Kritarchy Uber Alles
It’s cold, sleeting, and I’m stressed — time to write something.
A while ago I was randomly browsing Wikipedia for names of political systems I didn’t know (e.g. a thalassocracy, an empire at sea, or, somewhat more apropos to modern times, kakistocracy).
Another I didn’t know was kritarchy, so it was a nice surprise to see that it describes my views rather well. It means a society under which the operating principle is the rule of justice. The meaning of justice is based on natural law (as opposed to statutory law, the fiat of the state) and would be expressed through customary law. The legal system would be voluntaryst and polycentric — a form of anarchy, or absence of government. This is clearly intended as an equilibrium state rather than a power vacuum.
Certainly it brings to mind anarcho-capitalism, and it appears that many, perhaps all, of those using the term are anarcho-capitalists; I’m not clear on whether it is a word anarcho-capitalists invented or if it has some independent history. Though it’s contrasted with krytocracy (the rule of judges), my Google search revealed kritarchy is often used where krytocracy is meant. (Krytocracy is damned hard to spell, that’s for sure!)
The pronunciation and meaning of the two are close enough it’s easy to see why there would be overlap. The difference between the two is that under kritarchy the law would be more of an aggregation of the most influential judges’ decisions, with no one judge having power to lay down the law, whereas under a krytocracy one judge (or a hierarchy of judges) is privileged to set the law.
Kritarchy is somewhat democratic in this respect: while judges would make decisions and create a body of case law, the ultimate authority of such law would come only from the willingness of people to adhere to it — a democracy of actions, rather than words and ballots.
So I wonder if this term would be a useful one to adopt. It has less baggage than anarchism. It’s obscure enough that you would have to explain it most of the time, giving you a fresh chance to explain your ideas. But it might prejudice people who confuse kritarchy with krytocracy.
For now, I’m just kicking it around in my head, along with lots of other stuff!
Jesse said,
March 11, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Interesting. That word seem slightly familiar to me, somehow. I did a quick search through a custom search engine. I found mostly references to the term, and no real critique.
Can u suggest anything? Mostly I’m curious about the history, as u did mention its whereabouts an unknown to you.
overthinker said,
March 12, 2007 at 6:13 am
The main defense I found for the term, and perhaps the main source of Wikipedia’s entry, was here. My web search revealed a few other supporting links, and lots of others conflating it with Krytocracy, or rule by judges regardless of natural law. If you’re looking for critiques of kritarchy, you might instead search for critiques of natural law and anarcho-capitaism. Those critiques would probably apply closely enough to kritarchy.
John said,
August 20, 2007 at 9:43 pm
The phrase is generally considered obsolete, succeeded by Anarcho-Capitalist.. This may be why you are having trouble finding more specific information about it. (Plus it’s a small and not very popular school of thought…)
Dano said,
November 12, 2007 at 5:38 am
I love the term “customary polycentric kritarchy”. As a traditionalist by nature, I squirm at the term “Anarcho-Capitalist”, because rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my opinion), people have associated it with a radical, modernist philosophy, as “anarchy” tends to conjure up “bearded men throwing bombs”. While kritarchy is certainly “radical” in the sense of calling for radical change from our present system, it is also perhaps the single most TRADITIONAL and time-honored form of government there is. It is consonant with natural law and social order. Not only this, but its very foundation is respect for authority- natural authority, that is, in the form of those judges and respected members of the community who have the greatest reputations for delivering fair and proper judgements.
In short, it’s a great way of turning the tables on statists who accuse you of being a destructive radical advocating untested, newfangled ideas. It is the modern state that is a newfangled aberration.
kritarchist said,
July 23, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I remember the moment I first became a libertarian (though, at the time, I had never heard the term). Some foolishness had come out of our local government, and I began to idly wonder why we could not have a free market for government. Later, when I stumbled across mises.org and lew rockwell, I was excited to learn about anarcho-capitalism, but found it nearly impossible to get others to understand the concept of “no government”. It is a true hurdle to freedom.
The wonderful campaign of Ron Paul did so much to make lots of people see the possibilities in freedom, but the political forces against it are enormous.
Kritarchy allows us another angle from which to attack those forces. Ron Paul, Libertarians, the whole freedom movement, work mainly at the political angle. Kritarchy allows us to come from the human rights angle. Personally, I think the civil rights angle has a better chance of success.