequently, society’s oppressive fears amalgamating robbery and violence obstruct any chance of normal daily activities.

Amongst many consequences, the most impactful anarchical outcome would be:

• Structural Decay: When people deviate from norms endorsed by laws of a society, and the society revolves around traditions, taboos, as well as rituals, structural decay is expected. Especially considering the absence of systems or frameworks, such as governments, to prevent looting or destruction, all results in complete anarchy. This vice of violent looting or destruction will become universal, and even basic services such as education and healthcare will be as rare as clean water.
• Surge in Crime and Violence: When people tend to follow vigilantism because there is no state or country to enforce laws, legal justice does not stand a chance. In such an event, violent crime becomes a common occurrence, such as assault, as people will go to war against one another to fulfil their greed.
• Destruction of the Economy: Lacking laws that regulate and permit civil behaviours such as property rights, business practices and trade will only shock the economy in dire ways. Many basic commodities even money completely disappear from the economy resulting in trade and markets to collapse whilst bringing nothing but poverty to the masses.
• Excommunication of civil rights: It might be believed that anarchy creates freedom for an individual; however, owing to the absence of a set order (government), civil liberties are often eroded. Laws that could uphold a just society are missing as a result; there are people in power who enslave the weaker ones, consequently limiting the use of freedom. This creates anarchy in which the strongest person or group controls society.
• Balkanization and Factionism: A society without a fusion of government is likely to break into consumer-based factions or, in some cases, form lords. Joining forces based on common interests may help, but brute force and control over resources and territory are the most preferable methods.
• Chronological violence: There are many violent acts with an anarchist ideology whose number increases over time, seeking power or control despite some forms of operations to ensure stability. In the long run, authoritarianism is what people wish for, but the replacement of democracy with a dictatorship would make them the victims all over again.

Liberty vs. Anarchy: A Brief Overview

The basic difference between liberty and anarchy lies in the existence or otherwise of the laws and the society where such freedoms are exercised. So, as we have said before, liberty is the freedom to do things within the bounds of a fair society that upholds individual rights and the rule of law. The systematic erosion of rights, violence and chaos are defining traits of anarchy of such bounds.

• The Role of Law: Liberty is such as does coexist with law. Legal frameworks are instituted with the objective of guaranteeing freedom for individuals while ensuring that the freedom of any one person does not stand in the way of another. On the opposite side of freedom and liberty lies anarchy which systematically dismantles order and the legal frameworks and societies among other things that uphold it.
• Social Contract and Cooperation: Liberty makes possible a social contract where the people by virtue of their membership agree to certain restrictions including rules that are meant to defend their rights. In this case, self-interested goals can be achieved in equilibrium. In anarchic systems, such a contract is not in existence, hence the struggle of individuals or groups that foster them.
• Individual vs. Collective Freedom: While liberty promotes individual freedom, it also places great emphasis on the enjoyment of social justice. A society based on the principles of liberty aims to optimise the full expression of individual freedoms while also satisfying the requirements of society. Anarchy leads to a state where everyone is self-centred resulting in the disintegration of social goods and shared social obligations in the long run.

Liberty as a Foundation of a Democratic Society

On the other hand, in democratic societies, liberty is not only an important right but also a functional principle that is exercised during governance. Protecting citizens’ liberty is the primary goal of the government so that people do not suffer oppression and coercion while leading their lives. Democracy is also deemed to function well when the interests of individuals and the demands of society are met, for freedom in its literal meaning can only be possible when everyone’s rights are equally valued.

The reason why liberty is not anarchy can be explained beginning with the premise that freedoms are enjoyed in a well-established society. In the absence of order, which is the case in anarchy, the whole system is disintegrated. As a result, liberty is irrelevant because no order can secure the boundaries of rights for individuals.

Conclusion

To conclude, although liberty and anarchy regard freedom, they are entirely different concepts. Liberty could be defined as the prerogative to exercise one’s actions by the law, others’ rights and the society within which one interacts. Rather, anarchy is understood to mean the absence of law and order, which often translates to chaos, violence, and social disorganisation.

From the aforementioned concepts, it is clear that liberty is not synonymous with anarchy. Individual liberty is only feasible in the presence of balance whereby owners of such liberties respect each other, the social system, as well as fundamental freedoms, which include the aforementioned. In contrast, anarchy, or there should be no law, does not have the same ways of life and only limits these ideals and, in many cases, advocates savagery. Because of such differences, we understand from what perspective liberty should be regarded in the context of creating societies with social order and equity.