I don't wanna be a pirate...

PIRACY AND ANARCHISM Damn you! You are a squeaking puppy, and so are all those who will submit to be governed by laws which rich men have made for their own security. For the cowardly whelps have not the courage otherwise to defend what they get by their knavery. But damn ye, altogether! Damn them for a pack of crafty rascals, and you, who serve them, for a parcel of hen-hearted numbskulls! They villify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference: they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage; had ye not better make one of us, than sneak after the arses of those villains for employment? --Black Sam Bellamy, pirate captainAnarchists and pirates share a common name, given them by the governments of the world: "enemies of humanity." This lovely sobriquet was attached to pirates (in the 18th century) and anarchists (in the 20th century) because these two groups of people, uniquely, disavowed allegiance to any particular government or nation, and were unafraid to show this contempt for authority in word and deed.

Why Pirates?It is essential to illustrate the true historical nature of piracy in an effort to dispel the pervasive myth that people need government to "protect us from ourselves!"

Authoritarians of every stripe love to drive the point home that, without them and their precious government and laws, we'd collapse into chaos and civilization would crumble into ruin. So long as this myth remains unchallenged, governments can continue to rule unopposed, in the face of no credible alternatives. This myth, however, will go unchallenged no longer. The pirates of the 16-1700's practiced an early (and entirely unplanned) anarchism in their war on the high seas traders. There were no "Founding Fathers," no acts of Parliament. There were just people sick and tired of authority.

The point the humble pirate illustrates to the modern reader is this: if pirates can do it, what is our excuse?

(the following is excerpted from Raiders and Rebels: The Golden Age of Piracy, by Frank Sherry, pp. 122-125)

In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there was only one true democracy on earth: the pirate brotherhood forged in Madagascar.

Incongruous as it might appear, the cutthroats, who brutalized captives and who scoffed at the rules of society, were passionately democratic. They had a high regard for individual rights--and a burning hatred for the tyranny that had oppressed them in their days of "honest service."

Unlike privateer crews, who were still only hired hands despite the fact that they received fair shares of their ship's plunder, pirates regarded themselves as self-employed, collective owners of their own ships. They believed that since the crew of a pirate ship had acquired their vessel by their common effort, all should participate equally in decisions aboard her. For this reason, pirates evolved a system that called for virtually all matters regarding life aboard their ship--whether to fight, where and when to anchor, division of spoils, even courses to be followed--to be subjected to a referendum, with each man, regardless of his rank, race, religion, or previous employment, entitled to an equal vote in the decision, as well as an equal right to voice his opinion. Only during battle did the pirates abandon this referendum system.

So pervasive was this insistence on individual rights--and so fearful were pirates of placing too much authority in the hands of any one man--that they even elected their captains and other high-ranking officers, retaining the right to depose them by vote whenever they wished. Occasionally, if the vote of a ship's crew was too close to allow a clear-cut choice for captain, the crew would split into two different crews, and each go its own way....

The pirate system of democracy, bordering on anarchy, also required the elimination of all marks of distinction aboard ship. Officers wore no special uniforms and had no special privileges. Pirates regarded such perquisites, common aboard "honest" ships, as hateful reminders of the upper-class despotism most of them had had to endure in their previous employment. They would permit none of it aboard their own ships.

For example, even though the captain was usually permitted a cabin of his own as a mark of his crew's esteem, he could not claim exclusive use of it. Crewman could enter anytime they wished, and they couldmake use of any of the captain's furnishings as well, including dishes and cutlery.

As Defoe says of a pirate captain's "privileges": "They only permit him to be captain, on condition that they may be captain over him."

...In a world that permitted personal liberty only to the well-born and the wealthy--and tyrannized cruelty over the poor--the pirate brotherhood offered the common seaman a passage to liberty and self-respect, provided he possessed the courage to defy the law that would punish him severely if it caught him. Most pirates, though simple men, realized full well that the key to the free life they wanted was their system of democratic decision making.

To ensure that democracy would prevail among them, almost all pirate crews subscribed to specific rules of behavior, which they embodied in "ship's articles," covenenants that were, in effect, rough constitutions that spelled out the rights, duties, and powers of a ship's officers and crew. Every officer and crew member aboard a ship had to swear to abide by these articles.

Although the articles might differ in various particulars from ship to ship, their general aim was always to safeguard individual liberties, especially the right of each crew member to a trial by his peers and an equal voice in the ship's affairs.