18 votes

The Attitude of an Anarchist

For all of you who still naively care at all about any government, or government 'official', consider at least adopting the attitude of an Anarchist. Tom Finnigan's essay meticulously breaks down and juxtaposes a Statist (conservative) mindset to that of an Anarchist.



The Attitude of an Anarchist

by Tom Finnigan

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Stefan Molyneux

If you haven't learned some things from Stefan, you have some homework to do. Nobody teaches philosophy the way he does!

Mostly accurate

One thing I'd like to clarify because it was mentioned twice is this notion that "anarchists grieve for civilians killed."

Many believe there is an apathy or deserving attitude anarchists have toward the death of government agents. And while there is a position that says when you play with fire you shouldn't be surprised if you get burnt, this isn't to say the value of human life is weighted differently based on the clothes worn at the time of death. A human's life is human life, period. The anarchist attitude is not one brimming with vengeful hatred.

Thus a more accurate statement would be that statists grieve for government agents killed, while anarchists grieve for ALL people killed.

One other statement I take exception to is... "Conservatives value order; anarchists value freedom" as if they are mutually exclusive. Order IS valued and can be achieved without the need to be dictated by a centralized authority, based on some notion of a hierarchy.

Perhaps the most true statement of this article is that "anarchists respect natural law."

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.


I have to agree - there are any flaws.

It's like it's been written by the left or a conservative without an objective opinion who seems somewhat uninformed about the actual nature of an anarchist mindset.

Almost as if to discredit, divide and instill fear.

Thoughts without action vs. Action driving thoughts

Anarchists are a bunch of "thinkers" but many lack the doing. I can't blame them, they follow the government approach of "clearly think before doing" rather than the freedom approach of "do in order to think more clearly".

From my experience, Anarchists do a lot of reviling and intellectual jousting; but they are still as enslaved as a Conservative by the actions of government...because of their own inaction.

The difference between a Conservative and an Anarchist is essentially ZERO if you look at how the government treats both.

What we need is a steady stream of non-compliance...and it starts with me.

Anarchist want everyone else to change thinking, but changing thinking for an Anarchist still keeps them enslaved.

What we need are people who are willing to act in order to think clearly...

Anarchist and Conservatives suffer from the same government intrusion and use of force...when Anarchists are ready to act then there is a legitimate difference.

Yours in Health and Freedom


Funny and Concise.

I stopped reading.

The end of my reading of this dictatorial rant by this so called Anarchist was the point at which the word democracy was thrown into the mix of duplicitous terms.

There is no way to reach the goal of accurate communication when so many terms have at least two possible meanings, and the two meanings are opposite meanings.

If each term could be firmly placed into either category 1 or category 2, and if each term could be absolutely understood beyond a reasonable doubt that each term has no place in the opposite category, then accurate communication can occur, not before.

1. Voluntary Association

2. Involuntary Association


Voluntary Association is anarchistic, democratic, conservative, socialistic, liberal, capitalistic, competitive, adaptive, better, not worse, less costly, not more costly, favored, chosen, admired, desired, sought after, peaceful, defensive, effective, productive, and voluntary in every sense of the word, without falsehood being a voluntary factor, without threat of violence being a voluntary factor, and without aggressive violence being a voluntary factor.

Those who wish to divide, deride, deceive, argue, confuse, befuddle, overpower, enslave, rob, rape, torture, murder, and mass murder, for exclusive fun and profit, may seek to alter the accurate meanings of the intended terms as the intended terms have specific meaning instead of the intended meanings having more than one meaning.

Anarchy, for example, can be a term that is claimed to be a synonym for crime being the rule, not the exception.

If the speaker intends to use Anarchy as a term that means nothing more and nothing less than NO FALSE LEADERS exist in Anarchy, then that is the ONLY meaning meant by the speaker; despite any, and despite all ARGUMENTS to the contrary.

If the speaker intends to use Democracy as a term that means nothing more and nothing less than rule by a moral power that is greater than the power of immorality, even when the number of moral people is lesser than the number of immoral people, then the speaker may mean to use that word in that way while there may be a very large number of immoral people dictating to the speaker that the term used by the speaker cannot be used in the way that the speaker intends to use the word.

If the speaker intends to use Conservative to mean nothing more and nothing less than the conservation of moral, voluntary, associations, and there are those who claim otherwise, then similarly there may be conflict associated with the use of that word in that way.

If the speaker intends to use Socialism to mean a scientific study of society that discovers such things as the adaptive, competitive, inventive, power of human beings is most productive when human beings are voluntarily associated, and other people intend to use the same term to cover up the crimes they perpetrate under that false flag, then that happens that way.

If the speaker intends to use Liberal as a means by which the speaker intends to convey a human being who seeks to liberate those who are forced into involuntary associations from those involuntary associations, then someone intending to maintain involuntary associations may have an interest in covering up their actions with the same term; thereby employing a false flag of another color underneath the false color.

If the speaker intends to use the term capitalist to convey an accurate meaning of how someone prices what they offer for sale according to the amount the buyer is willing to pay for the item being sold, then someone else using the same term to mean someone using the power they steal to steal more power from targeted victims may find their crimes well hidden, for a time, behind that false version of the same term.

The problems associated with poor word choices is not new.



Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.

A Free Market Government, Voluntary Association, government based upon consent, worked between 1776 and 1788 under The Articles of Confederation, as it was designed to work as a voluntary government just like the modern day anarchists claim they want; but are their claims false?


from us that cared (to read you fully)...

... thank you for sharing your thought process.

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees


There are welcome mats here, among many land mines.



would you have it any other way?

your comment brought a smile to my face. thanks.

Smiles are nice

I am going to throw something out there, to see if smiles are inspired.

Whenever I find someone willing to listen to "anarchist" perspectives I take out my old fashioned cell phone with the flip top, and the small antenna that sticks out the top.

I have a routine that goes like this:

"What would you do if you found out that there was a State next to your State (Arizona while I am in California) and in that State now, right now, there are these new Self Defense Weapons Legal for anyone to have and use. Got it?"


"When you use it there is a recording of the event being made and uploaded to the internet for viewing by other interested people."


"This is not in your State."


"This is in the State next to your State."


I keep waiting for a response.

"OK, go ahead."

"You feel threatened, the recording starts, you aim the device, you shoot, and the person that makes you feel threatened is immobile for 1 hour, no other harm is done to the person who makes you feel threatened."


I can see the wheels turning at that time, but before they speak I add:
"Do you allow it in your State?"


TwelveOhOne's picture

No other harm...

Apart from being eaten by a passing predator, having their possessions stolen, kidneys harvested, etc.

But you were right -- it did bring a :).

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Well worn path.


"Could you answer the question directly?"


TwelveOhOne's picture

No thanks

That is very similar to the age-old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, which you can only answer yes or no in court.

Sorry, you fail.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Well, I guess I'm not one.

I used to think I was a purist anarchist, i.e., go by the pure meaning, "No Ruler."

But I believe in the Constitution and have pledged my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to supporting, upholding, and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to the best of my ability as a Citizen of the United States of America.

I guess I'm a minarchist. I believe that the Federal Government should consist of exactly 435 representatives, 100 senators, one president, one vice-president, and nine supreme court justices.


And they should all be volunteer jobs! They meet once a year, for about a week, and say, "Are there any decisions that the WHOLE BLOODY COUNTRY has to make this year? No? I move to adjourn."

But failing that, don't forget Nullification!

Freedom is my Worship Word!

TwelveOhOne's picture

I can agree with much of what you say

However, 435 is far too few, as the population has grown. There was a post here within the last week regarding how it should be in the thousands these days, and that would support liberty as well because it is easier to corrupt a single person with money than it is to corrupt thousands.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)


good read. this is going to be a fun post.

The Most Dangerous Superstition

If anyone wants to further explore these ideas, I highly recommend the book The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose.


short and sweet

I like it

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

A great line ...

... "Eastern Europeans did not erupt against communism because they had recently learned about Mises’ economic calculation argument. They did it because they were tired of living in a police state and weren’t going to take it anymore."

Anarchy is

where it's at!

Good read, thanks for posting!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown