Anarchic Order

I believe it was Chesterton who remarked that Christianity had not failed; it had not been tried. And Ayn Rand described capitalism as the unknown ideal. I would like to suggest, in a similar vein, that anarchy has been tried, is being tried and is a universal success, but remains an unknown ideal. I’ll explain.

Anarchy, I must point out, is not synonymous, at least in my mind, with bomb-throwing lunatics, or rioting in the streets. It is as placid as a pond, as peaceful as a park. There is nothing chaotic about it. It is certainly not the absence of government, but only of government imposed by strangers. The anarchist governs himself, based upon principles found to be enduring and valuable: the Ten Commandments, for example. Anarchy has been the basis of society, long prior to the existence of government.

Does your family have bylaws? Are there regular elections, or meetings for the sake of writing new laws to cope with new problems? Do family members regularly charge one another with violations of the law, and demand justice, as meted out by strangers? Not in my family.

Family members may disagree, of course, but these disagreements are worked out and eventually settled without recourse to written statutes or judges. No lawyers are necessary. God’s law, we have been taught, is written on our hearts. We don’t need to quibble about the precise meaning of words in laws because we all know, instinctively, what is right and fair, and what isn’t. It is only when we leave the family that we encounter the world of legalisms.

As a physician, I am on the staff of several hospitals. All have staff bylaws. These are bulky multi-page documents, intended to deal with any and every circumstance surrounding a physician’s staff privileges. Before being accepted on the staff, you must sign the bylaws and agree to abide by them. Indeed, one hospital even affixes to its signature-line the jurat that the signer will be bound not only by these bylaws, but by any additions that may be made in the future.

Astonishingly, this absurdity seems to provoke little reaction from the doctors. Perhaps that is because they realize that the bylaws don’t mean anything anyway, but exist mainly to provide the hospital with justification for acting against a particular physician if his actions might be considered dangerous to the hospital. Strangers from hospital-accreditation, who, ultimately, control the purse strings, require them.

The laws of your local community, not to mention state and federal governments, are sufficiently numerous and complex that you cannot possibly know them, although ignorance of the law – an excellent excuse for any alleged lawbreaker—is considered no excuse by the lawmakers, who may profit from infractions. You manage your day to day activities quite nicely without reference to these countless regulations. Indeed, were you to consider them prior to acting, you would be reduced to inactivity; they would overwhelm you.

In fact, the innumerable laws which are said to apply to all of us are out of our thoughts. That undeniable fact is, in itself, an excellent argument for anarchy. We have government, with its innumerable laws, but we function as though we didn’t, because otherwise we’d spend more time pouring over the statute-books, and haggling over definitions, than doing our work.

Moreover, the government itself, though passing new laws with alacrity, pays little attention to them, at least where its self-interest is concerned. It does what it thinks it must do, and if its actions are prohibited by the laws, it ignores them. The proof of this is all around us. To wit: "No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender for debt."

That constitutional provision would virtually eradicate our economic problems; the government not only ignores it, but violates it. Actions not specifically permitted to government by the constitution are denied it. Nearly all of the government’s actions are, by this constitutional standard, unconstitutional. Does anyone in Washington care? Do most Americans?

The written laws are tools to be used, when it is considered desirable to do so, against individuals and corporations, except the federal corporation, which ignores any laws it finds oppressive.

What keeps society together are not the myriad laws imposed by government, to be applied as needed; it is the law written on our hearts. The shootings at schools around the country have undoubtedly stimulated a new outpouring of laws, but there are already numerous laws prohibiting shootings at schools, or anywhere else. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is the relevant law, and it’s already written, though not taught. Indeed, it is forbidden to be taught in many schools. Therein lies the problem!

There is freedom in the law, we are told, but that is only true if it is God’s law, not that of some strangers who call themselves government. Those laws bring slavery. Indeed, that may be their purpose.

It would seem to me, although I am not much for anarchists, that the reasonable thing being promoted here is decentralized government, not anarchy.

No, the thread's issue is promoting anarchy as a viable form of government. There are a lot of people who actually believe that laws themselves are the problem - not just reduce the number of laws, but eliminate them altogether - and if we just let anarchy reign we'll get everyone happily working together and sticking to contracts.

The problem is that state governments have become a piglet on the teet as well.

Seems to me that you contradict yourself... And local governments are, in some ways, the worst of all.

There is one truth about decentralized governance. States and localities have to compete with each other - which places a limit on them.

This is precisely why everything centralizes. They hate limits.

God made laws (10 Commandments, etc.).
God made man in His image.
Man makes laws as a reflection of God's laws.
Man, unfortunately, screws up laws.

Better to handle that discussion in a different thread.

I would also assume that mall owners would have insurance against this kind of thing, as a matter of course.

Not to fully investigate a murder. They just want the body off the property as quickly and quietly as possible, and they only want the perpetrator identified to make sure he doesn't come back. "Justice" doesn't enter into it under your proposed system.

Your astonishing claim that that view of government is "bizarre" leads me to doubt very seriously if you've read any of them, frankly, and simply claiming to do so doesn't cut much ice in this forum. Your emotional reaction to Rousseau is a case in point - I quoted him as one end of a spectrum including such luminaries as Locke and Burke - all of them agree on the point, as you would be aware if you really had read them (as, for that matter, does Karl Marx, and whether you think him "evil" is irrelevant - he, too, was a great and significant political thinker).

I am not your "buddy," and believe me, IMHO you could stand a lecture or two.

Answer the question: a murder happens, and neither the victim nor perpetrator are immediately known - who notifies next of kin, and who apprehends the murderer?

Is this a serious question?? Who would apprehend an unknown murderer and notify unknown kin? No one, I suppose. Is it better if the police don't instead of a mall owner?

Well then I sit/stand corrected. And as I said...Anarchists are not high on my list.

I guess I poorly conveyed that there is a point to be made in the concern over centralized power. The reply I got from Architect tells me you are absolutely correct.

Sometimes it's better to have not chimed in. This is one of them. God bless.

Is this a serious question??

Absolutely it's a serious question! One of the most serious of all!

No one, I suppose.

Ah. So you're promoting a system of "government" (anarchy, i.e. absence thereof) where a terminal mugging results in the murderer going unsought and the victim's body being dumped in the trash? No closure for the victim's next-of-kin? No justice? No active removal of the killer from society? ...unless of course someone just happens to feel strongly enough about the issue to pay for it himself? You're either dense or delusional.

As said before: "Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the others (anarchy included)."

Have you read Rousseau? Is your glorification of the State up to his standards?

"Every service a citizen can render the State he ought to render as soon as the Sovereign demands it; but the Sovereign, for its part, cannot impose upon its subjects any fetters that are useless to the community, nor can it even wish to do so; for no more by the law of reason than by the law of nature can anything occur without a cause." - The Social Contract

I call this Evil. Totalitarian and communistic,

If you can defend it, go live in Cuba. You have nothing to teach me. Socialist jerk.

"natural order," you're still on the right track. I hardly need the word of God or 20,000+ Gun Laws for me to grasp that it's not right to take my handgun and murder someone in cold blood. Mankind existed long before gubmint came along. Blackbird.

How so? I quote you:

"the reasonable thing being promoted here is decentralized government"

Fair enough, but then you say:

"The problem is that state governments have become a piglet on the teet as well."

So how is decentralized government a solution?

"... what government is for. If not that, then what?"

Government, and the state, of which government is the administrative arm, exist to enable a ruling class to live parasitically off of a class that labors and produces. So it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

You have nothing to teach me. Socialist jerk.

What part of "no personal attacks" is beyond your comprehension? But that's what a person of such little understanding always resorts to, isn't it?

I stated that Rousseau and the others regarded government as a means of instituting and preserving social order, as they most certainly do, as any freshman in political science would have agree to long ago. Rather than attempt to refute that point - it is, in fact, irrefutable - you resort to a remarkably ill-informed categorization of me ("socialist?" Based on what?) and attempt to bluster your way out of embarrassment.

I wouldn't attempt to teach you anything at all - your mind is obviously closed against it. Nor will I further attempt a civil discussion on this thread - you are obviously incapable of it.

You're either dense or delusional.

This coming from someone who believes that it is possible to notify the next-of-kin of an unknown murder victim???

As said before: "Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the others"

The person who said this happened to run one. Perhaps I might have agreed, had I been in his position.

How much would it cost them to hire their own private investigator to do the job? Probably less than the taxpayers put out for the bogus 100,000 more cops on the streets. The point would be, private industry does everything more efficiently than gubmint. So, it would stand to reason private industry would be more efficient at catching bad guy's. The one thing that grates at me more than any other single issue, is when election time roles around and they start screaming about, The American People want "fill in the blank". If they had any clue as to what the people want, or even cared, we wouldn't have this bloated power hungry beastly gubmint we have today. I liken an Anarchist to Lover of Freedom, always have and always will. Blackbird.

This coming from someone who believes that it is possible to notify the next-of-kin of an unknown murder victim???

"Unknown" only in the sense that the identity isn't obvious at first glance. A little police work usually turns up the identity...but since you don't believe in police (because they're part of "government") there isn't a chance.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.