Posted on 04/21/2014 11:09:02 AM PDT by Leigh Patrick Sullivan
We all are familiar with the political spectrum, that hypothetical horizontal line on which we find our ‘point’ – our personal political ideology. The principle is basic: left is liberal, right is conservative.
But while the standard spectrum is still valid as a foundation, in reality it isn’t a flat line at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at leighpatrick.com ...
The opposite of the Rule of Law is anarchy, tyranny, and Progressivism
Tyranny comes from the authority, generally granted to the State, and IMHO is not a feature or result of anarchy.
The oppressive “Rule of Law” is Tyranny.
Progressives are fighting for more laws and more government which is the opposite of anarchy.
OK, Now, I just had an old “Missing Persons” song pop into my head.
“What are words for?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IasCZL072fQ
Silly words—who needs ‘em?
Anarchy is defined as the rejection of authority resulting in confusion and disorder. In America, we have a government that has rejected the authority of the Constitution resulting in confusion and disorder.
There are illegitimate, as well as legitimate, laws and government. Whether you have chaotic anarchy or a peaceful, free society is a question of what KINDS of laws and government you have. Laws that are unjust and tear down the structure of a peaceful society are, as Blackstone said, "no law" and are by nature anarchy.
The focus on the word "anarchy" should be on the resulting chaos or peace of those running the show, not on the absence or presence of anything called "law" or "government".
Progressives fight for “groups”.
The Constitution stands for the individual.
The progressive fights against the Constitution/individual.
The progressive wants to breakdown and replace “Individual rights”, granted by our creator, to rights granted by man, and enforced by the State.
This, and they, ARE NOT ANARCHISTS !!!
The destruction of law by “our creator” to be replaced by “laws of men” is not Anarchy.
They may have adopted some romantic nature of the anarchist intent to destroy authority, but the authority they are in fact attempting to destroy is that of their own very nature.
I think we should talk about the definition of the word “anarchy” before we get into the application. I’ve tried several times to clarify the definition, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Anarchy:
No laws, No authority, No Government.
Now, it may be said that anarchy is the opposition to laws and government.
That begs the question ?
Is Anarchy an END or a means to an end ?
So, you have the absence of, or nonrecognition of authority ?
Can the anarchist exist in the absence of authority ?
There is either authority or there is not.
My definition of anarchy is a battle against authority and, ultimately a state of disorder and confusion due to absence of authority.
It’s either an action or a noun.
In my world, the anarchist is, and will always be, fighting authority.
But, Anarchy is their goal, which would logically, once achieved, leave the “Anarchist” with nothing left to fight for.
Let me try to clarify.
The Anarchist is ALWAYS in a battle against authority.
It is an action.
Anarchy, is the state in which there is no authority.
Therefore, in, or under, Anarchy, the Anarchist CAN NOT EXIST.
Agreed. But some "laws" and "authority" are themselves a battle against existing authority. The resulting "disorder and confusion" or peace and tranquility has much to do with whether these action are anarchy.
This is where it gets interesting.
Progressives fight for more and more “Laws” and “authority” to battle against the Constitution, and to be exercised by more and more government.
That is a fact and is not anarchy.
They may “think” it is, but it’s not.
It’s communism.
And when they co-opt businesses to go along with this, it is Fascism.
Pure Capitalism is Anarchy, freedom within the rule of law.
Contract law and property rights.
And BTW, capitalism is the purest form of human nature.
They, the Progressives, want to reject human nature. Their very own nature, in order to account for the increasing number of simple minded zombies that they themselves create.
They reject the objective, and favor the subjective.
This is not anarchy.
They may use “anarchist” tactics and messages in their attempts to destroy what their simple minded compatriots perceive to be the state of affairs. But what they promote is government, more rules, laws and regulations that destroy the “self” for the “greater” good.
Anarchy is the Militia standoff in Nevada.
Communism is the “occupy Wall street” display.
OWS and progressives are fighting for more government controls while defenders of the Bundy ranch are fighting against government.
Who are the anarchists ?
The point of anarchy is the disorder, chaos and confusion. A valid definition of anarchy does not include a society that is peaceful and free.
I think we may be happy to agree that we disagree on the exact meaning.
I only ask this.
Is Anarchy a verb or a noun ?
Logically, it can’t be both.
Is Anarchy a verb or a noun ? Logically, it can’t be both.
I think it's a noun.
Here's one thing I've gleaned from our talk that I blurted out that I think I'll keep, especially when accused by the Left of anarchy:
Progressivism and tyranny are anarchy disguised as legitimate authority.
Progressivism and tyranny are anarchy disguised as legitimate authority
I would restate the above.
Progressivism IS tyranny disguised as anarchy.
OK. You come at ‘em from that direction and I’ll come at ‘em from this direction. They’re toast.
In our modern times the baseline for what is considered good or bad has been twisted.
I think these liberal Ass***s are destroying the culture and economic system that has allowed them to voice their concerns in the first place.
They don’t get this.
Sadly, our media, from Hollywood movies, to the peer pressure on your job, have set the narrative.
And it’s NOT Anarchy.
They may proclaim themselves as warriors against the system, the man, the rich.
It’s a joke.
And, It is this Exploitation of the ignorant class that I object too.
Exploitation conducted by big money media/News organizations, that are NOT stupid.
They know exactly what they are attempting to do.
So, they feed the anarchist narrative because it sells. (they project the anarchist as the good guy)
No depth of understanding.
Nevermind that their anarchist hero’s in the streets are anything but what they claim to be. They are all Socialists in the end.
A "Left Anarchist" is really somebody who objects to government protection of private property, and wants to remove obstacles to mob seizure of property. In that sense he's an anarchist.
OTOH, he very much wants to retain government protection for anarchists against property owners just shooting all the anarchists.
Left-anarchists are really Communists in disguise -- they want to sweep away protections for private property and private business, as a preliminary step towards Communism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.