22 votes

Anarchy in the Royal Family

What do you think of the word "anarchy"? Does it have a negative or even evil connotation in your mind? Are you a Christian? Have you ever said "No King but King Jesus?" If so, and if you really mean it, then you are probably more of an anarchist than you realize.

Anarchy simply means "without a king". The context of anarchy is generally in a human sense, not a spiritual one, and the philosophy supporting it simply claims that no person has the right to claim ownership to another person. Kings claim ownership, often by divine right, always by force and coercion to not only your property but also to you. It is through this claim that they justify their right to levy taxes, make rules and enforce them with guns, conscript soldiers and slaves, and confiscate property.

In a Kingdom there are serfs, lords, and then there is the Royal family. The serfs are the population whose lives and property are the property of the king, they are not part of the Royal family and are not politically well connected enough to be a Lord. Serfs pay homage to the king via taxation, and are subject to the king's laws and decrees at the threat of violence. The Lords are the friends of the King who he has given land or privilege to, lords can also collect taxes on their lands and subject the serfdom on their lands to their laws. And then there is the Royal family, which should need no additional explanation, this is the king and his family.

That's all real interesting, but we live in America, we don't have a king, right? Well here's a test. Are you free to use your property as you see fit? How about your car, who needs those pesky tags right? Or your life? Are you free to not pay the taxes levied on the fruit of your own labor via the income tax if you don't agree with the policies of the government? Of course not. You are a serf. The Federal Government is the King, and the power brokers behind the scenes are the Royal family. Quite often the power brokers are literally families that have been in power for decades if not centuries who control the political and economic forces that are used to control us. In this kingdom the Lords are the corporations, who are given special privileges and access to the royal treasury and to the royal guard in order to protect and expand their property. We are the serfs, subject not only to the laws and decrees of the king with regards to taxation, conscription into military service, and obedience to untold number of regulations (decrees), but we are also subject to the will of the Lord's (corporations) as they use their special privileges to force us to accept their will in regards to the products and services we are given the choice to live by. This entire kingdom is predicated on the assumption that you are the property of the Federal Government. A powerful elite has set themselves up on the throne of God almighty and assumed ownership of you.

The word "anarchy" has been derided and redefined through our public (royal) education system, and through the mass media (royal propaganda), because it is a dangerous idea to the underpinnings of fraudulent kingdom you are being forced to participate in. If you were to consider the possibility that you belong to yourself, and that no other person has the right to claim ownership of you or your property, then you may experience what is called "cognitive dissonance" when your mind attempts to reconsile the idea of self ownership with the demands of your king to pay taxes, buy car tags, renew licences (what are we pets?), or participate in any other "mandatory" activity. Anarchist see the individual as not only owners of themselves, but also sovereign, and this sovereignty is in direct conflict with the sovereignty the government claims over you. In fact this is evidenced by the fact that they must use violence, or the threat of it in order to coerce you to obey their decrees. Violence and fraud are particularly repulsive to an anarchist because these kinds of acts are violations against the victims property and sovereignty. It is better for the "kings" if you remain ignorant, or even repulsed by the words and ideas of self ownership, because of where these ideas may lead your thinking.

Many Christians may shy away from the anarchist ideology because of the concept of self ownership. We are taught that we were purchased by Christ, and that we belong to God. But a closer examination of this idea will lead you to some interesting conclusions. We need to build a bit of a foundation to get there so lets take a look at these verses:

  • Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;"

It is clear that God establishes himself as the only God. We should place no other God (or King) before him. Nor shall we bow down to any idol, or symbol that is either representative of him, a human king, an animal, or any other thing. On this premise alone the claim of ownership upon you by a human King must be rejected.

  • Revelation 21:3 :And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

The intent of God is to dwell with us, not to exist distantly separated from us. That he will live with us and be our God, and that his tabernacle will be with us.

  • John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

God is a spirit, and must be interacted with as such. Our interaction with him must be according to his nature (spirit) and it also must be accurate (truth). Idolatry is wrong because it is an interaction with God via the physical, not the spiritual, it is neither spirit nor truth. Legalism is wrong because it is an intellectual interaction with him, it is truth, but not spirit. Mysticism is wrong because it is only a spiritual interaction, spirit but not truth.

  • Luke 17:20 "Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” "

The kingdom that God rules over cannot be seen because it is spirit, like Him. If you can see the kingdom you are subject to, that is a pretty good indication that it is not God's kingdom and you are practicing idolatry.

  • 1 Corinthians 6:19 it says: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
  • 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?"

Here is the establishment of God's ownership of us. An anarchist would cringe at this prospect. But as a believer we understand that God doubly owns us. He created us, and then he also purchased us at the Cross. This is how he established the Kingdom that we are able to live in with him. Our bodies are His tabernacle, and his dwelling place is not only among us, but within each one of us. He is "among" us because he is "within" me when I am near you, and you me.

  • Galations 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."

And now we see the radical departure of the traditional kingdom model. There are no serfs or Lords in the kingdom of God, only Royal family. God adopting us and and making us heirs. God's very nature living within and among us, our bodies serving as the physical location of his throne and temple. This is difficult to equate in terms of human government. Even if a human king were to adopt you and make you an heir, the human king still could not use your body to locate his kingdom, because the human king is human, physical, not spiritual.

As a Christian if I identify with the word "anarchist" I don't see how I can be violating any Christian principles, in fact, in order to be able to prepare my body to become the dwelling place of God, one of the first things I must do is deny any recognition of ownership by any other human being or object or idol. In fact if God not only owns me, has made me his son, and also dwells within me, to live as if my body were the property of any other power seems quite ridiculous.

Living life in this paradigm should radically change how we behave and interact with others. When we view others as tabernacles of God we can instantly see why the principles of anarchy become very important in our control of our physical bodies. Every individual is the physical manifestation of the spiritual presence of God. If a person commits an act of violence or fraud, or makes a false claim of ownership to another person or their property, they are in reality putting themselves in the place of God himself.

"No King but King Jesus?", yes, but you can't get there without embracing and understanding anarchy.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

don't start a long post with a lie

anarchy doesn't mean "without a king"

i think that the only time people will ever be truly free is when they accept the anarchy in which we already exist


Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
First Known Use: 1539

"without a ruler"

what is a "ruler"? is a king a ruler? exactly..

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

It doesn't have to be a single ruler...

The rulership could be an oligarchy...

A king is not always a ruler, look countries throughout history and today with royal figureheads and puppet monarchs. Nor rulers always kings...

This was a wonderful post

I can feel us getting smarter by the day. I treasure this website.

Senator Peter Schiff 2016

Nice article.

I enjoyed your article, however I must disagree on the definition of anarchy. I've always perceived anarchy as meaning "without government or leadership". I think the whole idea of not having a government or some kind of leader scares a lot of people. Especially the people that doubt themselves as having the potential to lead themselves or make their own decisions; or are fearful that their neighbors, or other individuals, in a world without government or some other higher power to subject individuals to the rule of law, would hurt them in some way (physically, psychologically, etc.). However, I also think most people's definition of anarchy is "complete chaos" and I do applaud you for trying to show people how wrong that definition is. There is such a thing as a peaceful anarchist.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

In other words , , ,

The idea of self-ownership and the self-responsibility that goes with it scares the crap out of people who prefer the security of being owned and looked after by a benevolent slave-master.

And the word "anarchy" has been re-defined to mean "violent chaos" by government schools and propaganda . . . which is pretty ironic, when you consider that government itself is the greatest agency of coercion (violence) extant. It's the oldest propagandist's trick in the book, accusing your enemies of your own crimes.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Amen, amen and AMEN !!!

'nuff said..

Beware the cult of "government"...

A Plus

Excellent post, thank you! No wonder that since ancient times God has been a threat to "rulers". We know that GMOs are to alter humans but what effect do they have on our spirituality? We know that cloning is a stupid attempt to play God. Recently is has come out that the pineal gland is the seat of spirituality. Most of us have a calcified pineal gland becasue of the public water supply - fluoride. And big warehouses now spray food with even more fluoride. Call me crazy but if I drink beer I feel a little disconnected from God for a couple of days. I just know what's normal for me. How pathetic that there are those among us who wish to hold hummanity back. No King but King Jesus.

Anarchy means what people say it means

Stop being idiots. All meaning of all words is subjective. Got that? There are no laws of chemistry or physics or mathematics that would objectively state what anarchy is suppose to mean. None.

This word like every other word in our language means what people think it means.

So instead of wasting your and everyone else' precious time how about you stop behaving like a 5 year old and figure out instead how to best communicate the right IDEAS as opposed to a meaning of a word?

p.s.: And this is coming from a staunch anarcho capitalist.

There is however a colloquial

There is however a colloquial understanding of the concept. When you begin to discuss self-ownership, the dismantling of the state, and other concepts important to liberty the word "anarchy" inevitably comes up. Because of it's connotation within the minds of the propagandized public, the word acts as a sort of firewall or trigger, overriding the mind with emotion, shutting down rational thought, and protecting the propaganda by keeping the mind from exploring the idea.

So it is important to attempt to neutralize the emotional charge of the word so that the mind can be free to consider ideas that often exist within the context of its use.

From the sky back to the Earth

A fraudulent company had defrauded a customer (say, Smith) and left the state without a trace. After 6 months, an insurance company that covers detective work (Mr. Smith holds policy at) informs Mr. Smith that detectives had spent the upper limit of the insurance policy with no success. Mr. Smith has no money to hire private investigators to check if his insurance company or the detectives actually did their job or just pocketed money. In any case, he has no hope that the same wont happen again and again.

Anarchists are more dumb than socialists.


Do you believe that the majority of people
A. Want to cheat, steal, hurt, kill you?
B. That most people start from a baseline of good will, and mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges of goods and services?

From your assertions that the only outcome in society with out the state as a coercive monopolist of force and theft, is that somehow the state will recreate itself. That no one will oppose your mafia.

This is merely spreading the Hobbesian view of human nature, there are no good people in the world, and good behaviour can only be enforced by the gun of the state.

BS there are self reinforcing behaviours in a voluntary society. The main one being ostracism or exile. You are a bad actor and no one will deal with you. And if you obdurately persist in your wickedness then someone will use self defensive force and cap your ass.

People who believe in the state want to farm out evil to some faceless minion.

That is what is the logical conclusion to a belief in the state.

Your mind is on wrong focus

If people were "good" (unreal Utopian "men of the future"), then they would behave as a wise central planner wanted them to behave. From a practical position, however, we should examine how actual life unfolds before us.

That is the best oxymoron of the day

"Wise central planner"

Good one. That is freaking funny I dont care who you are.


Liberty = Responsibility


I use it on purpose. But on one level deeper than a simple sarcasm. The truth is - if a collective does select the best minds among themselves (as they practice in Singapore, for example), well-intentioned plans still wont work as planned without total robotic control of the population.

O the conceit of the pretense of knowledge

O the conceit of the pretence of knowledge, that there can be wise philosopher kings (har har har). Also that I believe that there are no bad actors in society(har har har).

You can live in your world of war of all against the all, very dark and depressing.

I will live in the real world, where the psychopaths and socio-paths are in the government and the majority of the people just want to be left alone to perform productive work with mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges of goods and services. Where there is everyday anarchy between people. You don't need a ruler to buy a cup of coffee, that is handled in a purely voluntary or anarchic manner.

The only utopian here is one who has swallowed the state propaganda from the government youth indoctrination camps.

When you

arrogate to yourself "we" or try to speak for the majority, you behave as a typical collectivist.

Your eyes are blurred from youtube clips. Now look at reality. Yes, 2% voted for capitalism. BUT:

1) 75% of American eligible voters are affirmative-action recipients (women + gays + some ethnic men.) They do not understand why you are so sexist demanding equal pay for equal work. They prefer equal pay by default.

2) 11 million of future Mexican citizens and their 44 mil future Mexican wives and kids do not understand why you are so racist against welfare and like capitalists so much.

3) Government workers, too, wont agree with you. They would say, it is your problem that you stay in private sector and have no pension.

Wrong on so many counts

you behave as a typical collectivist.
I never spoke with the collectivist WE, I only spoke of thee and me and facts.

1) I'm from Missouri show me, Less than half the people eligible to vote in the last election actually voted. That shows people are not buying the states BS.

1a) So your grand plan is what? Reform the state? (har har har). The state is what enables the problem.

2) So the majority of immigrants come here for the freebies? Show me. I don't believe it.

3) Again what is your solution? Reform the state? (har har har). The state is what enables the problem.

The implied outcome is the status quo, You see no problem with the political philosophy of belief in the state.

I believe as Lysander Spooner said in "No Treason, Constitution of no Authority", that the constitution or the current state, either allowed the current awfulness, or it was designed to create it, and since I did not sign any contract for self destruction it has no authority over me.

My solution is not an optimistic one

Because it is not based on a "good Utopian man of the future" as anarchists and Marxists believe. The government is not a solution for economic problems but is needed to set universal rules the courts can decide upon. There is no recipe for a perfect contained small government, but our Constitution was a good start that could be improved step by step.

The problem is with people themselves. Ron Paul sadly did not study Ayn Rand enough and settled for Rothbard instead. Natural rights come not from god or nature, but from reason. Unless majority of the population (or majority of intellectuals) adapt RATIONAL MORALITY, no clever scheme for a free society will work as planned for a long time. I am sad to report to you that religious folks do not hold rational morality. It is a mixed bag.

WTH Rational Morality is not needed

In a society of self interested economic actors there is no need for any adoption of some mind set, only the following of your self interest.

>>>Natural rights come not from god or nature, but from reason. BS,
I own myself. That is where rights come from, property.

People that aggress against others soon find that it is their self interest to behave in a moral and ethical manner. This is called emergent behaviour. The other actors in the society reinforce those behaviours.

No good utopian man of the future (scorn) is needed. The problem is the belief that some people can behave better than the everyone else, and the deluded ones give them power to perform their evil.

Humans act to maximize their comfort. If they behave badly then other people acting in self defence will give them increasing levels of discomfort. The bad actors will either reform their behaviour or pass from this vale of tears.

PS I guess you believe in a prime axiom of marksmanship that a moving target is harder to hit. You keep changing the subject with no acknowledgement of my arguments.

I cannot debate every topic in this format

but I noticed that your arguments do rely on the need of rational mind. But I do not agree with your arguments. Let's take "Humans act to maximize their comfort." Your simplistic generalization without a real context reveal the weakness. Progressives DO act to maximize their comfort - USA let Chinese work for us. They do understand that many intellectuals would do comparatively (that is important, comparatively) worse without government jobs (say an idle astronomer.) They do understand that they do not live forever and their comfort today is more important than 15 years from now. Senior citizens agree too. Those who are receiving gov student loans agree too. Unemployed, too, would ask for help now even if inflation kicks later. MORALITY should not be overlooked.

Without the state all your examples fail

The chinese will realize that the paper tickets are worthless and will stop selling to people in America.

The other examples only work when the state makes you stay in their corrupt game.

If there are no state sponsored wealth transfers the bad behaviour will stop.

Humans have the ability to recognize that there is ethical and moral behaviour, which does indeed require rational thought. But it is not strictly necessary, it just goes better for the ones who can grok those concepts,

So we are back to the concept that the state facilitates bad behaviour.

Full circle

OMG. If only anarchists could show how anarchism actually works, I would discard the government in a split of a second. But I have demonstarted above & below that anarchism cannot provide a basic security and will result in mafia controlled despair. Funny.

The other point you miss. Assume anarchism works. If new generation adopts a new collectivist idea, nothing could stop the majority from creating a new government if they believe it will benefit them personally (say, they re-interpreted Jesus and spiritual stake is higher than material.)

What part of emergent behaviour did you not get?

What part of emergent behaviour did you not get? Your irrational belief perpetuates the current situation. Get over the Hobbsean paradigm, only government will enforce morals and ethics,.

You do not refute that self interest will create the conditions for a voluntary free market society.

BS You only asserted not demonstrated. Put down the gun and give up on the state. Belief in the state means you want to use force against me.

You assume that people will suddenly get brain farts and forget all the lessons learned. No majority suddenly appears to take over the world.

Also you assume that the others not in their socio-pathic scheme will roll over and play dead.

Assumptions and assertions is all you have.


at this point we should let others to decide who of us makes more sense. The truth is not in numbers, but who else can be the judge....


Just to restate
You give up, concede on the moral high ground, state force must be used.

To get security freedom must suffer.

Incremental change in the constitution will gradually make things better.

No means of countering the entrenched interest groups who will oppose all those incremental changes.

Assertions that there are no countervailing behaviours that will reinforce voluntary free market solutions to dispute resolution, defence and law.

from Greek anarkhia "lack of

from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government"

noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" an + arkhos "leader".

Democracy implies that the people rule.

Plutocracy says the wealthy rule.

Aristocracy tells itself that the best rule.

Autocracy means self rule.


Free includes debt-free!



The terms "Individualist" and

The terms "Individualist" and "Collectivist" are the only ones that we need, or that make any sense.

I always thought anarchy

I always thought anarchy meant 'without order' and monarchy means 'one order'. Actually I always felt I was a loyal monarchist during my time with Queen Elizabeth but I'm afraid once she is gone I have no entity or use for the continuance of a monarchy. I realize my thinking is not part of the American DNA.