Why I’m an anarchist
November 2nd, 2009
Why I’m an anarchist
by Tessa Rose
I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being belongs to himself, and belongs to others only by choice. I’m an anarchist because I believe that violence is allowable only in defense of life, liberty, or property. I’m an anarchist because I believe that the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed. My political philosophy is probably stated best by this section of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
But you might wonder why, being an anarchist, I would use the words “legitimate government” and refer to a piece of the Declaration that mentions “government.” Isn’t anarchism the opposite, or the absence of government?
Well, yes and no. Anarchism is the absence of government as we know it, or government by a ruling class that claims the exclusive right to use aggressive force to achieve its ends, and claims the right to control everything and everybody within its “jurisdiction.”
But the term “government” can also be used to describe a set of rules and methods of enforcement that regulate some types of social relationships and are agreed upon by everyone to whom they apply. A government instituted by mutual consent to protect everyone’s rights is not a government-as-we-know-it; it is, in fact, well organized anarchy.
- xntryk1's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Are there any Mutualists here?
I tend to lean in a mutualist direction which is a particular school within anarchist/libertarian thought. Mutualism like capitalism it did support private property and free markets but generally subscribed to a labor theory of value and believe labor was better then wealth from things like rents or interest. He supported the concept of nonprofit banks or credit unions providing very low interest loans to small businesses like sole proprietors and partnerships. In terms of large scale businesses he supported worker cooperatives where the business entity was owned by all the workers rather then the traditional capitalist corporation owned by shareholders with employees who do not own the business and have no say in the running of the business. I lean more in a mutualist direction and am writing a book on cooperatives of all kinds as an alternative to relying on the state or corporations. Where the people can provide their own housing, education, and income. (Through housing cooperatives, worker cooperatives, educational cooperatives, etc). I can still see some value in capitalism that is not state capitalism where the state is giving privilege to certain corporations over other businesses, what Ron Paul calls "corporatism". I can also see some benefit in small scale voluntary socialism like what the early church practiced, but never state socialism
Great post
.
Dunno...
I lump anarchy into the same place I put christianity in my life.... it is one of my favorite things that I do not practice.
I love both of them in principle... the concept is great!
It is just when you free the idea from the box and take it for a test-drive out in the wind and rain that it quickly loses its appeal.
I'm 45.. I had my great anarchy debates 30 years ago with people that knew what they were talking about, ones that had practiced it for centuries. Ones with a working knowledge of it.
I understand the concept, once again. Love the idea.
It just doesn't work, no matter how many times people (on forums, no less, instead of reality... where is the irony in that) defend the principles of complete freedom within an anarchial structure.
The problem with most modern anarchists is that, although they love the idea of complete personal freedom. they don't like the whole ~personal responsibility~ part.
Because if, intellectually, you worked through what a technological society needed to do to survive, on a planet where there were other societies and economic concerns, the best ideal out there is a thing called a ~Republic~.
Now I know, greater minds on the Daily Paul than our founders are going to shoot this idea all to hell too, just because they can.
After all, this is a forum... not reality.
Ty for the post, as always, Xntryk.
Some well thought-out comments here that I have to take a hat off to as well... :)
Who are you to make the statement,
"The problem with most modern anarchists is that, although they love the idea of complete personal freedom. they don't like the whole ~personal responsibility~ part."
Quit your summaries of everyone else's opinions. Wait and see as your little bubble bursts.
Just continuing to do my little bit...
...to help people start thinking outside of the repub...er, box. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.” ...credited to Al Haig, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State.
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Ron Paul = Red Pill
As I recently said in another thread
I have mixed emotions on anarchy.
I think there is the potential for much violence in an anarchical society, given the widely-diverse and conflicting ideologies and desires of the masses today. With that said, it seems our present government may be forcing us to that scenario in the near future anyway.
I'm no authority or know-all about anarchy, but it seems to me that the key to a successful, peaceful anarchy-based society without exponentiated (above what we already have) murders and crime would be common sense – something that seems to be rare these days. Common sense, or at least common respect of a few unwritten laws, would be necessary to prevent a survival-of-the-fittest scenario.
I'm not quick to oppose anarchy. I certainly don't think it would be as bad as the communist/socialist direction we're obviously headed toward with increasing velocity. I hate to say it, but if it came down to it I would rather live in a survival-of-the-fittest scenario than under full-blown communist/socialist rule. One very big positive I see with anarchy is that it would force people to be self-reliant – to get away from total dependence on a system that has us in a strangle hold. But I just think that there has to be a better, safer, more peaceful way than full-blown anarchy.
So how do you foster a peaceful, reasonably-bloodless anarchical society? And what about things like infrastructure and education? Who would pay for those things? Who would control the money? Would there be any kind of commerce? Who would keep it under control? What about when one anarchical group wants a certain freedom, which annoys another anarchical group that believes the first group shouldn't have the freedom? Who mediates that? Smith & Wesson?
At the risk of making some of you think I've gone off the deep end, I must say that I disagree that "all men are created equal." If you will listen to this explanation openly, you'll understand why: here and here, up until 2:18. Some of you may be getting annoyed that I keep referring to this same lecture, but if you watch the entire thing there is a great awakening to be revealed within it that explains so much of what seems to be otherwise senseless going on around us in our country today.
Please understand that I'm not being sarcastic in my questions to the advocates of anarchy. I seriously want to know how the anarchists envision things working. Some say that anarchy would result in the stereotypical bloody, self-exterminating view of it; some say that anarchy is misunderstood and could function efficiently and peacefully (although I've never really seen a convincing explanation of that); some say anarchy would work somewhere in between those ends of the spectrum. For the anarchy advocates: where do you see anarchy within that spectrum, why and how?
A suggestion for you, if you'd like
A lot of the questions you have are answered by a number of different authors in several works. One of my favorites is The Market for Liberty, by the Tannehills. It's available at this link http://freekeene.com/free... as an audio book or at this link http://mises.org/books/ma... as a pdf file.
Anarchy has worked in the past, and with enough work put into educating people it will work again.
Potential for violence? The
Potential for violence? The 20th century was the most violent period in human history. It was also the period of the rise of the State as the dominant institution. The State has no tools but violence and is an engine of violence.
Another writer asks how a society could punish a murderer if that murderer was free to reject the jurisdiction of any and all. This is a funny in light of the fact that National Sovereignty is such a big issue for conservatives and many libertarians. Surely then we need a supra-national government, like the U.N. to prevent an anarchy of States who answer to no jurisdiction but their own. How else to punish the misdeeds of a misbehaving State? There's the big contradiction in this group. The conservatives want sovereignty for States but not for individuals. I have to believe that people have been socialized to cultivate a blind spot in their reasoning where freedom is concerned and to cling to authoritarian models.
Potential violence
...that is much more than anything we have seen in the 20th century.
There are people today who take whatever they want from others by force on the streets. For every time this happens, there are many others who would be inclined to carry out such actions were it not for fear of going to jail under established, uniform laws. Right now, love it or hate it, the current government is the established mechanism charged with keeping such things from happening. Remove that and many of the inclined, but reserved to date, will come out of the woodwork.
I do agree with what you've said. I'm just trying to figure out the mechanics of how anarchy – lack of established government – would work.
If no one were coerced to pay taxes, how would infrastructure be built? I'm not saying taxes are a good thing by any means. Only a very small portion of them go towards infrastructure. The rest goes towards countless things of which I disapprove. But take all taxes away – where would roads and bridges come from? Volunteers? Where would they get the materials and natural resources? I could go find some land and dig up what was needed, but who's to say who owns that land? What if the land I set out to plunder for resources is yours? Sure, you can blow my head off, but what if I realize that and show up with 300 people of like mindset to take your land? How are you going to stop us? What backup do you have? Who's going to investigate what we've done to you and administer justice to me and my group?
What about education? That is extremely important. Where would our engineers come from? If we were to become an anarchical nation, a great many kids, who already hate school, would not go. This would breed generations of people who are very street smart, but know nothing of idealogical subversion. Other nations would descend upon us like a pack of wolves to take advantage of our naivety. It has happened every single time in history where an absence of formal government was established. What army is going to stop them? They'll be waging an intellectual war upon us without firing a shot, in such a way that we won't even notice that there's a war on us. Who's going to define and fund education? Who's going to set standards and ensure that kids actually get an education? What about further education? Who will fund facilities and define college curriculum?
What if I come take away your children and force them into slavery or prostitution? You may catch me and try to administer justice, but what if others in my group catch you before you can punish me and force you to go to work with your kids?
What about anarchical societies throughout history that have typically been in poverty during their brief existences?
There are many, many other questions (thousands) that will need to be answered. If they are not conceived and answered before anarchy is established, then the self-evolving process will be unquestionably bloody – and exponentially more so than any violence we see in the streets today.
If you look closely at what I said previously, I'm basically telling xntryk1 that I might be convinced that anarchy is not such a bad thing, if a few basic questions, which would inevitably present themselves, could be answered. If the answer is, “Don't worry about answers to those things. Let's just do it and let it work itself out,” then no thanks. As horrible as it is, I'd rather keep the shoddy semblance of government we already have. So I ask again, where do you see anarchy within the spectrum cited in my previous post, why and how? Describe the self-governing mechanics of an anarchical society that is peaceful, or at least with violence that is not escalated above what we already have. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm genuinely trying to understand the mechanics of a successful anarchical system where I can walk the streets and not have to constantly worry about who I'm going to have to shoot every day. No one has ever answered my questions about it. Every time I have asked in the past, I get a response that is a loosely-coupled spin-off of one or two points, but largely does not answer what I ask. Can you help?
A lot of people labor under
A lot of people labor under false impression that the State does something magical with regards to education, infrastructure and security. If the culture values these things they will be created spontaneously by the members of the society.
Education was better before government got involved.
Most people were safe and secure in peaceful environs without the omni-present police-state.
All kinds of infrastructure was built with private funds. Everything from skyscrapers to bridges to railroads to canals.
All these ever-present questions about "How will anything get done without government" are silly at best.
If you're talking about abolising government
I think it's only prudent to ask how things will get done without it. However, I was really more asking how they would be done differently without it.
I'll give an example from
I'll give an example from one of my favorite topics. The driver's license, and why the State should butt out.
Even in a limited government scenario, with "public ownership" of the roads, we could do well to be rid of the State's meddling in the issuance of driver's licenses. A State that placed even a tiny bit of value on liberty would leave the matter up to insurance companies. The insurance company is ultimately responsible to make sure its customers are competent and sufficiently cautious drivers, because they will have to pay out if they are wrong. On roads that are publicly owned, the state will want to continue to regulate for safety and punish the reckless. This can be done without "prior restraint" of government licensing. Good drivers would be anonymous to the government. If they become bad drivers they would forfeit their anonymity by the fact of having to interact with the police. The more roads shift to private ownership things the bette things will get.
It is important to remember that even though things may require thinking through. And though it may not be immediately clear exactly how to replace Statist institutions with voluntary arrangements it is everybody's right to dissolve the bands which have connected them to others and to establish new measures to effect their happiness and security. That is the first principal of freedom. The logistical questions are secondary.
Thank you!
That is the kind of answers I'm looking for. I don't quite understand where police fit into an anarchical society, but overall, this answer was very productive. Thank you for taking the time.
See, as I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to anarchical society, but there are many variables and bases that need to be covered in order to avert certain catastrophes. Productive answers like this might entice me more toward the way of an anarchical society. I just can't quite take the leap without knowing the mechanics.
We have gone from Anarchism,
To a Republic, then a Democracy, and now Socialism, with the Oligarchy at the healm.
It will take some doing to get all the way back to anachism. Even a Republic seems far off with the Obamabots steering the ship.
Are We Not BORN FREE !
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Does it matter if there's a contradiction in the 1st paragraph?
Do we still count this as a compelling and rational article, even if there's an obvious contradiction in the very first paragraph?
So let's find ourselves a hoodlum who is unquestionably guilty of breaking this non-violence principle. Then, after we have in our anarchy passed judgment upon him for his crime and pronounced a sentence, let's ask him whether he "consents" to be so governed.
If he says "no", then we have ourselves a tyrannical "government", do we not?
And thus fails the anarchist argument......again.
There is no way around having citizens be disappointed with government or non-government. Until you can make all men righteous, anarchism will disappoint at least as many as minarchism. There are a great number of people who believe they ought to have the right of violence for the mere cause of insult. They would be terribly disappointed with the anarchist's NAP, and would call him a tyrant.
And who could tell him he's wrong to do so? See, even anarchy wants to draw a line in the sand---just as minarchy does. Anarchists are not content to say, "Well, that fellah appears to be preparing to use his freedom to kill me and my family, but heck, at least we don't live in a minarchy!"
No, they want the assailant restrained every bit as much as does the minarchist. And they want him restrained by CONVENTION----by a standardized rule that is enforceable by the society. And that, my friends is what the rest of the world calls a "government".
I have yet to see an anarchist argument that is not stumbling all over itself with irrational and contradictory claims. At times I think I might like to study it some more, but then I think back on how many dozens of anarchist articles that I've read here (even though they are posted illegally), and I realize that these articles are being put forth as from the most gifted of anarchist authors. Yet they are all irrational.
I still fail to see the honor in devising fallacious arguments.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
I don't see the
I don't see the contradiction. Murderers lose the good will of men everywhere, unless of course they wear government uniforms when they commit their crimes. When you live as an anarchist you may well want to join a "government" for protection from predation. If you are part of a community of anarchists you may decide collectively to ban persons who are not governed by your compact from accessing or inhabiting your properties. If a person wants to have interaction with your society they would have to stipulate to your society's rules. Government basically takes the form of insurance for the protection of the property and security of it's members. It's not perfect, nothing earthly is. Better though than the orgy of murder that has attended the era of coercive collectivism and the State.
At it again, huh?
First, the writer's use of the word violence to describe the use if defensive force in inaccurate. It's not an application of violence for me to use force to defend myself.
Want to debate the rest of your bullshit post Jack? Or will you simply run away like you have so many times before?
Why "debate" when you can't refute it?
In this, the latest installment in your campaign to discredit me, you start by taking issue with the very writer that I criticize. Perhaps you have missed the irony in this.
Then you take issue with the definition of the word "violence", suggesting that acts of self defense are excluded by definition. This is false, showing that once again, you resort to novel definitions of terms. Merriam Webster's online dictionary says this about "violence":
And before you begin twisting, I'll take the preemptive move of pointing out that "or" in the first definition truly means "or" and not "and". In other words, violence occurs when physical force is meant to injure OR when it is meant to abuse. By definition, OR negates the necessity of BOTH, and is satisfied when EITHER occurs. Therefore, the infliction of bodily harm in self defense is also "violence".
Further, definition b above refers to instances of "violent" treatment. So when we look up the word "violent", we get this as the very first definition:
And again, we see that there is no element of either aggression or defense inherent in this definition. Thus, the use of physical force in self defense can rightfully be said to be "violent".
Do you concede on the definitions? Yes or No. (Or in your case, you might simply ignore this challenge and carry on as if it is of no matter to have put forth a fallacious argument, since this seems to be your philosophy.)
Now, as to your invitation to debate the remainder of my post, the way that normally works is that you would take the time to go through it and to detail how it is either factually or logically flawed. Having been down this road several times with you in the past, however, I note a consistent trend of irrational arguments and of a failure to be able to abide by conventional definitions. Further, you will tackle one point in this way, while ignoring nine more points that are equally threatening to your anarchist philosophy. In so doing, your defeat is obvious---except to you, it sems.
Where I would (and do) gladly debate with rational critics, I find that it is worthless to debate with irrational people, as if fact and logic could sway them---or as if they would put forth rational arguments to better inform me. Therefore, as before, I invite you to rebut my post as you see fit, and I give you the last word on the subject. So take your best shot at rebuttal, and use as many novel definitions as you like, without fear of being further corrected or criticized by me.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Wordy as always
You seem to use lots and lots of words in your repeated attempts to further your own misinterpretations of what's said. I wonder why that is.
What's the etymology of the word violence Jack? And I'm not sure what dictionary you like to use, but the first definition of the word at dictionary.reference.com is ... Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
What's violating? How about... to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise, instructions, etc.).
Violence requires an agressive action. Shall we play the definition game again Jack? What's aggression? While I really like the first definition, that being the action of a state in violating by force the rights of..., the ones that would seem to apply in terms of individuals would be either #2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights. OR... #3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
Notice what's missing there Jack? That'd be YOUR INTERPRETATION of what violence is. I get to use force to defend myself and it's not violence Jack. YOU USING FORCE TO AGGRESS AGAINST ME VIA GOVERNMENT IS.
The rest of your post is just more of you twisting words to make it seem as though the OP endorses violence, which if they embrace the non-aggression principal, they wouldn't.
It's not violent to defend yourself. It is violent to take what isn't yours by force.
And once again, you declare yourself victorious and run away after but one response. That's not a debate. That's cowardice and inability to defend your position logically.
Unlike you, I'd be happy to debate you point for point. But as you've proven in numerous other threads, you can't and won't do that.
I'll be here if you change your mind.
I'm an anarchist too....
Probable about half the people who call them selves libertarians are anarchist in one form or another. They just use "libertarian" not to scare people. When someone say's libertarian it does not bring to mind images of guy's in mask breaking things. Those anarchist, the bad anarchist, are usually anarcho-socialist(still don't know how that one works) or green anarchist never the individual or market anarchist(good ones).
"You can do what you want...., as long as it's what the majority want's. Were Democratic."-#2 from the Prisoner "I am not a number I am a free man!"-#6
Why worry about scaring
Why worry about scaring people? Lets just plaster the word all over the blog page!!!
Makes Perfect Sense
Makes perfect sense to me. Why would anyone be afraid of consensual government? Coercive collectivism, even the kind promoted by the Constitution, is a bankrupt paradigm. Consensual government is the way of the future. Spread the word!
Funny that you should say...
what you did concerning the Constitution, because I think you are stuck in a view that you do not realize. Aren't we all. But i think you are really pointing out a flaw in the Constitution that is more definitively located not in the document, but in it's use - implementation. See, you assume that since we have arrived at now because we started with the Constitution. But, that is akin to the rationality that you'll get to the grocery store when you leave your house simply because that is where you went the last time you left your house. We are not here because of the Constitution, we are here in SPITE of it. You blame the Constitution for this place we are in now while maybe you should be praising it for saving our butts for so long until we can get them in gear. See, the only reason this world knows anything about how far we've moved away from the Constitution is because it is there. In it's day, it was unique, why we see it as so banal and inhibitive, is because we are able to see how it's been twisted through time. I'll ask you, where else in the world in 1776 was Liberty growing such that if the Constitution had not developed at that time, we'd still be trying to fight to save our rights, and not just simply begin to define them? I think that the Constitution has been the oxygen line for many awaiting the time for another revolution in human Liberty, so I see it as a positive. Your ideas on Liberty - where do they come from? Too many of us cast our blows upon our fathers for keeping us in their protection until we can truly fend for ourselves. I agree, the founders would like to see the evolution of the Constitution, not it's desecration. They would want us to use our history and insight to progress; Lord knows they did. So what do you have for that? Liberty is always crushed out from its first sprouts, but that does not mean that it is ended. You want something new, I too want to see the other side, the sunny side, of the mountain of Liberty. But we have to get there, a step at a time, to a place we know exists, but we have yet to see. The founders pointed out the mountain in our way, for 200+ years we've been listening to those who would talk us out of summiting and traversint to the other side. I think the founders left it in the hands of their progeny to drive the car they built. So, it's not really the car, it's how it's driven. It's not the past, but their lessons applied to the future. It is the palimpset, not erased, but read and acted upon. The paper and words have created this time. Men have acted in it's interpretation. You know their interpretation was bad. Would you burn the book for that? Or would you translate it properly and take the lesson of the past and now describe the new future?
Assert Your Authority
I be tryin'!
:-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.” ...credited to Al Haig, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State.
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Ron Paul = Red Pill
why are you trying to scare
why are you trying to scare off potential members? Use some discretion. Have some class. Deny yourself.
Nice immediate use of the fear card.
Is fear all you have to offer? Think about what you're saying for just a moment... If people come here and advocate for liberty, advocate for a real change, advocate for self ownership and responsibility, that doing so will alienate people?
Is fear of that all you've got?
This is a unfounded
This is an unfounded accusation. Peace, brother.
Free yourself.
Anarchists are as bad as the
Anarchists are as bad as the truthers. They're both absolutely determined to hijack our agenda in their name, and screech about tolerance when we protest.
Thanks, anarchists, for isolating us from the mainstream. We would do better without you.
What isolates freedom
What isolates freedom seekers from the mainstream is that we value freedom greater than safety of the herd. Without radical individualists to pull them towards freedom conservatives give away the game every time. Remember that Ron Paul's mentor, Murray Rothbard, called himself an anarchist.
Rothbard was more of a peer
Rothbard was more of a peer than a mentor to Dr. Paul, in my opinion.
You may be right about that.
You may be right about that. Although it's hard to overlook the fact that Rothbard was a prodigious intellectual; a real original thinker. Rothbard is the father of the modern libertarian school of thought. Ron Paul is a virtuous man, head and shoulders above the ordinary, but he is only the vessel and instrument of others ideas.
You'd do better without me?
Great! Does that mean that if you had the government you wanted that you'd let me opt out of supporting or obeying that government of yours?
don't assume...
Maybe this article will attract potential members.
you must be totally ignorant
you must be totally ignorant of reality.
If you would like to make an argument...
...I suggest you use facts.
Free yourself.
I cant imagine what sort of
I cant imagine what sort of peer reviewed research exists regarding the repulsion of the average person to the idea of no government.
Exactly! I want voluntaryists to know that they're welcome here
...just like Ron Paul said! :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.” ...credited to Al Haig, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State.
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Ron Paul = Red Pill
here's the link
At 3 min 55 sec Ron Paul answers this question --
"What do you say to people who advocate self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"
I like this one too
Larry King :"Lyndon Johnson once said the probable answer is that a government is going to have to be half capitalistic and half socialistic. Your going to have to have some...Social security is socialism, you have to take care of those that don't have. Pure capitalism can't work. Would you agree with that?"
Ron Paul: "No, not really. It's sorta like I practice OBGYN, I never could tell my patient they had a touch of pregnancy, and uh, your either pregnant or your not. You either have government intervention, messing up the markets, or you don't. You either believe in freedom and believe in voluntary choices---I mean just look at this disaster with the swine flu vaccine... "
Free yourself.