3 votes

Any anarchists here?

Anyone here considers themselves an anarchist? Tell me why and how your society would look like..

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Any Archists here?

There are only two sides to this question.
Other synonyms for archist: statist, interloper, martinet, buttinski, noodge, mystic, confabulist.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued

You can't shit there! !

First rule of anarchy.

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.


Labels are for herds


In For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the two major political parties, the ideologies they embrace, and their central plans for using state power against people. Libertarianism is Rothbard's radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral and ought to be curbed and finally abolished.

To make his case, Rothbard deploys his entire system of thought: natural law, natural rights, Austrian economics, American history, the theory of the state, and more.

It is relentless, scientific, analytical, and morally energetic—a book that makes an overwhelming case. Indeed, it gave an entire movement its intellectual consciousness and earned Rothbard the titles "Mr. Libertarian" and "The State's Greatest Living Enemy."

Society without the nation-state? Rothbard shows that this is the way for peace, prosperity, security, and freedom for all. In the entire history of libertarian ideas, no book has more successfully combined ideological rigor, theoretical exposition, political rhetoric, historical illustration, and strategic acumen. Rothbard poured a lifetime of research and all his intellectual energy into this project and he succeeded in writing a classic.

The book is the result of the only contract Rothbard ever received from a mainstream commercial publisher. He was asked to sum up the whole of the libertarian creed. Looking at the original manuscript, which was nearly complete after its first draft, it seems that it was a nearly effortless joy for him to write. It is seamless, unrelenting, and full of life.

He cut no corners and pulled no punches. It appeared in 1973 and created a whole movement that set out to crush the political monopoly.

From the day the book went out of print, the phone calls and emails started coming into our offices, hopeful of a new edition. Thanks to benefactors who have made it possible, this new edition from the Mises Institute is hardbound, beautiful, and affordable.

In subject after subject, this book is informative, bracing, and challenging. It also features the characteristically clear writing style for which Rothbard is famous, which stemmed from his organized thinking and passionate drive to teach and change the world.

The book begins with American history to show that the revolution of 1776 was the most libertarian of any in history. The pastors, pamphleteers, and statesmen who led it held that the state has no rights that the people themselves do not possess. They demanded full liberty, not some truncated version that existed in the old world. In this discussion, the reader comes to appreciate the founders of the United States of America as never before.

Rothbard then sets out to rekindle that fire, first through a discussion of the philosophy and ethics of freedom. The central axiom: no man or group of men may aggress against the person and property of anyone else. He justifies the axiom on the basis of natural rights. It is an axiom that has few opponents, until Rothbard spells out its implications: taxation is theft, conscription is slavery, and war is mass murder, among many other points.

Bracing indeed! But the state is the primary violator of this simple axiom. It presumes the right to rob and kill while purporting to protect us from robbing and killing. Thus follows a full theory of the state, how it gains and maintains controls over the population (but not through a “social contract”!), the various failed methods for keeping it in check (not even constitutions work!), its operations and tendencies to work its evil (it never has enough power), and how intellectuals become co-opted by the forces of state power.

Here again, Rothbard draws his argument from American history. He shows how dangerous it was for the US Constitution to entrust the Supreme Court with the job of policing the government for infractions against the Constitution. What it ended up doing, of course, was ratifying egregious violations of the Constitution, with full knowledge that there was no higher court to which the people themselves could appeal.

Rothbard isn’t satisfied to make his case on this abstract level. He shows that the most pressing problems of society are wrapped up in government operations. Whether it is medical issues, the price of oil, the disaster of education, conflicts over religion, police corruption, or the scandal of war, the issues that are tearing us apart are invariably the result of government intervention into the sector. When markets are in full control—whether markets for computer technology and software, or for cell phones—we find not conflict but cooperation and progress.

And so Rothbard demonstrates the failure of government and the triumph of markets in a host of areas: personal liberties, education, welfare, inflation and the business cycle, monopoly and regulation, streets and roads, environmentalism and economic growth, and even police, courts, and law. Nor does he neglect the hugely important areas of trade, war, and foreign policy. He shows that states that are aggressive abroad do not maintain liberty at home. He also pioneers a theory of peace in absence of the state.

This book is generous with detail on the whole of American history, from the banking debates of the 19th century, through the welfare debate of the 1960s and the controversies over environmental regulation in the 1970s. He shows that the state creates social and economic problems and then further intervenes to make these problems worse then ever while increasing its power at the expense of everyone else. He is particularly good at highlighting who really benefits from government regulation: usually it is the largest corporations who are attempting to rig the game in their favor.

The anticipated effect of this book on both liberals and conservatives, the Left and the Right, is to force a rethinking of the typical categories. It asks that all sides face their hypocrisies: the Left favors freedom of speech but cares nothing for the private property that guarantees such freedom. The Right demands lower taxes but wages culture wars and real wars that grant government more power to take liberty and property from the American family.

As you can see, this is a radical and challenging book. We are given not only the big picture or a series of small studies but both at once, fully integrated into an analytical whole. Once you are exposed to the complete picture—and For a New Liberty has been the leading means of exposure for more than a quarter of a century—you cannot forget it. It becomes the indispensable lens through which to interpret events in the real world with the greatest possible clarity.

This book more than any other explains why Rothbard seems to grow in stature every year (his influence has vastly risen since his death), why the state continues to regard libertarian ideas as the gravest threat to its power, and why Rothbardianism has so many enemies on the left, right, and center.

Quite simply, the science of liberty that he brought into clear relief is as thrilling in the hope it creates for a free world as it is unforgiving of the error of power. Its logical and moral consistency, together with its empirical-explanatory muscle, represents a threat to any intellectual vision that sets out to use coercion and violence to refashion the world. And yet, to the same extent, it also impresses the reader with a hopeful vision of what might be.

Rothbard chose to pull no punches. Trimming and compromising for the sake of the times or the potential audience was just not his way. He knew that he had a once-in-a-generation chance to present libertarianism in all its glory, and he was not about to pass it up. And thus do we find in this masterpiece: not just a case for cutting government but for eliminating it altogether, not just an argument for assigning property rights but for deferring to the market even on questions of contract enforcement, and not just a case for cutting welfare but for banishing the entire welfare-warfare state.

Whereas other attempts to make a libertarian case, both before and after this book, might typically call for transitional or half measures, or be willing to concede as much as possible to statists, this is not what we get from Murray. Not for him such schemes as the privatization of government programs that should not exist at all. Instead, he presents and follows through with the full-blown and fully bracing vision of what liberty can be. This is why so many other similar attempts to write the "Libertarian Manifesto" have not stood the test of time, and yet this book remains in high demand.

Similarly, there have been many books on libertarianism that have appeared in the intervening years that have covered philosophy alone, politics alone, economics alone, or history alone. Those that have put all these subjects together have usually been collections by various authors. Rothbard alone had the mastery in all fields that permitted him to write an integrated manifesto—one that has never been displaced. And yet his approach is typically self-effacing: he constantly points to other writers and intellectuals of the past and his own times.

In addition, Rothbard never talks down to his readers, who will discover that every page exudes energy and passion, that the logic of his argument is impossibly compelling, and that the intellectual fire that inspired this work burns as bright now as it did all those years ago.

The last section is entitled “A Strategy for Liberty.” Here he explains why we can’t count on the political class, big business, big media, or big foundations to point the way toward a libertarian future. We must work through the young on campuses and through our own institutions that we build from the ground up. He shows that the moment is right, that pockets of liberty are all around us. It is up to us to lead in the educational effort and to fight for our ideals in every way.

He ends with a bold and inspiring call for us all to throw ourselves into the main battle of our time, which is the battle between the forces of despotism and the freedom of all. Rothbard’s enthusiasm and optimism is as sincere as it is infectious.

The book is still regarded as "dangerous" precisely because, once the exposure to Rothbardianism takes place, no other book on politics, economics, history, or sociology can be read the same way again. The news on television and in papers will never read the same way either.

Rothbard rediscovers the liberty that is our heritage and can again be our guiding principle in all aspects of public life. It set off a firestorm when it was published. What was once a commercial phenomenon has truly become a classic statement of the political foundations of civilization.

The book has been entirely reset from lesser previous editions, and is the first one to really do this classic justice. The footnotes appear on the bottom of each page, the index is authoritative and complete, the binding is outstanding, and the typeface is clean and strong. The full text, including the index, is 419 pages.


It looks like

the one anarchist,

the one anarchist, voluntarist, that we have here that everyone should listen to is this man, you might know him.


Society would look the same as it does now, with more abundance.

and there would be no government. That's what anarchy in this context is...the absence of government.

Do you know the difference between society and government?

Government is the militant entity that achieves dominance over a society. It grants itself the power to harm society with legal impunity.


Society is for outcasts.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Freedom and Free.

Freedom and Free.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Ummmm.... YES!

Ummmm.... YES!

Beware the cult of "government"...

Sonmi 541: "Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths."

Ron Paul Is An Anarchist (Voluntaryist)...

He knows the best that he can hope for in his (unfortunately limited)lifetime is a push towards Minarchism... A push for more freedom and less Government.

But it's obvious through his message and his associations that he knows even Minarchy is evil - it evolves into what we have today - and that (to paraphrase his own words) you can't accept a "touch" of aggression, just like there's no such thing as a "touch" of pregnancy, it's all or nothing.

Proof of his position...


Now, "anarchy" doesn't mean "chaos". It means without rulers, those who lead by force. It doesn't mean without "leaders", or "communities" or "rules". It's a non-violent system of voluntary association.

It may not be in our lifetime, although that'd be amazing, but I really believe that in the not too distant future, if we aren't destroyed by the force of the state, that those who supported the violence of the state, even the most libertarian minarchists, will be viewed with the same disdain, shock and disgust that we look back on slave owners and witch hunters today with.

It's a fundamentally bad

It's a fundamentally bad question because the market would decide what society would look like, not someone being asked to centrally plan it. All you can do is theorize, ala Rothbard, and offer possible solutions....but those would probably be a far cry from what organic market evolution would actually produce.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Good response, +1

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth, er, strokes from my keyboard, rather.

I don't consider myself an anarchist though, because I believe that people will always attempt to rule over each other in some way, shape, or form, and there will always be people who'd rather be ruled over than to live free.

A signature used to be here!

I think that there would be more governments

I think that there would be more governments in a society without "official rulers"...that is to say, competition of governments for the opportunity to not govern you, or if you so choose, to really govern you.

Allow me to explain.

This of course depends on our definition of government. After long thought, I feel comfortable conceding that the moment individuals organize (either voluntarily or through coercion) for any purpose, that is some form of "government." As people organize into societies and communities, large and small, inside those communities, there would be sub-societies and sub-communities.

If we were able to start free societies without any outside regulations or threats (this would require us to raise our own defense forces and be ready to use them), the organizational efforts of liberty folks would not be hindered by other groups seeking to impose their values, morals, and laws on our community.

There would be private cities, corporate cities, dictator cities, hippie cities, religious cities, free cities, etc. Cities would clearly find advantages to cooperate for commerce and defense.

Instead of one monstrosity of a federal government, there would be thousands of smaller governments each competing to serve you in various different ways and through various different means.

In short, governments or co-ops of people, by people, for people would flourish as people experienced true freedom to help each other.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


And then because of the need for natural resources

encroachments and other issues their would be skirmishes and wars. Alliances would be made and compromise would be encouraged. The number of governments would drop and control would become more centralized. The objections of the few would be outweighed by the needs of the whole. We would soon be back in the same place we are now.

I am an anarchist when it comes to men ruling over other men but the fact is that it will always happen. The only enlightenment that will free us from the continuing cycle of mans rule is that only God can rule righteously. When mankind as a whole realizes this, then perhaps the harvest will be ripe for the picking.

Clearly in some instances, history suggests there would be...

Clearly in some instances, history suggests there would be resource wars and a natural tendency towards consolidation of power, but that does not mean it is inevitable.

One thing history didn't have (at least with respect to the generally accepted version of ancient history! :/ ) that the present and the future do, is advanced technology. I like to think things will be profoundly different this go round.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


and the ideas of greater thinkers...

could at last be manifested...innovations in free energy, cheap & natural cures for cancer, etc. Presently these people get killed or jailed if they get too close to their ideas spreading to the masses.


The State Is Too Dangerous to Tolerate | Robert Higgs

Liberty Vigilante

Leon Czolgosz, the man who

Leon Czolgosz, the man who assassinated William McKinley was an anarchist.

John Wilkes Booth, the man who assassinated Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat from the South with anarchist tendencies.

Lee Harvey Oswald...

The end goal of communism according to Marx is anarchy.

A stateless society. In order to achieve that goal one first has to assassinate a president or two, or three, or more.

No thanks.

Anarchy is just a convenient excuse for those who are too lazy and too preoccupied with trivial matters to take on any responsibility at all.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

None of those people were

None of those people were real anarchists, read a book and stop making stupid statements because you can't think outside your own little box.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I think...

...it might be a bit intellectually/spiritually lazy to assume these objections to the state are always, or usually laziness rather than deep rational/moral convictions, and to try to dismiss such convictions through guilt by association. You can find nutcases of all philosophical and political persuasions. Do check out Michael Huemer's book :).

hey Micah!...

Hope all is well with you & your family (its been awhile since I've been on DP).
Have a question for you?
How do you reconcile being in the Kingdom of God with Anarchism? (I ask b/c in other posts you have shared that you have been exploring this philosophy).
For me, I find the term christian anarchist to be the biggest
oxymoron around....

Anarchy by nature means without rule...without government...SELF RULE...
The Kingdom of Heaven is the rule/government of THE KING...the word Kingdom literally means King's dominion.
As believers in Christ our hearts become the THRONE upon which Christ Jesus rules from. Self is dethroned and Christ Jesus now reigns as King and Lord over every area of our lives...we are literally goverened by the LAW of the Spirit of life in Christ.

I truly am curious to hear your reply...& please know that I'm not asking to be strifeful or contentious ...just really curious?

His blessings to you Micah :)

Jesus is the saviour of the WHOLE WORLD, "As in Adam all die, so too in Christ ALL shall be made alive." (ICor.15:22) All means all. The pagan 'hell' of literal fire & eternal torment is a lie and is SPIRITUAL TERRORISM. http://www.hopebeyondhell.net

Hey heart4wisdom :)

We're doing (relatively) well, thanks -- hope you and yours are well, too!

Let's see...

For starters, I'd say there's a difference between 'horizontal' anarchism and 'vertical' anarchism, in the sense that one can advocate for no rulers who are other creatures, human or otherwise, lording it over their fellow creatures, while still acknowledging the lordship of the Creator over all creation.

Here you will get the usual challenges, saying we're supposed to submit to earthly authorities as placed there by God to rule, but I see such admonitions as simply pragmatic instructions that Paul gave to early Christians in order to pick their battles, living at peace with all, insofar as possible, given the particular priorities those churches were facing to get established. Even we as libertarians advocate peaceably working within the system to effect change, when possible. But Paul, himself, did not always obey political authorities; and he was beaten and flogged and imprisoned because he saw God's laws as higher than the human laws. I wouldn't interpret these admonitions as not making efforts to maximize Liberty where possible.

But moving onto the vertical aspect, stop and consider what kind of King we are talking about. The will and heart of the Father is revealed in the Son, Who cast aside His crown, stepped down to mingle with lowest of the low, humbled Himself as the Servant of all, washing the very feet of His disciples, even the feet of the one who would betray Him, calling people to have the heart of a child in order to enter the Kingdom, a heart of Love -- for as the heart of the child is, so the heart of the Son is; and as the heart of the Son is, so the heart of the Father is. And so we see that the picture of God as some Jupiter monarch on a throne casting thunderbolts is a caricature, an image perhaps suited for those who could not yet appreciate Love but only began to be awakened through an ignorant fear of rumblings on Mt Sinai.

As Christ said, all the Law, all the Prophets are summed up by the Greatest Commandments: Love God; love neighbor as yourself. This is the highest Natural Law of the Kingdom. God is Love, the very ground of our being, calling each of us to grow to participate fully in Love. But this is voluntary, or it could not be true Love from true persons. So God is a libertarian Who allows us to withdraw from the central reality of Love and to discover through our decisions what the effects of non-Love are in our lives.

With this withdrawal from reality, though, we will find that while we are free to spin a web of lies in our mind, attempting to define our own reality, we will be isolating ourselves further and further from the true reality, and from true relationships with anyone or anything else. We in our quest for liberty apart from Love will find that we are actually isolating and imprisoning ourselves.

When we reach a breaking point and cry out in hatred of the lies we have become and begin to return to Love, to the Father, by dethroning self and becoming the servant, through the Son, the Servant King, the Way of Love, we will find that as we draw nearer to Truth and Love that we will see our Liberty actually increases -- as we become more His, we become more our own!

But this withdrawal or return to Love and true Liberty is all voluntary -- and, as I know we are both confident, all will voluntarily be reconciled through Love, to Love, in the end. :)

Thank you for all that you shared :)

Thank you for all that you shared :)

I found it very interesting in your explanation of there being a difference between 'horizontal' anarchism & 'vertical' anarchism.

So, really 'horizontal' anarchism is nothing more than (I'm now going to use the language of the Spirit)...of being crucified to the WORLD and its SYSTEMS.
On the natural plane the "systems of this world" include the political, economic, religious, medical, educational systems ....all of which we as believers in Christ are to be dead to, no longer are we governed by these systems...we are now living in the Kingdom and our King governs, directs, and rules our life...our life
now is His and being JOINED to Him we are ONE.

I love etymology, the origin and history of words...and
I found it really interesting that
the word "government" is a combination of two words
"GOVERN" & "MENT". 'Govern' is from the Latin root
"gubanare"--to rule, direct, guide, govern....the suffix
(end word "MENT") derives from "mentalis"...meaning
"of the mind" where we get our English word
"mentality" from & also from the Latin 'mens' & from
the Proto-Indo-European word "men', meaning "to

The suffix always derives its meaning from the base
word...so literally the word GOVERNMENT means to
be directed, ruled, governed in the mind....or to use the
vernacular of today...."mind control".

This is why our Lord tells us that we are to "REPENT"
....most Christians have not really understood this
word "repent"....most interpret this word to mean
"stop sinning, change the bad behaviour"...and yet
the truth is that the word "Repent" is from the Greek
"metanoia"...and means "to take a new MIND, to
change THE MIND".

We repent by literally changing our mind (our old adamic
mind) and we now take a new mind...the mind of Christ and it is His mind that now governs, rules, directs our lives during our earthly soujourn. The mind of Christ is what directs all our thoughts and actions so that we truly have the desire to love the Lord our God with all our heart AND love our neighbor as yourself.

The mind of Christ is where true liberty resides...for where the Spirit of the Lord is (now within us) there is liberty!

The new mind that we take is the mind of Christ...and this
is the mystery of GRACE...because even the
desire to take a new mind...the mind of Christ...is an in working of His glorious grace given....for truly a man
can receive nothing unless it is given to him from above.

Even the ability to love is an in working of
grace...because in my flesh I have no ability to love supernaturally (yes, my soul can demonstrate love, but it
is a soulish love...love that flows forth from the Spirit...Agape...is a totally different kind of love than the love that emanates from the soul...Agape love is self
sacricing love..ultimate love...for it is God himself...for God
is love..and all those born of love are His offspring).

So, for me or anyone to have Agape is truly a work of
regeneration...and this is a work that HE DOES....for me to
even *voluntarily* yield is only because He gave me the grace to yield.
Truly, I too say with Paul..."By His grace I am what I am".

Yes, my brother....with my whole heart I agree with you
that every person, all of creation, throughout all
generations will be given the glorious GRACE of our Lord Christ Jesus worked into them...to such a degree that they
too will have the desire to voluntarily yield to LOVE HIMSELF...for God will truly be ALL IN ALL!

All His love to you, Micah!

Jesus is the saviour of the WHOLE WORLD, "As in Adam all die, so too in Christ ALL shall be made alive." (ICor.15:22) All means all. The pagan 'hell' of literal fire & eternal torment is a lie and is SPIRITUAL TERRORISM. http://www.hopebeyondhell.net


If I use Ron Paul's logic of
government = force, therefore it should be really small...
My question is what is wrong with really, really small, like ZERO?

In his book "Liberty Defined" he explains why it is no good to make compromises with a (moral, ethical) principle. Once we break 1% off a principle 100% of the principle is destroyed.

If we shall not engage in violence and government is a form of violence, how could we want even 1% government? We would break our principle of nonviolence 100%.

And do you know what happens after 1% (theft)taxation?

In Reality there is never anarchy or government. They are both illusions! Why? Because giving rights to someone (gov) that one does not have is not possible.
Anarchy is also impossible as the world comes with crooks or mad men that want to exploit you and control you in a direct form or in a deceptive under cover form (gov) and they will use violence to get you to comply.

Bettering the world is not possible via social systems of government or anarchy but via individuals becoming so faith filled that they will reject all forms of violence or accepting and serving! any "authority" except God. The core issue is human fear versus human love and faith. Our society is a mirror image of the human mental/faith condition.

Gerald Mangold

Highly recommend...

... checking out The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey by Michael Huemer.

I'm part way through, but he's doing an excellent job of starting with common sense principles and logically dismantling the arguments for political legitimacy.

A bit spendy, even in the Kindle edition; but you can also hear an interview of him with Tom Woods for a taste of what he's saying:



I'm still on the fence between minarchism and some type of anarchism; but this guy might help pull me off the fence...

Larken Rose made a little film about that.

The good part is at 14:50, just a bit over one minute long. Experience the true horror, chaos and mayhem of a stateless society.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Woah, why is this getting

Woah, why is this getting down voted? I just asked a question because I was curious and wanted to know more.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I imagine people thought your motivation was to get some...

responses so that you could start flaming.