Skip to comments.A Society on the Brink of Anarchy
Posted on 02/02/2014 8:26:55 AM PST by B4Ranch
Most people would be terrified at the thought that their world might soon transform into a state of complete "anarchy." However, in one sense that is precisely what humanity needs.
To many, the term "anarchy" implies violent chaos and bloody mayhem, and a complete breakdown of organized society-- a situation no decent person wants. What the word literally means, however, is "rule by no one," a society without any ruling class. And while people are right to believe that authoritarian "law and order" is the opposite of "anarchy," they are wrong to put their faith in the former, or to fear the latter. In fact, those events which best epitomize the negative meaning of "anarchy"--chaos, death and destruction--have always been the direct result of government. Yet many people still fear freedom more than they fear government.
More and more people are now coming to realize that what society really needs is not a new flavor of authoritarian domination, but a complete absence of political power (which should not be confused with a lack of cooperation or organization). Whether "left" or "right," government is never about getting along or cooperating; it is about one group of people forcibly extorting and controlling everyone else. This is why government, by its very nature, is fundamentally incompatible with peaceful coexistence, is never moral or legitimate, and never leads to peace or justice.
To improve the world, people need to let go of the statist mythology they were taught, and embrace instead some very basic principles: VOLUNTARYISM is the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, free from fraud, coercion or violence; THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE states that it is wrong to initiate violence against another, and that physical force is justified only when used to defend against aggression; SELF-OWNERSHIP means that every individual owns himself, and therefore owns the results of his time and effort.
These ideas are so simple and obvious that the average person, when he hears them described, imagines that he already agrees with them. However, most people--at least at first--fail to realize that such concepts completely rule out the possibility of government of any kind. Only a STATELESS SOCIETY is at all logically or morally compatible with non-aggression, self- ownership, and voluntaryism, because government, by its very nature, is always coercive and violent, and--to one degree or another, in one way or another--always infringes upon the self- ownership of the individual. (Those who say they want a "government" which only protects individual rights fail to realize that any purely defensive organization would not be "government," since it would have no power to tax or legislate, would have no monopoly, and would have no special power or authority.)
People are so accustomed to hearing "master plans" from politicians that they often have a hard time imagining actual freedom--a society that doesn't try to create a one-size-fits-all agenda for everyone, where instead, people can organize and cooperate in a million different ways. In other words, ANARCHY. To achieve such a society does not require any election, revolution, or political movement. It simply requires the people understanding and embracing the ideas of self-ownership and non-aggression, and letting go of the insane idea that civilization requires each individual to abandon his own free will and conscience in favor of blind obedience to a centralized ruling authority. When that lie dies, perpetual war and oppression will die with it.
As more and more people awaken to this truth, the power of the beast known as "government" diminishes, and the power of humanity grows. In a very real sense, the world really is on the brink of "anarchy": a society of free, equal, peaceful human beings. The age of statism and authoritarianism--and all the pain, injustice, suffering and death it has brought with it--is nearing its end. The age of peaceful coexistence, and a truly free and voluntary society, is about to begin. Whether you will be one of those helping to make this change happen, or one of those resisting it, is up to you.
There are probably only a handful of people on the entire planet that are that dedicated, so no, it won't work.
“rule by no one,”
Means no rules. . .you make your own rules.
I want what you have, I’ll take it.
No rules or someone to say it is wrong.
If rules say ‘no’ then some one had to write the rules, and if someone says ‘no’ (like the person being robbed) then that person makes the rules.
Anarchy = nonsense.
Just the idea of freedom is frightening to some, I see. You’ll do fine under the New World Order policy when you must disrobe in silence before getting on an airplane.
The New England town meeting of old was a very effective model for governing. Towns could band together to protect themselves from a common goal. Town meetings were the source of decision-making for the good of its inhabitants.
There just can't be any real freedom in the global and national messes that are running things now. They're removed from those they supposedly govern, and their only interest is contolling populations for their gains....financial and otherwise.
No rules to stop you from stealing?
No rules to stop you from murder?
No rules to stop you from destroying property or lives?
Seriously. . .and you call that ‘freedom?”?
Have a nice day in your anarchy utopia.
And I will do what it takes to get it back.
I don't know. There does seem to be some form of justice involved.
Will contemplate further.
Some jackholes can't discern between a Constitutionalist and a statist and so they're reduced to labeling Constitutionalists as NWO lackeys. Good luck with that.
When your freedom to steal is met by the property owners freedom to shoot you, how ofter do you think you’ll steal? How many bullet wounds can you survive?
Yes, the point being the person being robbed and trying to get it back is making a rule, acting as a ‘ruler,’ saying “no, you can’t do that.”
Anarchy is absence of rules and/or the ability to enforce rules.
Last time I will visit this thread or read posts to it, as I think it is a little late (or early) to count as a Friday Silliness thread.
Bring in the Florida retirement home crowds and see if you are still excited.
Anarchy is possible, but only for a brief time before the dictatorship.
Pray for a Sulla, be content with a Pinochet. Fear a Cromwell.
No, I don’t reject it. Do you think we are living under it now?
In any truly anarchic situation, people quickly rally around natural leaders, who re-establish government, of a sort at least. In its initial stages, such government often bears a significant resemblance to rule by street gangs.
The term “anarchy,” in its origins, actually meant “without a leader,” not without government. History shows not one single period of which I’m aware of anything resembling a stable anarchic order. (Anarchic order, of course, being a classic oxymoron.)
The choice is not between rule by leaders and absence of leaders, it’s between how leaders are chosen.
These wild swings in societal organization reflect an immoral an immoderate society. The calls for anarchy always accompany the response to the rise of totalitarianism. Time and time again, anarchists transform themselves into totalitarians after they have destroyed the previous tyranny. True anarchy is just another form of Utopianism; it is impracticable and it inevitably descends into tyranny.
A truly civil and just society requires virtuous populace to take root. We had that at the founding of this nation. We once had a people that believed in and feared their Creator; the people believed in a moral order substantially and essentially based on the Ten Commandments. Today, the virtuous populace is but a relic, a minority rump of its past.
That being said, this current tyranny is IMO, capable of enormous evil, and I would ally myself with the anarchist, at least for the time being, to defeat it.
And then they started using dynamite.
Typically, people believe that the state is "a necessary evil" for one or more of the following reasons:
And finally, there's this:
"When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating." -- Frederic Bastiat
“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a Great Leap Forward that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.
In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” Robert Higgs
“Towns could band together to protect themselves from a common goal.”
I don’t have a clue as to why they would want to protect themselves from a common goal.
“Pray for a Sulla, be content with a Pinochet. Fear a Cromwell.”
Sulla retired from his dictatorship, but he set the precedent for Caesar and Octavius to rule the empire. Some emperors that followed were good, others were not.
As our nation descends into a hard tyranny, our best chance may be for a benevolent dictator that allows for free enterprise among those that seek to be productive, and protects our individual and constitionally understood, natural rights. We need some sort of respite and stability it seems, because right now, with Lucifer in the WH, we are heading for the abyss.
Well, did you ever get on an airplane when ALL the passengers, including yourself, were the sort who look great without clothing or, when you think about it, would you say that most look better fully clothed?
Anarchists did not do any of these things for the fairly obvious reason that there is no example of a human society existing in a state of anarchy more than momentarily.
Order, generally imposed by a strong natural leader, emerges spontaneously from anarchy.
So the quoted argument is a mere variant of the “Communism will work great, it’s just never been done right” meme.
Except that Communisn has been tried, for as long as 70 years at a time. Anarchy has never been tried, because it is simply impossible given human nature.
“I want what you have,I’ll take it.”
Bt first you have to deal with me,and I can be very difficult.
Anarchy is really a theoretical concept, it is Utopianism and not achievable on earth. We all know that statism is horrible, and history reveals that it inevitably leads to death and destruction. But to state that anarchy just needs to be tried is like saying that all we need is love.
sorry...I should’ve written “for a common goal” or “from a common enemy”
She’s right. A society for grown ups.
Lot a folks out here want to be either Peter Pan or Capt. Hook though...
It's called the "Pecking Order"
One of our natural rights is to live under laws to which we give our consent either personally or via reps.
A dictator is one who holds power through force. By definition, a dictator cannot secure our natural rights.
I don’t see Josie as promoting wild anarchy where people are flipping out. I see her desires more in line with mine where society respect people. The ones who want to break the norms will swing from trees much faster when it is local victims setting the swing limits.
All this political correctness can take a hike as far as I’m concerned. Let me worship quietly and I won’t interfere with you wanting to pray five times a day. Just don’t ask me to provide you with a place to wash your feet. Your religion can take care of that.
Come through my neighborhood breaking into vehicles and you’ll probably crawl out with a dislocated shoulder and a busted jaw. No, I won’t care if it is your first time or if you are an aspiring rapper with six kids and four wives. The punishment will be the same.
I do not see the Dept. of Homeland Security or the TSA as enforcing our Declaration of Independence or our Bill of Rights. I don’t believe our cops need to carry automatic weapons or shoot dogs because the are afraid of them. If a cop beats a man to death then there should be justice not a blue line around him.
I’ve given you an idea of how I think and I posted this thread to get people thinking about freedom, individual freedom. The life we are living now is not anywhere close to what it could be.
Has there ever been a ‘state of anarchy’ where the entire population was armed? I don’t think so.
I don’t think that Christians have to worry about their behavior during anarchy. They may have to worry about other people’s behavior, but not their own. If they seek to emulate Christ, then they don’t need laws to know that murdering and stealing and cheating are wrong.
“Love The Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul and treat others as you would like to be treated.”
Brilliant. Succinct and all-encompassing. Brilliant. Way too brilliant for a mere man. Our people have this brilliance in front of them every day and run searching for long, foolish answers.
I'm curious why you chose this sequence of preference. I'd reverse them.
After gaining power by waging war on the duly elected leaders of the Roman State, Sulla massacred thousands of his political opponents to enrich himself and his cronies, without even the slightest pretense of a trial or due process. Pinochet did somewhat the same, with, IMO, somewhat better justification.
Cromwell did nothing of the sort, though he was pretty hard on those who fought him.
|Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000||Receipts & Pledges to-date: $30,879|
|Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!!|
Okay, got it. I would only say the purpose of all governments is to secure our unalienable rights. Our first right is to protect our lives and property.
For the DC denizens, their first duty is to secure our national borders.
In anywhere USA, the first duty of local and state authorities is to protect the law abiding from the criminal element.
These first duties of government have been forgotten or ignored, as say in Detroit, or abused as in at every airport, where the TSA’s purpose isn’t to provide security, but to turn a once free people into willing sheep.
It is easy to have this debate if you have never lived under a stateless/lawless society.
If you have lived under a lawless/stateless society, you might remember that when reasonable laws that protect property ( and the speedy and somewhat reliable )enforcement of said laws is lacking, this is a non-trivial task that must blue assumed solely by the property owner or surrogate.
You couldn’t leave the fields you tilled to go anywhere, lest your property be stolen or destroyed in your absence. Sure, then you begin to band people back together in increasingly larger and more complex groups which need rules to live by .
I don’t buy the basic premise of the article. Doesn’t mean I am afraid of liberty or I am a statist. I simply think anarchists and their mile wide and nanometer thick analysis is simplistic.
“Anarchy = nonsense.”
So true but a little anarchy goes a long way. Americans are anarchists by nature and its not necessarily bad. If they don’t like a law they ignore it. Do you always obey the posted speed limit? Do you always wear your seatbelt? Do you ever throw litter out onto the roadway from your car? Smoked a little weed on Friday night? Ever moved a road closed sign and gone on anyway?
Connecticut gun owners are largely ignoring the gun registration law.
A little anarchy is not a bad thing because Americans don’t blindly follow orders from headquarters.
Go to Europe. You never see a cop out on the highway because Europeans are very conformist by nature and its the honor system. They all obey the law because its the law. They don’t question like we do.
Ignoring human nature is what liberals do.
Anarchists embrace human nature and all that comes with it as freedom.
Conservatives take human nature into account (as the founding fathers did) and attempt to construct a working framework that protects those who are unwilling or incapable of functioning in an anarchical setting, but do not wish to live under tyranny.
In my world if someone is able and doesn’t work, they would starve. If a banker loans money foolishly then he’ll go bankrupt not get a free loan from government. If a man or woman wants to engage in deviate sexual acts they had better not get caught with minors in attendance. You would only slap your wife once before she shot you dead with support from all her neighbors. And so on.
I don’t advocate for a dictatorship or monarchy as an ideal solution. But now, by God, we have perhaps the worst of all worlds as government. We have the facade of a constitutional republic and the core of an evil, lawless and strengthening tyranny. This is Rome under Nero, SPQR existed but meant nothing. The potential for evil from our regime is, with all its surveillance and technology, limitless, and if something is not done soon, it will be too late.
A sovereign can at least act as a protector of individual rights. That was what the Magna Carta was all about; King John was forced to respect the rights of his subjects. Right now, we don’t even have that.
In your world someone who is not able would also starve, unless someone else voluntarily supports them.
For the best ever depiction of your world, I suggest Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.
And even Heinlein recognized that such a world could at best exist only extremely unusual circumstances and then only temporarily.
His anarchic society only existed because the Lunar Authority squashed any efforts by the loonies to set up a government.
Dictators are not synonymous with monarchs.
Lacking a noble order, we’ll never have a monarch.
We have a tyrant and America is a police state.
“Go to Europe. You never see a cop out on the highway because Europeans are very conformist by nature and its the honor system. They all obey the law because its the law. They dont question like we do.”
Uh, what do you think the tax compliance rate is in Italy or Greece? Ever notice all the graffiti on the buildings even in nicer areas? Sure, Germans are probably more conformist than Sicilians, but that doesn’t mean that they will slavishly obey any law.
You can only have a society like this if everybody, every single person, is living their life to be as much like Jesus as is humanly possible.
What should be obvious is what you said, insofar as the more one is controlled from within by Godliness then they need to be controlled from without. (But America engages in "God-control:" children are implicitly taught the state needs no help from a Creator, nor owes Him gratitude and obedience.)
However, when it comes to correct punctuation, i am somewhat an anarchist.