The Idea of Anarchy by Chris


“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

– Robert Heinlein

Whenever the word Anarchy is whispered it is accompanied by thoughts of Molotov Cocktails, hooded punk youth, and general chaos. I can understand these thoughts, at one point in my life I was the skateboarding punk “Anarchist” who actually had no idea what the principles of Anarchy were. I also was not a very polite young man, and I had no problem proclaiming very loudly my “beliefs” to people who did not necessarily want to hear them.  My view of Anarchy back then is very much at odds with the actual principles of Anarchy, but my views were right in line with the public’s view of the ideology. I just wanted to bring the whole rotten structure down, regardless of what system, or non-system rose up in its place. However, I am also of the impression that Statists also try and tarnish the idea of Anarchism the best that they can. There are documented reports of law enforcement officers dressing up in the standard “anarchist” garb and causing ruckus at public events. Heaven forbid the public ever find out the “State” is just a huge scam, and in fact, the biggest ever.

There are a couple of different traditions in the Anarchist school thought; I most closely follow the individualist flavor of Anarchism. I believe the individual can claim sovereignty over himself, and his claim should be recognized, and respected. I believe I have supreme authority over myself, and the property I claim as mine. Any form of government that puts me at odds with my beliefs I consider immoral. I do not believe man or any group of men has “rights” or “powers” that would violate my own claims. I do not believe man or group of men can take what I claim to be mine for any reason, even if they think it might “benefit” me.


I recently listened to a debate between an Anarchist, and a Libertarian. The debate was very interesting to say the least. The two men spent almost the whole time debating the principles of the ideologies they claim to represent. The Anarchist was claiming individual self-ownership, and that was his principle. He stated no entity has the moral right to violate his claim. The Libertarian claimed that a group had the “right” to usurp his claim of individual self-ownership for the benefit of all. The Libertarian gave the example of defense, and that 7 out of 10 men had the “right” to make decisions that would essentially affect the hypothetical 10 out of 10. In one example, the Libertarian claimed the individuals that made up the group right to self-ownership was violated if the individual who lived in “their” society did not want to pay for defense, but “benefitted” from the “security”. The Libertarian made the claim that the Anarchist was in fact stealing for not paying his fair share. At one point in the debate the Libertarian made the claim that it was the fault of the Anarchist for not siding with the libertarian to stop the Statists. He never stopped to realize HE is the Statist! I will not go into a rant on how absolutely absurd this line of thinking is, and how reckless and dangerous it has proved to be throughout history. I am not writing this essay for that purpose.

I am here to tell you that it is absolutely crucial for the mere idea of Anarchy to live on. Even if an Anarchistic society is never achieved, the idea must never be forgotten. It is the anchor to the ship of Statism. It is the only true remedy for the disease of Government. If the world is plagued by the parasites of the State, what other than Anarchism would be the solution? You don’t get rid of cancer with more cancer. You don’t get rid of Big Government using “Small Government” Libertarians. Sure maybe some libertarians may say, “not on my watch”, but can they promise that for their grandchildren’s generation? Think about it like this, if the idea of Anarchism didn’t exist, where would libertarians pull their ideas of freedom from? Themselves? Absurd! Their principles when broken down to the core are identical to the most rabid Statists! So Anarchists that read this, keep your heads up! You do the world an immeasurable amount of good by simply sharing your principled beliefs with others. I will promise you this, as long as I can speak my mind, I will question theirs! I will try my best to be as principled as can while passing on these ideas. I take comfort in the fact that the idea of pure liberty cannot be extinguished, it is a human condition.

“It is the conservative laissez- fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.”  -~Murray Rothbard

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

 

 

Bill Buppert
thirdgun@hotmail.com
6 Comments
  • Linda Brady Traynham
    Posted at 20:17h, 28 April Reply

    Bill, you absolute wretch! If I hadn’t fallen in love with you long ago, this, alone will do it, but you’re really supposed to tell your friends when you start a new site we’re going to want to be involved with. Thanks for listing my Texas Ring; we’re growing nicely and as much fun as ever.

    I never thought I was a Libertarian, partially because they don’t seem to agree on what they believe, but I have never come up with anything better than “I’m a laissez faire Jeffersonian,” which isn’t one of the world’s greater titles. (Now, for one I’m proud of, how about “You Don’t Buy An Armored Car For The Gas Mileage?” Yes, that’s one of mine up on The Mesh Report, and yes, I really did buy an armored vehicle that used to belong to a South American head of state. I have been one-upped thoroughly by a friend who swapped a pair of donkeys for a fall-out/blast shelter, Hey, I’m from Texas and we enjoy being colorful, and besides–I can think of at least six uses for a vehicle with bullet proof glass and one inch thick steel, and the scrap value is more than I paid for it…with 100,000 on the odometer and only 5,000 on the mandatory engine rebuild.)

    When I was young and naive I thought government had two legitimate purposes. (Can we have a bigger box? I’m getting mental claustrophobia.) Those were guarding our borders and protecting the citizens. As I said, young and naive. I have come to realize that government has NO useful purposes, certainly not any I am willing to pay for. “Mrs. Traynham! What about robbers and what if there is a war?” What if we protect ourselves and those of us who care about keeping invaders out do it ourselves?

    I don’t want to fight any wars which do not involve my personal safety or well-being. We have NO business attacking Col. Qadaffi or being in Afghanistan or Iraq. If I had been in charge of Desert Storm One I’d have finished the job and kept the oil, or I wouldn’t have gone. Sure there’s a war I think needs fighting, and a simple glance at the red-blue map will tell you if you don’t know already, or ask Bill, who’ll tell you he lives in Northern Mexico.

    There is a natural “safety net;” it is known as friends, families, churches, and private charitable organizations, and there is no need to steal my money, waste 90% of it on administrative expenses, and keep ne’er-do-wells in what has been considered great wealth and luxury during my lifetime…and while I do not suppose anyone here would call me offensive names, have at it if you want to. I’ll be glad to tell you about my extensive personal charities, the good I do, and the pleasure I take from helping others when it is MY choice to do so.

    Education? That’s what parents are for. MY children went off to school reading on fifth grade level and doing third grade or better math. The summers, after school, and weekends were MINE. They turned out pretty well; my daughter is a Senior Vice President of a very big national bank, and my son (just turned 26) is head of the accounting department of a nice corporation in Seattle and being groomed as CFO. Smile. Yes, they had advantages most kids don’t have, like bright parents who got married and stayed married and a Donna Reed mother who took her duties seriously. And loved summers!

    No, I cannot think of a single thing that we need governments for, including a bloated court and penal system. Common law courts, outsource prisons to Mexico as a first step, and loss of citizenship. Trying as hard as I could I only managed to think of a dozen things which should be illegal, such as robbery, murder, rape, and trying to impose your will on others. Kicking puppy dogs.

    The only problem with “anarchy” is bad connotations. Let’s try “self-sufficiency.”

    Regards,

    Linda Brady Traynham

  • Linda Brady Traynham
    Posted at 20:31h, 28 April Reply

    El Salvador, if you were wondering. I suppose Napoleon Duarte since the big, beautiful silver Jeep Wagoneer is a ’79 and Carlos Humberto Romero lost his job rather suddenly that year. (No, the literature does not say “only shot up once.”)

    For fun, I Googled. The cheapest protection package I found is $70,000—with your vehicle and 6 months’ delivery time. Does not include protection of the radiator, gas tank, or tires. What I think very funny is that this one protects 6 passengers in comfort…but made no provision for the chauffeur! Uh…bad thinking, Senor Presidente. Not sure about the site, either, since it didn’t cross link to professional driving school.

    There aren’t many of us who who think we are competent to plan ahead and protect ourselves and our families, but one of these days we will probably find out. Good luck if it all falls apart! You’re the kind of people with a reasonable chance. LBT

  • Linda Brady Traynham
    Posted at 21:19h, 28 April Reply

    Bill, dear, for those who are computer illiterates…how do I put a comment up under your article on Big Government, and is there a simple way to respond to other commenters?

    Aaron, was it, has a very Middle Eastern mind set; somebody is going to be the boss. That leaves two choices: do as you are told, or be the boss. I, personally, don’t want to order people around, but I resent vehemently being held in thrall by thugs frequently masquerading as sanctimonious do-gooders. Is this a safe thing to say? No, not at all, a thought to remember. What can the government do about it, short of sending me to Guantanamo? Well…right now…much of the time of my hands is being taken up by cleaning up a dump begun in 1843, when it was not only quite legal but the custom of the country and a superb way to control erosion. I am NOT obliged to do this; I was given the choice of the government coming in and doing it themselves at an unstated by doubtless enormous cost. To add insult to enormous useless effort (metal really does come out of the ground, after all) the EPA has given me a fat booklet on “Easy, Inexpensive Ways to Control Erosion.” Never mind that we’ve been controling erosion for a very long time and care a great deal more about protecting our land than they do. The best way is to block the gully and sprig grass, by hand, where the erosion starts, although I doubt those are in the book. They are neither easy nor inexpensive. Can I fell trees? Oh, no! I am allowed to dump 2500 pounds/resident/year, but once you get into what I cannot discard, what I’m left with is kitchen waste we feed to the hogs.

    Since that clearly isn’t enough to keep me busy, out of nowhere the IRS claimed I owed them $300,000. Absolutely. Sweet little old widows make that kind of money all the kind. The current demand is for half that. Uh, IRS guys…my income is Social “Security” and I don’t even claim ranch expenses because if I did you’d laugh hysterically and tell me that’s not a business, it’s a hobby. Something about the feed bills this month alone being over $2,000, I guess, and the total income the sale of a goat for $40 for Easter dinner. I really meant to tell Asia to just give them the goat with my compliments, and next time I go to town I’ll return their money. That will be simpler than forms and paying taxes on it. Chuckle…I could even deduct it as a charitable expense, even though I never do.

    The government has numerous ways to harrass us quite “legally,” and I haven’t found a better recourse than to comply…while supposing that it must have been something I said. I don’t mind paying for my pleasures, or even my sins, and if being on speed dial at the local Sheriff’s Department is one price, so be it. (No, they’re really very nice.) Funniest thing how frequently someone cuts our fences, cattle get out, and we get a call at 1:30 a.m. to remove them from the road.

    Laughter…if Cass Sunstein tried to explain to MY stock that it is being treated like citizens the animals would kick him off the place. Ours are all trained to come a-runnin’ when they hear the honk signal because that means a treat. It is a two-minute job to get them back in, and a bit more to move them to a secure pasture until we can repair the fence. Again. Odd, though…cutting fences is still a felony in Texas but there are never any clues or investigations…

    My best advice if it isn’t too late to keep a very low profile is to do what I did, the John Hancock thing. I sign my full name to everything I write and remind my readers frequently that I am in superb health. It may not do me any more good than it did Vince Foster, but there will be a few questions asked, at least. “Boring” EKG, flawless blood work, no degenerative diseases, only RX is for low thyroid, and splendid blood pressure.

    If you have a choice, keep your heads down and your preparations quiet.

    Regards,

    Linda Brady Traynham

  • Chris
    Posted at 00:37h, 29 April Reply

    Linda, Voluntaryist seems to be a good switch for the word Anarchist. I agreed that the word Anarchist has certain connotations that might not be so pleasant. But, I kinda like the word! Personally, I don’t really much care what people call themselves, it the principles that count!

    -Chris

  • Hugh
    Posted at 06:34h, 29 April Reply

    Well put Chris.

    Why can’t the virtuous, honest man rule himself? To suggest otherwise is to concede that man will forever be in bondage somewhere to someone.

    There is no such thing as a “limited government”. Like a single egg once fertilized it will always invariably grow from its innocent, benign, seemingly harmless embryonic state to the leviathan “STATE” we have become so accustomed.

  • Rand
    Posted at 07:28h, 01 June Reply

    Good post, but your example of a libertarian was no libertarian at all, but sounded more like a libertarian-leaning conservative. An anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/agorian is just a libertarian who carrys the philosophy of libertarianism to its logical conclusion. The typical libertarian or minarchist, is a libertarian who buys into the concept of the philosophy of libertarianism but believes that enough people will not take the philosophy of libertarianism to heart, so we need a minimal govt to protect our rights and protect us from aggressor countries. The problem is, even if we could achieve such a minimum govt society, we would be in the same position that we were in during the 1780s, and in 200 years we would be right back to where we are today. The very nature of a govt is to use the force they are given and to acquire more as time goes on.

Post A Comment