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
And then they started using dynamite.
Typically, people believe that the state is "a necessary evil" for one or more of the following reasons:
And finally, there's this:
"When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating." -- Frederic Bastiat
“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.
In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” —Robert Higgs
“Towns could band together to protect themselves from a common goal.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I don’t have a clue as to why they would want to protect themselves from a common goal.
“Pray for a Sulla, be content with a Pinochet. Fear a Cromwell.”
Sulla retired from his dictatorship, but he set the precedent for Caesar and Octavius to rule the empire. Some emperors that followed were good, others were not.
As our nation descends into a hard tyranny, our best chance may be for a benevolent dictator that allows for free enterprise among those that seek to be productive, and protects our individual and constitionally understood, natural rights. We need some sort of respite and stability it seems, because right now, with Lucifer in the WH, we are heading for the abyss.
Well, did you ever get on an airplane when ALL the passengers, including yourself, were the sort who look great without clothing or, when you think about it, would you say that most look better fully clothed?
Anarchists did not do any of these things for the fairly obvious reason that there is no example of a human society existing in a state of anarchy more than momentarily.
Order, generally imposed by a strong natural leader, emerges spontaneously from anarchy.
So the quoted argument is a mere variant of the “Communism will work great, it’s just never been done right” meme.
Except that Communisn has been tried, for as long as 70 years at a time. Anarchy has never been tried, because it is simply impossible given human nature.
“I want what you have,I’ll take it.”
Bt first you have to deal with me,and I can be very difficult.
Anarchy is really a theoretical concept, it is Utopianism and not achievable on earth. We all know that statism is horrible, and history reveals that it inevitably leads to death and destruction. But to state that anarchy just needs to be tried is like saying that all we need is love.
sorry...I should’ve written “for a common goal” or “from a common enemy”
She’s right. A society for grown ups.
Lot a folks out here want to be either Peter Pan or Capt. Hook though...
It's called the "Pecking Order"
One of our natural rights is to live under laws to which we give our consent either personally or via reps.
A dictator is one who holds power through force. By definition, a dictator cannot secure our natural rights.
I don’t see Josie as promoting wild anarchy where people are flipping out. I see her desires more in line with mine where society respect people. The ones who want to break the norms will swing from trees much faster when it is local victims setting the swing limits.
All this political correctness can take a hike as far as I’m concerned. Let me worship quietly and I won’t interfere with you wanting to pray five times a day. Just don’t ask me to provide you with a place to wash your feet. Your religion can take care of that.
Come through my neighborhood breaking into vehicles and you’ll probably crawl out with a dislocated shoulder and a busted jaw. No, I won’t care if it is your first time or if you are an aspiring rapper with six kids and four wives. The punishment will be the same.
I do not see the Dept. of Homeland Security or the TSA as enforcing our Declaration of Independence or our Bill of Rights. I don’t believe our cops need to carry automatic weapons or shoot dogs because the are afraid of them. If a cop beats a man to death then there should be justice not a blue line around him.
I’ve given you an idea of how I think and I posted this thread to get people thinking about freedom, individual freedom. The life we are living now is not anywhere close to what it could be.
Has there ever been a ‘state of anarchy’ where the entire population was armed? I don’t think so.
I don’t think that Christians have to worry about their behavior during anarchy. They may have to worry about other people’s behavior, but not their own. If they seek to emulate Christ, then they don’t need laws to know that murdering and stealing and cheating are wrong.
“Love The Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul and treat others as you would like to be treated.”
Brilliant. Succinct and all-encompassing. Brilliant. Way too brilliant for a mere man. Our people have this brilliance in front of them every day and run searching for long, foolish answers.
I'm curious why you chose this sequence of preference. I'd reverse them.
After gaining power by waging war on the duly elected leaders of the Roman State, Sulla massacred thousands of his political opponents to enrich himself and his cronies, without even the slightest pretense of a trial or due process. Pinochet did somewhat the same, with, IMO, somewhat better justification.
Cromwell did nothing of the sort, though he was pretty hard on those who fought him.
| Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 | Receipts & Pledges to-date: $30,879 | |||
|
||||
| Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!! | ||||
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.