Posted on 02/02/2014 8:26:55 AM PST by B4Ranch
Most people would be terrified at the thought that their world might soon transform into a state of complete "anarchy." However, in one sense that is precisely what humanity needs.
To many, the term "anarchy" implies violent chaos and bloody mayhem, and a complete breakdown of organized society-- a situation no decent person wants. What the word literally means, however, is "rule by no one," a society without any ruling class. And while people are right to believe that authoritarian "law and order" is the opposite of "anarchy," they are wrong to put their faith in the former, or to fear the latter. In fact, those events which best epitomize the negative meaning of "anarchy"--chaos, death and destruction--have always been the direct result of government. Yet many people still fear freedom more than they fear government.
More and more people are now coming to realize that what society really needs is not a new flavor of authoritarian domination, but a complete absence of political power (which should not be confused with a lack of cooperation or organization). Whether "left" or "right," government is never about getting along or cooperating; it is about one group of people forcibly extorting and controlling everyone else. This is why government, by its very nature, is fundamentally incompatible with peaceful coexistence, is never moral or legitimate, and never leads to peace or justice.
To improve the world, people need to let go of the statist mythology they were taught, and embrace instead some very basic principles: VOLUNTARYISM is the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, free from fraud, coercion or violence; THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE states that it is wrong to initiate violence against another, and that physical force is justified only when used to defend against aggression; SELF-OWNERSHIP means that every individual owns himself, and therefore owns the results of his time and effort.
These ideas are so simple and obvious that the average person, when he hears them described, imagines that he already agrees with them. However, most people--at least at first--fail to realize that such concepts completely rule out the possibility of government of any kind. Only a STATELESS SOCIETY is at all logically or morally compatible with non-aggression, self- ownership, and voluntaryism, because government, by its very nature, is always coercive and violent, and--to one degree or another, in one way or another--always infringes upon the self- ownership of the individual. (Those who say they want a "government" which only protects individual rights fail to realize that any purely defensive organization would not be "government," since it would have no power to tax or legislate, would have no monopoly, and would have no special power or authority.)
People are so accustomed to hearing "master plans" from politicians that they often have a hard time imagining actual freedom--a society that doesn't try to create a one-size-fits-all agenda for everyone, where instead, people can organize and cooperate in a million different ways. In other words, ANARCHY. To achieve such a society does not require any election, revolution, or political movement. It simply requires the people understanding and embracing the ideas of self-ownership and non-aggression, and letting go of the insane idea that civilization requires each individual to abandon his own free will and conscience in favor of blind obedience to a centralized ruling authority. When that lie dies, perpetual war and oppression will die with it.
As more and more people awaken to this truth, the power of the beast known as "government" diminishes, and the power of humanity grows. In a very real sense, the world really is on the brink of "anarchy": a society of free, equal, peaceful human beings. The age of statism and authoritarianism--and all the pain, injustice, suffering and death it has brought with it--is nearing its end. The age of peaceful coexistence, and a truly free and voluntary society, is about to begin. Whether you will be one of those helping to make this change happen, or one of those resisting it, is up to you.
www.JosieTheOutlaw.com
Kind of like what we are descending into now?
No, small time ones as in the past, until another country invades/nukes and takes over the whole country.
>>small time ones as in the past, until another country invades/nukes and takes over the whole country.
I wonder if that is already being implemented, what with:
1 our insecure borders
2 China surpassing us in technology
3 US Petro dollar being bypassed by the BRICS nations with plans to implement a gold-backed Chinese Yuan,
maybe they won’t have to nuke us, but simply take over. Did you get to hear one of Jim Willie’s more recent presentations (via Victory Report) where he speculates China has already bought the Fed?
There are things that make me go.....Hmmmmm!
I listened to it last night.
I’m not sure how people can be stopped from forming government. It’s our nature to do so. I also didn’t follow very well why violence, rule of the jungle, wouldn’t take over.
Yep. Pretty much...
Local cooperation doesn’t need to devolved into “government”. It’s a lot easier to keep association beneficial and egalitarian if you can opt out at any time and join a different group.
Try that with your local version of “City Hall”.
Any stateless society is an anarchy. Anarchy doesn’t mean there aren’t rules, it means there is no one with the monopoly power to make law, enforce law or judge compliance to any law. It means there is no monopolist of ultimate decision making.
Thanks for the clarification. By that definition, most North American Indian tribes, at least when the settlers showed up, were anarchic.
Men in tribes generally were very free, at least those who were big and strong enough to deter the inevitable bullies. Women, captives and slaves were not so free.
I’m not entirely sure we want to use pre-state tribal societies as our template for an ideal society. While there was no over-arching authority to enforce laws, this also meant there was no restriction on those who chose to oppress their neighbors.
For background on what such societies were like across the planet and across history, may I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization
Such societies were generally hugely more warlike, with death tolls from war a large multiple of that in America and Europe during the 20th century.
I liked the fact that one of the examples given for an “anarchy” was medieval Iceland.
A remote island that nobody had any particular reason to attack. Though if I remember correctly, the Barbary pirates raided the island at least a couple of times.
IOW, an anarchic settled society can survive fairly well as long as there are no outside threats. If there are, the society needs to be organized to resist it, which promptly leads to development of a chiefdom or state. Any society that doesn’t evolve in this way is promptly overrun and destroyed by neighbors who do.
Another example of an anarchic society given upthread, though IMO an inappropriate one, is traditional Irish society.
Which ties right into my previous comment. Irish society appears to have been utterly incapable of uniting against an external threat, perhaps largely because of its anarchic tendencies. Once the Vikings and then the English moved in, the Irish were never able to organize effective national resistance, leading of course to their eventual conquest and subjugation.
You and I think alike. And your ideas of taking care of business, although imperfect, needs to be done.
A lot of “clean-up” is needed along with a healthy respect for decent people who are sick of society’s cancer running the show.
The Founders had an interesting idea around that “bully” or “external attack” problem...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Allow everyone who wants to be armed to do so. Deters the common thief, the tyrant warlord, and local despots. Some 340 million people in the US. About 100 million ARMED.
Makes for a good deterrent to aggression as even a nuke can’t get us all.
“The potential for evil from our regime is, with all its surveillance and technology, limitless, and if something is not done soon, it will be too late”
Should be required reading and meditation for all supposed conservatives. Great post Grumpy.
Imagine the US in 10 years with all the fantastic govt security technology. What a great, safe place it will be to live and raise family.
How do you have a “well-regulated Militia” in an anarchic society?
Anarchy means there are no enforceable rules or regulations.
It’s coming whether you want anarchy or not. B4ranch is stating he and maybe some of his neighbors will stand up and get real dirty.
Those disagreeing with him/her, I understand your points clearly but anything decent in this Country that is left is already being attacked, both violently and via stealth.
Yes, with anarchy there will be horrors. But we have horrors now, just not so in your face day to day. But that too will be the norm here soon. Then what?
I’m with B4, some people are going to have to do some real rough, unthinkable work to stop this evil from both our govt and our “fellow” citizens.
Who wins? The odds are against those that are decent folks who will stand up but miracles do happen.
Rules can be enforceable without a state—without a monopolist enforcer. That’s why we’re able to communicate using English, in spite of there being no state-mandated and enforced rules regarding the grammar or semantics of English.
The state is an artifact of the willingness to peacefully engage in joint action, not a cause.
It is not peace, cooperation, collaboration, rights, property, business, rules of behavior, and rules of interpersonal interaction and engagement that cannot exist without the state, but rather it is monopoly power that cannot.
It is impossible that peace, cooperation, collaboration, rights, property, business, rules of behavior, and rules of interpersonal interaction and engagement only exist or operate effectively because a state makes it so. Those concepts must have existed, must have been known to have utility and validity before any state existed. It is impossible to form a state without them!
Civil society functions as it does in spite of the state, not because of it. It is our collective agreement to work together, to cooperate, to collaborate, to respect rights, to engage in business, to abide by commonly-accepted rules of behavior, and to follow commonly-accepted rules of interpersonal interaction and engagement that enable any organization or group (involving two or more people) to operate effectively—especially including the state itself!
Yes, we have conflicts with each other. But we rarely appeal to the state to resolve them. Certainly, edge cases happen where some external, neutral agency is needed to resolve disputes. But the free market can provide that function more effectively and at less cost than any monopoly can match—and can do so with less risk of corruption, precisely because there is no monopoly.
“Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.” ~ Thomas Paine
The alternative to a state is a society where “laws” (rules of engagement,) law enforcement and judicial services are provided by competing private businesses that have no monopoly: Only in that way can each individual personally consent to the ‘rules of engagement’ that will be used to govern and judge his actions.
“If an agency is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, then it is also judge in all conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision making will also cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of the state, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
“Anarchy is the order of the day among hunter-gatherers. Indeed, critics will ask why a small face-to-face group needs a government anyway. [...] If this is so we can go further and say that since the egalitarian hunting-gathering society is the oldest type of human society and prevailed for the longest period of time – over thousands of decades – then anarchy must be the oldest and one of the most enduring kinds of polity. Ten thousand years ago everyone was an anarchist.” ~ Harold Barclay, American anthropologist (Barclay, Harold (1996). People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy. Kahn & Averill. ISBN 1-871082-16-1)
This is the situation that we live under now.
“If an agency is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, then it is also judge in all conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision making will also cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of the state, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
I do know that these two comprised the basis of our Declaration, and to discuss American society and Constitution without referring to them is to abandon our heritage.
Everything discussed in this thread and far more were hashed out by them long ago, and from them we can learn the intellectual foundation of our revolt.
Locke's Two Treatises is on my bookshelf, unopened. That must change.
In an “anarchic” society, everyone is first and foremost responsible for themselves. This includes carrying the proper self defense tools.
From there, forming natural “neighborhood” militia’s, security companies, etc... Is a lot more efficient than a para-militarized police force under government auspices.
Repeat amongst a population the size of our Nation, and this decentralized “militia” is an uncrackable nut for any invader.
Our Declaration is not our Constitution. Our Declaration was a letter to our King as we were British subjects tired of dealing with his broken promises.
Our Constitution is what Madison et al thought would best preserve our new Nation under a penumbra of freedom. Jefferson’s insistence, from afar, on a BoR... Morris’ “Committee of Style” for the actual wording...
Our early Republic was a far more “anarchic” place than anything we’ve seen here since Reconstruction. We should get back to that even if we never do get the habit of “living without Rulers”.
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.