PostHeaderIcon Full Liberty is Anarchy

I may be missing something by never watching TV for entertainment. A truly profound observation:

“Anarchism . . . stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.” The father’s voice returns: “The concept was pure, simple, true. It inspired me, lit a rebellious fire. But ultimately I learned the lesson that Goldman, Proudhon, and the others learned: that true freedom requires sacrifice and pain. Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth, they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants is the freedom to become comfortable.”

That, in a nutshell, describes the major difference between my individualistic, increasingly anarchistic, libertarian worldview, and the authoritarian, “law and order,” socially conformist mindset of my more conservative associates. Either I have yet to experience enough pain as a sovereign individual, or they have yet to risk trusting their own free will, to taste the sweeter grass and fresher air of an uncompromising life at Liberty, out beyond the shepherded flocks. â—„Daveâ–º

8 Responses to “Full Liberty is Anarchy”

  • Troy says:

    While I do not disagree with any part of this, I would, however, opine that few humans are presently equipped for full and complete liberty. To be such requires a very high level of critical thinking skill coupled with a good understanding of the reality of things. I truly believe that most humans will one day rise to this level and, as a consequence, that real liberty can become the norm. But, that glorious day seems to me still too far in the future to be seen.

    Our present, unknowing, uncaring and uneducated majority, by their very ignorance DEMAND some manner of government. Without such, in our present state, anarchy would quickly devolve into a form of “strong man” rule.

    There are teachers, such as the late Buddha of the Current Era who could show a way (note that I did not say THE way) to the kind of understanding full liberty requires. Sadly, far too many are learning the ways of progressives, such as the Obamanation and the Clintons, who are driving us in the opposite direction.

    If you have suggestions for achieving the kind of libertarian anarchy you seem to espouse, I would love to hear them.


    • Larry Andrew says:

      So would I. Practical real world ways to be a successful practicing anarchist.

      • Larry, by your authoritarian leaning mindset, I probably already am an anarchist, and have been for decades. Read my old “Civil Disobedience” essay, and I suspect you will agree. Since I have zero respect for authority or the mislabeled ‘rule of law,’ I have already lived a practical, real world, example of a reasonably successful life as a practicing anarchist. I would submit that my techniques for bobbing and weaving to avoid confrontation with so-called authorities, back when I was engaged in entrepreneurial endeavors to earn a living for myself and family, are little different to what one might be required to do, to avoid getting run over by NGO’s in a government-free territory. The big difference would be, that a lot fewer people would find fault with my contumacious lifestyle, since they would not be any more inclined to submit to such unwelcome authority than I would be. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Alas, no, I have no prescriptions, Troy. As I have said, I am only just exploring the anarchist wing of libertarian thought, with a wide-open mind. I am not yet prepared to commit to the concept, much less espouse anything. Nor, have I thought it all through far enough, to automatically reject the concept of ‘strong man rule,’ which you seem to fear, as somehow worse than our current state of affairs.

      When I think about it, I would gladly exchange the present lot of oligarchs, who control the coercive levers of our various governments, for the Mafia. They do an excellent job of protection for non-combatants on their turf, their justice is swift and an effective deterrent, and at only 10%, their take of profit and productive endeavors, is cheap in comparison to the total tax burden exacted by governments. Sure, they profit from decadence and the seedy side of human passions and/or vices; but they have the decency to keep it out of the streets and view of innocent women and children. Society could choose a worse model for its organizing principles, and I submit that our current arrangement is regrettably just that.

      I am very much still a work in progress. I used to be a cop, for Pete’s sake, with the requisite authoritarian mindset. It seemed to me, ~45 years ago – when we were still respected ‘peace officers,’ instead of gung-ho, jackbooted, SWAT obsessed, ‘law enforcement officer’ thugs – that society had some very reasonable rules, and that if everyone would just follow those generally agreed upon rules, all would be peaceful on Elm street. By today’s standards, it very much was, in small town America. As difficult as it is for younger Americans to believe, the now ridiculed family sitcoms of the ’50s & ’60s weren’t just fantasy, and those idyllic safe neighborhoods in the suburbs actually existed. I grew up in them, all across America.

      Perhaps it is just that nomadic lifestyle, which inures me from much concern over who might fill a local power vacuum, were governments to collapse. I can always vote with my feet, and find a more pleasant place to reside. I submit that such is already happening, at a rapidly accelerating pace every day now. Witness the profound reversal of the migratory patterns between California and Texas, et al. It is those in the previous investment trap, or constrained by desired proximity to family and cherished friends, who are most chagrined by unfavorable demographic trends, which are empowering the retrogressive agenda of the Marxists, in the crumbling metropolises of the blue States.

      Fundamental transformation of our way of life was well underway, long before the Narcissist-in-Chief ascended to his lofty throne, bent on finishing us off. They may choose to call their agenda Progressive; but I see the essentially feudal society to which they aspire, as precisely the opposite. The goal is no longer peaceful coexistence between disparate sovereign individuals, who once could follow their own choice of guiding lights for the path of their lives, and accepted full responsibility for earning their own living, in cooperative commerce with their neighbors. Competing altruists, both Politically and Piously Correct alike, now demand conformity to their lofty worldviews, and unquestioned compliance with established authority.

      They now struggle mightily over the levers of coercive government, not for the opportunity to hold it in check, enabling themselves and others to live as they choose in freedom; but to be able to establish their own preferred brand of altruistic dogma as the law of the land, which the now thoughtlessly compliant LEO types will happily enforce on hapless sheeple, by employing their coveted special weapons and brutish tactics, on any contumacious dissenters. Defending oneself and one’s property from brutes, may well be an unavoidable requirement for human survival, and it certainly makes good sense to ally with like-minded neighbors for the cause; but it sure would be easier if those brutes were not invested with the color of law, and imprimatur of authority, in the feeble minds of pathetic sheeple, who demonstrably couldn’t make an intelligent choice in an election, if their lives depended on it. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Here is the chosen paths of a couple of people who would likely love to join with us.

  • Larry Andrew says:

    No particular point…just an observation. Thinking about it tho, it is likely that anarchy would produce a power struggle where these jerks and others like them would use the jackboot tactics your referring to above to take what they wanted from the masses.

    FYI…I am in total sympathy and mostly agreement regarding the evolution of police tactics to include the more militarized SWAT teams that have grown in importance as the police acquire more and more surplus military hardware. They are using the surplus tools to expand their power and control to a point that we have good reason to fear the future. Combine that with their obvious willingness to use technology to keep track of what porn we watch or what we buy and we are in deep doo doo.

  • Troy says:

    I got the following definition of anarchy from

    Definition of ANARCHY
    a : absence of government
    b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
    c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
    a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
    b : absence of order : disorder

    It seems to me that human civilization requires at the very least, some basic rules and standards that are agreed to by all (even though some will ignore part or all of them). It is to that end that governments were conceived and established by thoughtful men.

    Our current problem is that we have allowed the noble idea of basic rules and standards to expand to the point of government becoming more like a parent of guardian. And, as we all well know, parent and guardians range from the benevolent to the tyrannical.

    I will always argue on the side of the very least government consistent with the natural rights of all humans — that is, to life, liberty and property.

    IMHO, such minimal (and necessary) government can only exist among people who are educated and informed such that they can fully appreciate the consequences of their individual actions and to understand that self restraint and respect for our fellows is in our own (selfish) best interest (as well as the interests of those we share the world with). As Bastiat remarked, the only justification for a government is the institution of justice.

    To this end, it seems to me that any form of government, including that of an enlightened and benevolent monarch (or “strong man” if you prefer) and work so long as it is directed to the cause of justice. Likewise, no matter the form of government, when it strays from this single justification, it inevitably becomes a form of tyranny.

    I cannot envision any form of pure anarchy achieving a good result in the present condition of humanity. As Madison observed, if men were angels, government would not be necessary. But men are not angels — indeed, far too many men are brutes and, that part of society that prefers to live in relative peace and general prosperity must seek some form of government to constrain the brutes, always knowing that no form of government can ever be more perfect that those chosen to administer it.

    I suspect that definition 1.c. above is the form of anarchy friend Dave desires. The current condition of humanity is not yet suited for such, however much I wish it were — and hope that someday it will be.

    In the meantime, I suggest that our imaginations are better applied to crafting the best form of imperfect government that current conditions will allow. I further suggest that some minor improvements (and adherence) to our Constitution affords us the best near-term answer.


Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links