Do We Have The Courage to Think Outside the Box?Submitted by hawkiye on Mon, 05/04/2009 - 01:29
Or are we too emotionally attached to dogmatic beliefs about what government should be?
It's time to explore new avenues. I am sick and tired of coercive government and others believing they have the right to govern me and others without our consent. I am not enamored with the Constitution as others are. Here is a great primer on an alternative to government and it's not what you might think... Let the creative Ideas the DP is famous for flow!
Voluntary cooperation, mutual association!
by Hari Heath
When the word "anarchy" is mentioned, most of us envision mayhem in the streets; societal collapse; roving bands of bikers marauding the citizenry and no government to protect us. We have been conditioned to perceive anarchy this way. Such a scenario is among the definitions of anarchy: "Absence of government; state of society where there is no law or supreme power; lawlessness or political disorder."
Those who hold the reins of political power prefer that we think this way. If we think that the absence of government will result in lawless mayhem, they stay empowered. So the corporate, government, media collective frequently reinforces the programming—life without them would be terrifying.
But like most things in the inverted reality we live in, it’s not exactly true. In fact, we could be doing much better without most of government. There is another side to "anarchy," a positive anarchy which we can explore, but first: Is the present state of "government" a quasi-anarchy?
A contradiction in conduct
The founding of our nation was based on principles that have ceased to be operational. The unalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator are no longer the concern of government. Neither is establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty. This is evidenced by ample examples of governmental conduct, at home and abroad.
Contrasting the contents of government’s operational rule book, the Constitution, with the vast expanse of what pretends to be government, we see mostly lawlessness and political disorder. The present "government" is certainly not without its laws and a political system to create even more laws, but having exceeded their lawful authority, they are, in reality, lawless—a quasi-anarchy.
The hordes of agencies which currently surround us produce swarms of officers, which are sent hither to harass our people and eat out our substance. In many cases, roving bands of marauding bikers would be more welcome. They are at least honest about their intentions. The bikers will eventually move on, but government bureaucrats plan to make looting the public a career—with a retirement plan.
Ultimately, government is a force, emanating from the barrel of a gun. There are less oppressive options commonly used before the guns come out, but when government deems it necessary, the guns will come out. The primary policy of today’s government is to exert coercion and obtain compliance. Consent of the governed?
Consent of the governed
Consent of the governed is alive and well. The problem is how we are governed and what they do to obtain our consent. Most often, we are deemed to have consented when we fail to object to how they govern. When we fill out the form, accept the benefit or otherwise subscribe to their mandates, we have "consented" to be governed.
Like a problem child, government refuses to listen and is constantly seeking the next level of misdeeds that it can get away with. And like a negligent parent, we allow our child to get away with murder—literally.
When will it stop? Does government plan to have less agencies, "laws" or authority? Government is ever-growing and history says it will continue to do so until its oppression foments a revolution and we return to a state of complete anarchy.
The first impression in your mind at the mention of "anarchy" is likely to be images of mayhem and violence. There is a positive side to anarchy that our cursory minds probably haven’t considered. Imagine a society, living peacefully, in a voluntary, cooperative association, where each individual is free to pursue his dreams, impeded only by their respectful responsibility towards each other’s pursuits and dreams. Does that fit the programming that your mind associates with "anarchy?"
Those who fear anarchy the most—government and its corporate comrades—and have the most to lose—their livelihoods and all the power they can usurp—have programmed the fear of anarchy in the public’s mind. What are the definitions of the other side of anarchy that governments fear?
"At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law."
"A political theory, which would dispense with all laws, founding all authority on the individual conscience."
"A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society."
"The theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary association of cooperative groups."
"Political theory that all forms of government and governmental restraint are morally wrong and must be abolished if absolute individual and social liberty is to be achieved."
"A doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty."
Is this the anarchy that we have all come to know and fear? Is there anything wrong with the absence of coercive government, voluntary association of cooperative groups and absolute individual and social liberty? A bit utopian perhaps, but the principles deserve more consideration and, wherever possible, implementation. This is what our "government" fears.
Our nation’s founders envisioned and intended to form a limited government; a near anarchy with minimal coercive powers and a maximum of individual and social liberty. But we have not kept it. Our problem-child government is now getting away with murder and countless other felonies—with all the immunity and impunity that our spoiled brat has come to expect and demand.
Leaving aside any discussion of how we might properly discipline our problem child and send him back to his room (the Constitution) until he agrees to reform his conduct and abide by the rules of the house (our nation), we have important questions for which we must find answers:
Is American humanity ready for a voluntary society with absolute individual and social liberty? Is our primary fault yielding our personal responsibility and power to government? Would most people be responsible if there were no government to be irresponsible for them? Do Americans have the intellectual gravity, moral foundations and intestinal fortitude to make it on their own—in the absence of coercive government?
There are two anarchies. The question of which one will prevail depends on what kind of people we are and what we will endeavor to become. On the one hand, is the belief correct that human nature at its base level is rapine, murderous and looting? Or, are most people basically decent, and left to their own resources, will they build a better world for themselves, their neighbors and their posterity?
We need not define anarchy—it will define us, by whether we continue with a lawless, coercive government or create a voluntary society of individual and social liberty.