Archive for the ‘Anarchy’ Category
My frustrated comment to the previous post by Troy, caused him to reply with a thoughtful comment, regarding my increasingly serious flirtations with anarchy. My efforts to compose an equally thoughtful rejoinder, outgrew that somewhat off-topic comment section, so here it is as a new post specifically addressing my perspective on the subject of anarchy.
One of us is surely mistaken.
Perhaps we both are at this juncture, Troy, and now just living with very different illusory movies running in our heads, which we mistake for reality. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
some government is needed
As you well know, I spent the first 70 years of my life convinced of exactly that; but that in no way obligates me to be submissive to any so-called authority, or support the tyranny into which the Federal government has devolved. Madison particularly despised the concept of democracy. How then, did we end up with mob rule? Why is it so readily accepted by the sheeple?
Can we agree that mankind deserves at least the level of individual Liberty he and his contemporaries enjoyed? Would you not also agree that the odds now of retrieving that worthy goal, through any nonviolent political process, are essentially nil? Must we abandon it entirely then, perhaps out of some errant sense of patriotism, or is another violent revolution inevitable?
At a quick glance, anarchy may seem to have a lot to recommend it. But, upon deeper reflection, it soon becomes apparent (to most of us) that anarchy provides a sure and consistent path to some manner of “strong man rule”.
Troy, you have had a front row seat to my slow, cautious, careful, and deliberate investigations into the philosophical underpinnings of anarchical thought. This was in no way a causal “quick glance,” and I can assure you that after reading several books, numerous scholarly essays, and countless articles on the subject, I have given it considerable ‘deep reflection.’ Interestingly, the notion that it would inevitably result in “strong man rule,” is still not at all apparent to me. With all due respect, from my perspective, reaching such a conclusion appears to be the result of distinctly shallower thought than I have invested in the subject.
As for strong man rulers, try to convince me that the average citizen Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve taken a week to decompress. I have had an interesting reaction to the outcome of the election. On election night, I was nearly euphoric, as I bemusedly watched the stunned media, dealing with the mounting results. What had seemed so obviously predictable to me, had been more or less inconceivable to them. But after that night, the news coverage of the aftermath has been somewhat boring, and I am looking forward to focusing on other subjects.
From the beginning of his campaign, my dream mission for Trump was to create havoc, among the elites in the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. Several months ago, I reckoned that he had already accomplished my assignment, by thrashing and marginalizing the GOPe, in the Primaries. Although as a budding anarchist, I had no real interest in him (or anyone else) becoming the next POTUS, I’ll admit that I did enjoy watching him vanquish the particularly insufferable (and patently ineligible) Canadian Born Citizen, Ted Cruz in the process. A job well done.
At that juncture, his winning the General was unimportant to me, as the Federal government itself has little relevance in my own life. Eventually, however, my sense of justice, combined with the flood of revelations documenting the nefarious activities of the Clinton Crime syndicate, instilled in me a compelling interest in Hillary’s defeat, so I kept cheering him on. Again Trump overachieved, and that in the end she couldn’t even make it to her own retirement party on election night, was particularly delicious. Was she too busy bawling, shrieking, boozing, or perhaps all three? Another job well done. 😉
Yet, a fair evaluation from my worldview, would suggest Trump’s political achievements so far, go well beyond these triumphs. Read the rest of this entry »
*****Update 10/19/16: This clip turns out to be a HOAX. See Mark Dice’s expose of it in the comment section below. ◄Dave►*****
No wonder so many of these savages are getting shot:
I’d happily shoot these five fools, and rid society of their utterly worthless lives, which shouldn’t matter a whit to any civilized American. Read the rest of this entry »
For the first time in our society’s seemingly inexorable death spiral, I have regained a significant measure of hope for the future of America, and indeed all of mankind. Once again, it seems, technology will come to our rescue.
Would a world without any rulers, where war was rendered impossible, be such a bad place to live? If there were a way to eventually nullify the power of all states, not just our own, would it be worth doing?
“Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS.” -unknown
What if there were nobody left daring to even follow unpopular orders, much less issue them? Without so-called ‘leaders,’ and disciplined followers willing to execute their orders, no form of tyranny or warfare could possibly exist. Think about that undeniable fundamental truth for a moment.
I find it astonishing that I had never heard of Jim Bell, and his 20-year-old 10-part essay, “Assassination Politics,” in which he described and defended a technological method for eliminating unpopular politicians from society. Read the rest of this entry »
This is delicious. Finally a BLM protest that makes good sense: “Some Black Lives Matter activists plan not to vote in November“:
Newsome is leading a new campaign to get African Americans to do something that few civil rights leaders have recommended: stop voting. He believes that only by withdrawing support from the major parties can black communities force politicians to address their concerns about police brutality.
He calls it “I Ain’t Voting” — and he says he’s aware that it could be seen as a rejection of the struggle that a previous generation went through.
“Before, we fought to have our right to vote,” he says. “But now we need to fight to have our right to vote mean something.” [Emphasis mine]
Brilliant! I wish him well. Read the rest of this entry »
Scott Adams has done it again. He has provided something worth seriously pondering: “The FBI, Credibility, and Government“:
The primary goal of government is its own credibility.
That notion needs some explaining.
Governments do many things, including building roads, providing social services, defending the homeland, and more. But no matter what the government is trying to accomplish, its macro-responsibility is to maintain its own credibility. Governments without credibility devolve into chaos. Credibility has to be job one.
That is profound! I had never considered it this way before; but upon reflection, he is absolutely right. I would say that this is particularly important in a state like the USA, which claims to be a self-governing, Constitutionally limited, representative republic, where citizens voluntarily accept the rule of law, within the concept of a participatory democracy.
Whether any of that is in fact true, is somewhat beside the point, as long as the sheeple believe enough of it, to accept the legitimacy of the state to rule over their lives. Somehow over the years, the American sheeple have been brainwashed, Read the rest of this entry »
In all I read today about the FBI refusing to prosecute Hillary, I thought Karl Denninger said it best:
The Rule of Law was officially burned and buried today on live television by the Director of the FBI.
You therefore no longer have any moral requirement to adhere to same; your entire analysis must now rest on whether you are sufficiently afraid of being shot — and nothing more.
America, as envisioned and fought for by the founders, died today at 11:00 AM ET, 7/5/2016.
240 years and one day from birth to death.
Or, as Trump tweeted: #riggedsystem. I have argued that this was obvious ten years ago. So did the immortal George Carlin:
…who continues to make more and more sense, the older I get. There is simply no way in hell to restore this country, by voting for the lesser of two evils offered up by the oligarch’s Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. ◄Dave►
To the timid souls and precious snowflakes, perennially advocating gun control and/or a gun-free existence:
Have you ever lived in a totally gun-free society, where even the police had no firearms, and there was no military? I did, back in the late ’60s on a tropical island out in the middle of the Indian Ocean. At one point, there was a frightening period of political upheaval, before an election. Whipped up by Chicom backed ‘community organizers,’ for the “People’s United Party,” the restless natives, drunk on toddy (fermented palm sap), began rioting.
The sparse police force, armed only with truncheons, was completely overwhelmed by rioters wielding pangas (machetes), and beyond useless at crowd control. Without an airport, and located a thousand miles from the nearest land mass of Africa, there simply was nobody they could call for mutual aid backup. It got pretty ugly for a few days. I can just imagine the special snowflakes ensconced on today’s Ivy League campuses, stamping their dainty feet over there being no phones, with which to dial 911 demanding their “safe spaces,” be cleared of the unpleasant riffraff.
The generally ex-military American expats living there, were on our own, and also unarmed; but not quite helpless. Yankee ingenuity was employed in preparing to defend our homes and families. After unstringing our spear guns, and fabricating powerful slingshots with surgical tubing, we turned our attention to what today are called IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). It happened that large 4 & 6 inch firecrackers were readily available, in the Chinese sundry shops scattered around the island. Read the rest of this entry »
The upcoming “Brexit” referendum in the UK, is essentially an European secessionist movement. As is the fundamental right of a free people, the citizens of a disgruntled sovereign state, are deciding whether to throw off the yoke of a remote out-of-control central government. While there may very well have once been good reasons for joining the trade association known at the time as the Common Market, mission creep has since morphed it into the Leviathan now known as the EU, which has become more of an oppressive liability, than an asset to Great Britain.
Since the most common target of the secessionist musings in the US is the Republic of Texas, it would seem a natural to coin the portmanteau ‘Texit,’ yet a quick search of the term, yielded no such reference. Perhaps we should change that. 🙂
Meanwhile, I stumbled across an article the other day, with the implausible title, “How Bernie Sanders can still become president.” I only bothered to follow the link out of curiosity. It turned out to be an interesting and informative piece, well worth pondering:
Bernie Sanders will not become president of the United States. But he could still become president of Vermont if the Green Mountain State secedes.
It’s not such a far-fetched notion. Vermont was an independent republic from 1777 to 1791, and despite signing the Constitution, Vermont reserved its right to leave the union. New York, Rhode Island and Virginia explicitly did so.
Hmm… I had forgotten that talk of secession has been as common in New England, as it is in Texas in recent years. Let’s add ‘Vexit‘ Read the rest of this entry »
So now your saying government is ok as long as it’s on your terms. It’s just the size and scope that you find offensive. We can debate that all day which is pretty much where we started off. 🙂
OK, fair enough; in my various attempts to express and defend my still evolving thoughts, on the avoidable misfortune of mankind being forcefully subjugated to the will of often impetuous rulers, I have occasionally used imprecise language. When I have used the term ‘government,’ I have generally meant the Federal government, or ‘state’ known as the USA, headquartered in Washington, DC. Reviewing several dictionaries, I find anywhere from six to nine different definitions for the term ‘government,’ and an astonishing 126 different terms for various forms of government. Those employing words like ‘control’; ‘rule’; ‘authority’; and ‘state’ I would steadfastly oppose outright. Yet, I suppose it is not entirely unfair to apply the generic term ‘government,’ to the chief and/or council of a tribal village, or some other forms of voluntary social compacts, which do not entail rulers and/or coercion. Read the rest of this entry »
In my continuing research into what I refer to as a Laissez Faire Stateless Society, I have encountered a lot of new terms attempting to redefine anarchy, which has such a negative connotation in the minds of sheeple. One of them is ‘Voluntaryist.’ I have discovered an interesting and informative website, with the simple URL of voluntaryist.com. Friday evening, I was perusing a section of it entitled, “How I Became a Voluntaryist,” which consists of personal testimonials. While reading Ben Speers’ biographical, “Conscience of a “Former” Conservative,” I encountered:
This idea, that people should be free to do whatever they want apart from initiating violence, crystallized in my mind. Soon I realized that there could be no ethical justifications for exceptions to this rule. This immediately led me to a conclusion that shocked me to the core, for I had never considered it before. The conclusion that I came to was that there was no moral justification for any violence-based government, which is to say any government at all based on the popular definition of government. Logically, the only road left to me was anarchism.
Bingo… welcome to my world! Read the rest of this entry »
Recently, in objections to my interest in exploring anarchy, or what I prefer to call a laissez faire stateless society, James Madison’s famous quip that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary” has been mentioned a few times. The implication being that since we are not angels, we absolutely require rulers and a coercive state to make us behave, or society would quickly devolve into total chaos.
I decided to pen a rebuttal to this common belief, and did a quick search to find Madison’s exact quote, and the precise context in which he made it. It was in “The Federalist No. 51,” where he was expounding on the necessity of the separation of powers, with checks and balances, in the Constitution:
“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Thus, the context speaks for itself. Madison was far more concerned with mechanisms to limit and control the government, than how best to control the people. Read the rest of this entry »
[Note: Posts with titles that begin with “AR:“ are stubs for the project described at “America Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]
Alas, it is with great disappointment that I can see already that I am not going to be very helpful with this project. I had difficulty even picking a relevant stub for this comment. Thus, I will add this new one. What exactly is to be the purpose of America 2.0?
As I understood our mission, it was to design a workable replacement societal structure, for the rapidly collapsing America 1.0. I find I am not ready to concede the basic premise inherent in the descriptions of these stubs; namely that whatever their forms, there must again be a nation-state, with a hierarchy of ancillary governments to control the population.
Next to my life, my personal Liberty, and individual Sovereignty, are at the top of my hierarchy of values. I regard what is being referred to here as ‘limited government,’ as instead a ‘coercive’ entity, providing ‘limited Liberty’ and perhaps ‘limited Sovereignty,’ for the ‘altruistic’ benefit of the ‘collective,’ all of which are odious concepts to me.
As I have suggested, I think I have some workable ideas that do not require coercion, or empowering anyone to violate enlightened civilization’s fundamental non-aggression axiom. Before I can figure out how to incorporate them into these categories, I need the answer to the above question… what is to the fundamental purposes we are trying to achieve? If I could demonstrate how they might be achieved without government, will anyone be willing to entertain such ideas seriously? ◄Dave►
Robert Ringer has republished an article I had already read the other day entitled, “2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged,” which included:
What we are witnessing — for the first time on a large scale — is the political establishment’s true role in selecting the president of the United States. The illusion of choice has become apparent. The establishment anoints their two picks for president, and the country proceeds to argue vehemently over the two candidates they are spoon-fed. This dynamic is reminiscent of a prophetic 1998 quote from philosopher Noam Chomsky:
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
Ahh, the illusion of choice. Sure, in reality there are third party candidates who should be given a fair shake, but in our mainstream media-augmented reality, third parties do not exist. They aren’t mentioned. They aren’t even included in presidential debates. This is another way the media stifles healthy debate, stamps out dissenting opinions, and preserves the status-quo.
“We The People” don’t choose our presidents; they are hand-picked by a powerful group of political party insiders — parties that have long since sold out to the highest bidders. What we have on our hands in America is a rigged oligarchy, and that’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s fact. Now, however, millions of Americans are becoming aware of it thanks to the populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. America’s elections are controlled by a big club, but unfortunately, “you ain’t in it!”
Carlin had this figured out long before I ever got around to seriously thinking about it. So, once again I ask, why do we legitimize their rule over us by voting in their sham elections? ◄Dave►
I have stumbled across a profound and thought-provoking academic essay, which effectively slays most common arguments that governments are necessary for a modern peaceful society to exist. A downloadable PDF, it is entitled, “The Obviousness of Anarchy,” by John Hasnas, Associate Law Professor, Georgetown University, J.D., Ph.D, LL.M. Those familiar with my Montessori education background, will understand why my antenna went up when I read:
“The author wishes to thank … Annette Hasnas of the Montessori School of Northern Virginia for a real world illustration of how rules evolve in the absence of centralized authority.”
My reaction was, well of course, a Montessori classroom of 3 to 5-year-old children, is a perfect example of spontaneous order and a smoothly functioning laissez faire society. How had it not occurred to me before to use that analogy? I certainly shall develop it in the future.
The essay begins:
The Obviousness of Anarchy
by John Hasnas
“You see, but you do not observe.”
Sherlock Holmes to Dr. John Watson in A Scandal in Bohemia
In this article, I have been asked to present an argument for anarchy. This is an absurdly easy thing to do. In fact, it is a task that can be discharged in two words–look around. However, because most of us, like Dr. Watson, see without observing the significance of what we see, some commentary is required.
Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order. And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government actions are really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse.
The identification of anarchy with disorder is not a trivial matter. The power of our conceptions to blind us to the facts of the world around us cannot be gainsaid. I myself have had the experience of eating lunch just outside Temple University’s law school in North Philadelphia with a brilliant law professor who was declaiming upon the absolute necessity of the state provision of police services. He did this just as one of Temple’s uniformed private armed guards passed by us escorting a female student to the Metro stop in this crime-ridden neighborhood that is vastly underserved by the Philadelphia police force.
A wise man once told me that the best way to prove that something is possible is to show that it exists. That is the strategy I shall adopt in this article. I intend to show that a stable, successful society without government can exist by showing that it has, and to a large extent, still does.
The way he casually unpacked the Orwellian corruption of the term ‘anarchy’ was masterful. I tend to get frustrated at the callous abuse of the English language, and am not as artful as he, at explaining how and why I am using a venerable word in its original sense.
Abstain From Beans
by Robert LeFevre (1911-1986)
In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: “Abstain from Beans.” The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don’t vote. Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.
To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other person’s selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.
When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.
But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.
In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person. Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.
~ +++ ~
Note: This classic article was obviously written sometime prior to 1986. It is reprinted all over the net, and I was unable to locate the original digital source, so I have taken the liberty of memorializing its profound sagacity here as well. Since it is a rather cogent explanation of my own oft expressed motto: “Don’t Vote – It Just Encourages the Bastards,” I look forward to any discussions of it. Particularly, any reasonable arguments against it. ◄Dave►