Anarchophobia: The fear of liberty’s logical conclusion
June 12th, 2009
Anarchophobia: The fear of liberty’s logical conclusion
by Thomas Hill
“I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe-’That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which we will have.” ~ Henry David Thoreau
I believe that wise sage from Walden’s Pond hit the nail right on the head. I wholeheartedly agree “that government is best which governs not at all.” I pray that he is right about men being prepared for it. With the current economic meltdown and the ill-fated government reaction to it, we finally may be able to bury the obsolete relic known as the State. My only fear is the number of innocent people who may be buried with it.
How can mankind become prepared for the day when the welfare checks stop coming, or no one responds to 911 emergency calls?
My advice is to believe in freedom, instead of fearing it.
Every human has a yearning to be free, deep down inside of them, whether they recognize it or not. It is embedded in our DNA. Take a look at an average young child and behold their sense of adventure and wonder. Of course, it is the job of our government schools to dull that spirit of freedom. You can’t produce docile servants of the State if students dare to think for themselves.
Government schools, like some churches, use authoritarian scare tactics based on fear and superstition. This conditioning causes people to doubt themselves and their beliefs. Freedom and fear are polar opposites. They are masters that must be served separately. They cannot exist in the same space. To truly govern yourself, you must overcome the fear.
That also includes the fear of allowing others to live their lives as they see fit, so far as their actions do not violate the rights of others. Politicians (unlike Ron Paul), and their enabling supporters always give in to this fear of letting others be free.
Continue at: http://www.libertyforall....
- xntryk1's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Jefferson Had No Part In Writing The Constitution
He was in France when it was written and adopted. He didn't like it because he thought it provided central government with too much power. Patrick Henry was dead set against it. They proved correct. The N.Y. Tories knew what they were doing--led by the traitor, Alexander Hamilton. The Jeffersonians were doomed to fail and did so after the two Virginians--Madison and Monroe finished their presidencies.
Disestablishment of the Central Government is necessary for freedom to prevail.
Sheldon Waxman
sheldonw72@gmail.com
www.independentcontractor...
Feudalphobia: The fear of
Feudalphobia: The fear of anarchy's logical conclusion.
Expecting to turn this nation into anarchy is about as patriotic as trying to turn this nation into communism. Its a representative republic.
But if you can figure out a way to make anarchy work on a world wide basis for an extended period of time, I'm all for it.
I am sure our government
will fall and I am sure that it will likely be replaced with a world government. We will enjoy anarchy for a short period until the big guns come to town. Just my two cents.
Central government is neccessary
The Founding Fathers knew it. Ron Paul has never said there should be no central government.
Just as the human body is made up of many autonomous cells there is still a Central Nervous System to coordinate. And that is where the real power of the human comes from.
LESS central government should be the goal... not NO central government. A balance between absolute freedom and absolute tyranny...weighted towards freedom.
Man isnt ready for NO government and never will be unless the very nature of humanity changes.
i agree that
the only way anarchy would work is if EVERY single person respected the rights of life, liberty, and property...
Ayn Rand convinced me that government is necessary to have a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force - but there has NEVER been a just government in the history of the world...
it seems the only entity violating my rights everyday is the government - those motherf***ers!!!!
Speak for yourself...
Some "men" are EXTREMELY ready for no central government. Others still need to grow up a little...
______________________________________
“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...
Really? Tell me .. do you
Really? Tell me .. do you think its ok to speed when there are no cops around? What about when no cops are around and no one gets hurt?
Fewer accidents without traffic lights
"Two months into the experiment, "Instead of thinking, 'It's going to be red, I need to give gas, people have to slow down, to look to the right and the left, to be considerate" says Ms. Rubcic.
The bonus? Town people recognize they have become a bit closer to one another. "The whole village has become more human. We look at each other, we greet each other," she says."
http://www.csmonitor.com/...
"In short, if motorists are made more wary about how they drive, they behave more carefully, he said."
http://www.telegraph.co.u...
Challenge yourself and extrapolate from there...
This is what Anachist don't understand: Anarchy=lack of order
Most of what Anarchists preach is limited order balanced by natural order. This is completely opposite to the concept of Anarchy.
Anarchy is true randomness.
Thus anarchists are seen as conceptually bankrupt by most and only useful as cover for anti-establishment organizations.
============================
Glen Beck -- An Exposed Enemy:
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Glenn Beck Supports NAFTA and taking your job:
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
That's fine if you want to define the term like that
If that's what "anarchy" is for the purposes of this discussion, then it's not what we logically-consistent libertarians are advocating. We advocate (a) order + (b) statelessness.
(For my own purposes as define the term anarchy as without a ruler(s)).
Abolishment of the Fed
Imagine with me for a second:
The abolishment of the Federal Reserve - what would that mean for society? It is true that there are people who are afraid of freedom. I actually think that if I want the police I should pay for it; right out of my checking account, which comes from a free bank.
Yet, there are people who think if you abolish the Fed the world will go into chaos. In some ways, they are right. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. Our entry into the civil war was as much about slavery as democracy is to the war on terror: there is always an economic component to warfare, and remember the golden rule: who has the gold, makes the rules. Considering that the reserve currency is buoyed by the "system," the Federal Reserve System, or the international order, the NWO will not be pleased. The largest holders of debt are China, a socialist state, and Japan, a country known for a strident state-run economy. Alas, we've actually turned Japanese. Nothing against the Japanese. Consider that we cut ourselves off from the Fed, and have some degree of economic freedom. Who will be upset? THE STATE. That's who! Someone once said here on DP, that if we ended up eating mudcakes like the Haitians, we would still have the world's strongest military.
A war upon America is possible. If war is part information, couldn't it be that it has already begun? In my local paper, there is a front page article about stimulus spending in 1931. 1931!
However, the best steps anarchists can approach is going local. From there reach power on the state level, that way we could effect things on the national level. This is a philosophical debate, and philosophy like freedom is a threat to the state, thus, this battle will take a very long time.
#$#We need to build political strength and political will&*&*
Abolishing the Fed......
Is going to happen, and it would mean the blood of tyrants dripping the streets......
The first step is to see just what their books are doing and lying about everywhere, destroy their army.....
By abolishing the Federal Reserve, the New World Globalist Order would be knocked sideways with a professional scissor kick to the head....
The NWO would no longer be able to fund itself, Cheney & his accomplices, off to prison with the whole rotten lot.....
There would be a tidalwave of convictions & hangings.....Abolishing the Federal Reserve would CRIPPLE the New World Order....
....Ultimately causing it to topple and die in a cancerous fire. But it would take a long time, as even the initial abolishment of the Fed, would still have the NWO fighting everyone to death....
I agree with Anarchism and
I agree with Anarchism and it's core values. However, the first step towards self-governing individuals is limiting the size of government we have now. Before we start preaching about the merits of Anarchy to the populace we should shrink the size of government to the point where such discussion becomes relevant. Anarchy is a concept whose time has not come yet and which the masses are not wholly ready for. Shrinking the government would be the first logical step in the right direction.
Free Luna!
Nice article.
Anarchy does not mean the absence of government, to the contrary, it means 6-7 billion self governing individuals.
Anarchy doesn't mean no rulers, it means that you can measure with any ruler you chose, whether by inches or by centimeters. 13 inches equals 33 centimeters.
Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. Chaos comes from central governments that eventually implode.
grant
I agree that self government is what our Constitution is leading
towards, however, before that takes place realistically, all 7 billion would have to achieve enlightenment or Universal Consciousness. In other words, it wouldn't be possible to ever do harm to another in any way.
We have lost our way with these ancient teachings that have for centuries been trying every which way to reach us. There are always a few at the prow showing the way. I believe Dr.Paul is one of them. And from all I have read of some of the founders, they were most certainly at the prow!
Yes, anarchy can also mean self-government
I agree with what Michael Rozeff once said:
"There can be no Liberty without self-governance." - Michael Rozeff
I think about 92% of People are Petrifief of Freedom...
I do not agree with:
The Sufi's said 92% of people are addicted to their beliefs, nay not addicted, enslaved.. and addicted to their enslavement, for without their addiction to the certaintiy of their beliefs, they would be petrified in a state of 'freedom'... ABSOLUTELY PETRIFIED....
Take a look at the results of Stanley Milgrams studies, and the Zombardo Experiment.. and take a look at the world and see how many are sincerely intersted in true freedom, to be spontaneious and real and sincere.. very, very very few... the majority are cncerned about saying the 'right' thing, the 'poltically correct' thing, or whatever they think they need to say, to make sure they are 'liked' or 'approved of' or 'respected' or 'feared' or that 'they got the job', or 'the award' etc....
That is NOT FREEDOM... that is enslavement to PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT... ;-)
An excellent book on how PETRIFIED PEOPLE ARE OF REAL FREEDOM... is ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM, by Erich Frommm
And finally here is my recent effort on behalf of freedom... real sincere freedom ;-)
FYI:
Parallel Goals: Economic Relocalisation & Political Secession:
Act4: ♥ Economic Relocalization of Local Communities for Self Sufficiency ♥
Act4: ♥ Worldwide Peaceful Secessionary Movements Peaceful Political Secession!!! ♥
Sign the HARTSSTARH Legal and Political Petition to the Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee
__________________________________________________________
Secession Networking: Cape Republic of Good Hope
A citizen/subject of the
A citizen/subject of the United States is forced into institutional slavery for at least 11 years of his/her young life. We know this form of psychological conditioning as "Public Education". After such a traumatizing experience it's no wonder that people will swallow the rest of the statist program hook, line and sinker. Everyone should be shocked that this can happen in "The Land of the Free.
Knowing this I heartily subscribe to the idea , "That government is best which governs not at all..."
Who owns you?
still haven't heard a good argument proving how...
one private militia won't ally with another, defeat all the rest, and turn anarchy into a dictatorship. I've read some essays by rothbard etc. but although it seems they have lots of creative ideas on how to go about arbitration and private security, they do not address the danger of one private armed firm taking over all others; then you have a standing army in the hands of few.
Plus, the anarchists themselves say openly that an anarchic society is vulnerable from outside attacks from non-anarchic ones, so unless there was a New World Unorder of anarchist, seems anarchic societies would be evolutionarily doomed/unstable.
It would be exactly like it was in Bioshock the game.....
A few would fight for supremacy, but the end result would be the archaic system is finally eliminated.
Thus no more Federal Government like you term Federal Government......there would be no Federal Reserve, so there'd be a different bank, and it would be a very different society.
It's possible, but is it likely?
I say not likely at all. Why? Because the incentive structure in place in a free-society goes against it--competition. If an agency (or agencies) tried to become tyrannical there's competition to check that. That's a much stronger "check and balance" that exists in the current statist system.
the only way to stop force...
is to kill greed. The argument is not about force in any government, central or individual, it's about greed, both individually and group. Even arguments admitting the impractical nature of ideal situations, must include for the existence of greed. Common (as including everyone) understanding is the antithesis of greed, and that sets the tension for the greatest battle of society throughout time.
Assert Your Authority
Good Post kwas
The situation reminds me of the clan system of the border country of Britain. In an anarchic situation family becomes vital for protection. We'd go back to the way our ancestors lived. Small families would associate themselves with larger families. Not all members of the Johnson Clan had the surname Johnson (Hmm, reminds me of the Mafia).
From time to time the clans stole each others cattle, but the violence was generally low-level. Certainly it was less that wars between states.
Still is that a better way of life today? I'm not sure the gang life of today is the way to go.
There's nothing about the
There's nothing about the problem you present that isn't equally true of governments as well. On the other hand the benefits of freedom greatly outweigh the risks. In free societies people love their freedom and value peace. Once they have tasted freedom people would take great pains to keep the peace and prosperity that they enjoy.
Bring on the demise of the State! Just ending the public schools will work wonders.
Exactly
Kwas is bringing up a problem that exists in the current statist-society, and might also exist in a free-society. However, it's a much bigger problem in the statist-society because the "checks and balances" in it are a joke.
Obama, A False Prophet???
Speaking at a Republican party fundraising dinner in Washington, D.C., actor Jon Voight called President Barack Obama a "false prophet”. Jon Voight has gone ahead and jumped right into the deep end of the pool of insanity. At a recent GOP fundraiser, at which Jon Voight was a keynote speaker, he went on a tirade wherein he denounced President Obama as a false prophet, and that he was ruining this country amongst other things. The fundraiser, which is held annually, has seen a drop in revenue over the last few years, even though the other speaker was Newt Gingrich – perhaps the Republicans need a fast loan. Sarah Palin had been rumored to make an appearance, but she declined, and it sounds like it was the right idea, with fewer giving an online loan and Jon Voight babbling on ad absurdum.
Jon Voigt is a moron...
He's not a libertarian. He's a conservative unfortunately. We could use some celeb's on our side...
Ron Paul supports anarchy
Quote from the above article:
Ron Paul was asked in this video at 3:55:
"What do you say to people who advocate self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"
Ron Paul responds: "Fine, I think that's really what my goal is."
Then he continues to talk about libertarians who want to opt out of government and he makes it clear that he supports it.
I love any RP piece, but you are a little off.
I wrote this: http://www.dailypaul.com/...
and this: http://www.dailypaul.com/...
He is a "transitionary minarchist" and so am I.
I do not see how we can go from where we are into a 100% Anarcho-Capitalism (or other type of anarchy).
Who would control the sale of the Naval Arsenal? Would te wealthy buy it up.
Who could afford to hire the mercenaries from elite military branches?
Army and Air Force arsenal?
There needs to be a transition.
Octobox
What's LL off about?
I'm not sure I follow your post Octo. It seems to me that LL is just saying that RP supports logically-consistent libertarianism. Nothing more nothing less...
Atrick: Ron Paul rather a Rothbardian Society
Libertarian-Anarchist (or Anarcho-Capitalist) society over that of a corporatist society.
However, I'm talking about the volume of his work -- what he talked about all last year (as a transition from corporatism toward minarchism -- not libertarian-anarchism).
That being said -- if someone were to say RP is a strict constitutionalist and is against anarchy I would point out just how close his version of Minarchism is to Anarchism.
I guess my point is when it comes to RP we need to really understand his positions so we can represent his ideas to those we come in contact with.
Peace
Octobox
My goal as in personal goal
Why quote about Libertarianism as if that's anarchy? It's not.
The principles of liberty
lead to the conclusion that no State should exist.
Many/most libertarians give short shrift
to things that others consider important like, God, nationality, culture. This they have in common with the neo-cons or even Marxist thought. The materialistic POV leads to boring ideological people. While Libertarians are correct about many things, all of existence is not about the free market
At least Ron Paul is a Christian.
Nope , nonstarter, voluntaryists would never advocate force
A voluntaryist would never make you do anything.
Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson : If it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket I don't care what you do.
You can form your own community based on your ideals and have at it, just don't claim some exclusive use of territory or the power to use violence when you do.
A free market is what you do everyday in your voluntary interactions with other people.
I hope you are not advocating force to make me conform to your ideology of what are correct beliefs?
What is wrong with the non-aggression principle? That is all we advocate, there is no system that comes with the voluntaryist philosophy.
You form your own subset of society by voluntary associations.
Consider This.
A woman is laying in the street. A libertarian approaches and there's a conversation.
Woman: Please help, give me some water, some food.
Libertarian: Don't you have a job.
Woman: No I was fired.
Libertarian: That's not my fault
Woman: Please help me!
Libertarian: The free market has spoken. Don't you believe in the free market?
Woman: Please!
Libertarian: I'm late now for my appointment. I'm sorry my appointment is more important than helping you. I believe in non-agression. I've done nothing to hurt you.
The Libertarian walks away. What has he done wrong? From the libertarian POV he's done nothing wrong. From the Christian POV he's completely wrong. There's a difference in world view. I can't accept the whole libertarian bag.
A free market has nothing to say about giving a helping hand
You seem to equate my pledging not to hurt the woman with some kind of callous disregard of her circumstances, B does not follow from A, your argument lacks any logical basis.
As long as I have a choice about helping the woman then that is fine, are you advocating using individuals that make up government to force me to give money to some unidentified woman or man then I have a real problem with you advocating violence against me.
The non aggression principle is philosophy about the need for government and a statement that I will behave in a moral manner to my neighbors. That I will not ask other people to murder steal or deceive in my name. It is not the totality of moral behavior just one part that deals partly with the state or government.
Neocons are people who believe it is all right to use force to advance their control of the world, at the expense of people in other countries using murder and destruction of property. They believe in hurting other people.
A marxist also believes in enforcing their system with violence , so they also believe in hurting other people.
Those are the two points that I wanted to make in my original reply, you seem to have missed my point so I am clarifying it.
Someone who believes in the nonaggression principle would be against using violence, so equating libertarians or anarchists or voluntaryists that adhere to that principle with the immoral behavior of the two aforementioned groups is untrue.
You're right when you say,
"a free market has nothing to say about giving a helping hand".
That's my point. First, not every libertarian would have walked away, but nothing he did is inconsistent with the principles of libertarianism. The man is not callous by his own lites. If he claimed to be a Christian he would.
Libertarianism is insufficient, we need more than a non-agression rule, contracts, and the free market. Can humans live without a moral code? If it's not religion, it's going to be something, PC, Marxism, something. If religion doesn't provide it, the government will.
The pure libertarian has no God, no nationality, no culture. He downgrades all three. He has no sense of belonging to others based on any of the three. He is a pretty cold creature.
Most of the world doesn't think this way. Libertarianism not tempered by a sense or morality, a sense of belonging can't be accepted.
No I don't want to use force against you, but I have trouble with a philosophy where people have no sense of responsibility to each other except by some previously agreed upon contract.
PS I'm comparing libertarianism with neo-conservatism and Marxism only in the sense that all three downgrade God, nationality, and culture.
Not accurate
The error in this reasoning is "libertarianism ignores a moral code," when in fact it does have one, and it is based in a simple tenet that has taken many forms, most famously the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede--simply do unto others as you would have them do unto you, with the "others" in this case being the state. It's simply extending it to the state with the caveat that we expect the state to leave us TF alone.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with a belief in God, nationality, or culture, because all three of those are outside of the purview of what libertarianism actually deals with, which is the STATE. Libertarians certainly believe in God, nationality, or culture, but the difference is that they see the state as a hindrance to those three, not an enhancement or an enabler. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a religious or cultural or geographic point of view. That's why your reasoning falls apart--it's comparing apples to oranges.
Responsibility to others begins with responsibility to yourself. If that responsibility to yourself includes satisfying your own conscience by taking compassion on others, then that's fine, but invade none of my property or person to do it.
I'm afraid your understanding about libertarianism is vastly inaccurate here.
Well said.
Well said.
grant
What is wrong with it is it ignors nature
It's a bubble. It's a bubble created by those who don't have to kill a chicken to eat. But thouse who are living such a soft life they are far removed from the animal instict to kill or be killed. To use force or be forced. Nature has a way of being unpredictable and violent.
This is why I am an Objectivist. I am not going to change society. I can only change myself, so my responsibilty is to myself, and on this planet, there are many governments, to which I adapt, like a fish traveling government is just a phathom, a pressure, that I being in a democratically leaning republic, chhose to engage and hold the pressure of my government back so I have more room to swim in my little pond.
Maybe its a bad analogy, but my point is, the fact you write reems to CHANGE society to suit you, is also a form of violence, not so much like a tazer, maybe more like the smell of apple pie or BBQue
may the sacrifice be your own, eh?
what a depressing view of life
Completely hobbesian, fight for survival by tooth and claw, is what you seem to imply in your first paragraph.
I never said I want to change you or anyone, just don't make me buy your bill of goods. I will resist you in every manner possible without using violence, until you start the ball rolling.
Exactly by example and persuasion showing completely voluntary interactions are superior in outcome to using violence to make me accept your world view.
Persuasion and example is not violence. hey if the pie smells good maybe you will enter into a voluntary free market mutual exchange of value with me?
No one is forcing you to buy the pie, just don't force that school lunch down my throat, ;-)