Politics - AnarchoCapitalisim, somthing to think about

[Old Ironsights]

Random Acts of Anarchy
(expanded from a post of the same name on my blog)
by Kent McManigal
dullhawk@hotmail.com

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

(I apologize for using the collective terms "us" and "we", but couldn't think of any other way to say this. I am not presuming to speak for you. Really.)

I think it is time for anarchists to take back the term from the nihilists who have stolen it. Anarchists don't wish to destroy anything other than the coercive collective of government, and the slave mind-set that empowers it.

I think it would be great fun to have an "Anarchy Day". I have decided to celebrate annually on June 18th, with a mini-Anarchy Day on the 18th of every month, but there may be better dates. In northern climes, winter dates might not work too well for what I have in mind.

On our Anarchy Day, each of us individual anarchists could commit random acts of helpful, public anarchy. Each of us recognizes, of course, that we all, even the most enthusiastic statists, live our daily lives in a basic condition of anarchy. It is the only way that works unless you are in a coma. For one day, I would like to see us show the rest of the world why anarchism is the only philosophy that really works; without ordering others around and stealing from them.

Choose something that needs to be done, then wear something (as innoffensive to the tyranny-blinded as possible) to indicate your anarchistic philosophy. Perhaps you could work under a Gadsden or Time's Up flag. For your Random Act of Anarchy, I would suggest such acts as picking up trash in a local park, without asking for permission. Or buying a meal for a needy family, without asking government's permission. Fill an elderly man's gas tank, without waiting for someone else to do it. Repair a piece of playground equipment, without waiting for permission from the bureaucrats. See a pattern? Helpful. Public. Self governing. Responsible.

In some instances, you may risk arrest for doing what is right without waiting for the ruling parasites to "allow" it. Think of the publicity you could generate if the local authorities do try to stop your Random Acts of Anarchy. Be sure to have a trusted co-conspirator who will contact the media and publicize your arrest online if that happens. In the long run, that might even be the best outcome for demonstrating our moral superiority to the coercive state.

Each of you knows of a way you could help in your local neighborhood. There may be some government "process" that pretends to have jurisdiction or authority over that particular area. As long as you are respecting private property and upholding the principles of self ownership, the sky's the limit. Instead of behaving like a statist or a government sympathizer and whining "Why won't they DO something about it", just take charge and do it. And when you do, be sure to emphasize that WE are the anarchists. WE get the things done that should be done without waiting for Uncle Scam to do it. We don't go to the city council meetings to beg for stolen money to pay for "help", but take control of the situation and do what our morals tell us should be done. We do not step on the toes of people who are minding their own business and harming no one. We help while we live our lives. As free individuals. Without coercion. Without theft. And best of all, without government.

Mr. McManigal's web site is KentForLiberty.com

[Grizz]

an·ar·chist
–noun
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

[AJMD429]

Amazing how the sheeple can't believe all the things you CAN do for YOURSELF, or do yourself for OTHERS, without invoking the taxes and guns of government.

[Old Ironsights]

an·ar·chist
–noun
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

Thank you for posting the Pollitically Correct Nhilistic Definition. We knew that. We reject that. Just like we reject the Socialist redefining of "Liberal". Jefferson was a "Liberal". I am the same kind of "Liberal".

How about looking ar anarchy for what it is, rather than what it has been hijacked to become.

1. "Someone who believes in the supremacy of the individual, not Government"
2. an Individualist,
3. one who does not wish to be controlled by an un-individually sellected external force/Government.
4. one who accepts "law" only to the extent of malum in se/causal injury (no victim, no crime)
5. one who prefers the "rule" of Reason over the "rule" of emotionally driven "policy".

In short, Reason over Force. Bombthrowers aren't anarchists, they are simply bombthrowers.

[Blaine]

I like your idea, but it ain't gonna fly using that term.......You just can't change the meaning of a word overnight.....

[Grizz]

I'll tell you why as nicely as I can. If you can show that in the past, say in Webster's First Dictionary, or even the Second, the definition is what you desire it to be, then I can go along with that.

But, if you are telling me that you want to make up a definition based on what you wish it means, then I reject that, with very good reason.

Human thought and communication has a long long history. Words people use for some things change meaning or get altered in some ways, BUT the concepts, the definitions are ancient and are the key and core of human society.

For example murder. That word may be pronounced differently in different centuries, but the EXPLICIT UNDERSTANDING of what is murder is incontestable.

Now, take another example: marriage. That word and concept and meaning has been in existence for many thousands of years. Don't go tangential and talk about polygamy or whatever, let's just focus on what almost every human being in western civilization has understood marriage to be. Until recently. Now, your desire to redecorate the word anarchy with new wallpaper is no different than the segment of our society that thinks there's no difference between the seven thousand year old understanding of marriage, and 2 sexual deviants perverting each other.

If words can have any meaning then no meaning has any meaning. That is the exact, precise effort behind the hussein campaign. hope and change don't mean the same thing to his campaign that it means to you, and they are counting on that for their support.

The meaning, the thought, the idea, the behavior, the law existed before the words to describe them did. Then when the words to describe and quantify and qualify them came into existence, those core keys of culture became transmittable, communicable, and teachable.

It is the work of serious cultural perversion to alter the basis of words and to shatter their normal meanings. It's orwell's nightmare of 1984.

And that, in as few words as I can use, is why I UTTERLY AND ABSOLUTELY REJECT ANY REDEFINITION OF THE WORDS WE USE TO COMMUNICATE OUR CORE CONCEPTS.

Furthermore, language is rich in syntax, an intelligent man would coin another word, one that fits the meaning he desires. And a really intelligent man would find roots of the concept in ancient society, such that it's not a whim off the top of a not so smart head. And a brilliant man would know from the outset that it is just plain wrong to alter the etymology of our core concepts. And an exceptionally brilliant man would be able to express the meaning he desires without damaging the meanings of words centuries older than he is.

Daniel Webster foresaw this and for this exact reason devoted massive energy to producing his masterpiece dictionary. I have a copy of the Second and consider it the foundation of my english language understanding.

That, simply, is my answer to the question.

[Old Ironsights]

So... you are willing to accept that "Liberal" means what the Socalists want it to mean, despite its historical antecedents (re: Jefferson), but not what Rational Anarchistists/Anarchocapitalists define "anarchisim" to mean - even though it is more etymologically correct than the Socialist/Liberal perversion.

Sort of a double standard there...

I am fully cognizant of the etymology of "anarchy".

Anarchy means the absence of Rule. Nothing more.

anarchy
1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon). Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Anything else is a modern politically motivated definition... just like calling Socialisim "Liberalisim".

Note too that the FIRST definition in he majority of cases does NOT have a negative connotation:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
an·ar·chy Audio Help /ˈænərki/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-er-kee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun \
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

American Heritage Dictionary -
an·ar·chy (ān'ər-kē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. an·ar·chies

Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
anarchy1 [ˈӕnəki] noun

the absence or failure of government

Merriam Webster:
an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 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
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order
b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
3: anarchism

ANARCHY. According to the etymology of the word, anarchy would mean absence of all government, of all political authority; but in evil as well as in good, the mind may conceive an extreme limit which can scarcely be ever attained in reality. Therefore history does not present, perhaps, a single complete example of anarchy, in which each individual was found in full and entire independence of all external authority... If we understand him aright, the an-archy of M. Proudhon is nothing but self-government carried to its extremist limits, and the last step in the progress of human reason. According to him, men will at last acknowledge that, instead of disputing and fighting over questions of which, in the majority of cases, they know nothing, and instead of seeking to enslave each other, they would do better to accept the law of labor frankly and join hands to triumph over the numerous obstacles which nature opposes to their well-being. In this new order of things nations would be nothing more than groups of producers bound together by close ties of common interest. Politics, as hitherto understood, would have no further raison d'être, and an-archy, that is to say, the disappearance of all political authority, would be the result of this transformation of human society in which all questions to be solved would have a purely economic character. Long ago J. B. Say advanced the opinion that the functions of the state should be reduced to the performance of police duties. If so reduced there would be but one step needed to reach the an-archy of M. Proudhon—suppression of the police power. L. FOUBERT. 1881

"The word anarchy is as old as the world. It is derived from to ancient Greek words, "an", "arkhe^", and means something like the absence of authority or government. However, for millennia the presumption has been accepted that man cannot dispense with one or the other, and anarchy has been understood in a pejorative sense, as a synonym for disorder, chaos, and disorganization." --Anarchism: A Matter of Words

So when the headline reads "Albania descends into Anarchy" does this mean that a utopian society has just been created? It seems that journalists prefer to use the word anarchy associated with "lawlessness". If a "utopian society" broke out would it be news? Would it be called "anarchy"? Can you imagine the headline "Government dissolved, no longer needed".

Perhaps the association of anarchy with violence comes from turn of the century bomb throwers. As a political philosophy, however, anarchy has more to do with the use of force and coercion in a society. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes anarchism as,

"...a social philosophy whose central tenet is that human beings can live justly and harmoniously without government and that the imposition of government upon human beings is in fact harmful and evil. Anarchists are distinguished from Marxists and other socialists in that the latter believe that the state must first be taken over before it can "wither away"; anarchists are too suspicious of the corruptions of power to believe that this is desirable or even possible."

"...circumstances have combined to make me somewhat conspicuous as an exponent of the theory of Modern Anarchism, - a theory which is coming to be more and more regarded as one of the few that are tenable as a basis of political and social life. In its name, then, I shall speak to you in discussing this question, which either underlies or closely touches almost every practical problem that confronts this generation. The future of the tariff, of taxation, of finance, of property, of woman, of marriage, of the family, of the suffrage, of education, of invention, of literature, of science, of the arts, of personal habits, of private character, of ethics, of religion, will be determined by the conclusion at which mankind shall arrive as to whether and how far the individual owes allegiance to the State. --The Relation of the State to the Individual, by Benjamin R. Tucker (October 14, 1890)

"Although unintended, the internet is the quintessential example of a large scale anarchist organization. There is no hierarchical authority controlling the internet, the subunits participate voluntarily, information flows freely, individuals join and exit associations at will. Since the internet also contains abundant information about anarchism, it is the perfect medium for a course on the political history and theory of anarchism." --Anarchy and the Internet -

Shall we try again to define anarchy without the rhetoric of the Statist as its foundation?

[Grizz]

first, I don't call "liberals" by the old term, I call them commies or more appropriately STATISTS. There is nothing liberal about them.

"...a social philosophy whose central tenet is that human beings can live justly and harmoniously without government and that the imposition of government upon human beings is in fact harmful and evil. Anarchists are distinguished from Marxists and other socialists in that the latter believe that the state must first be taken over before it can "wither away"; anarchists are too suspicious of the corruptions of power to believe that this is desirable or even possible."

To accept this is to reject God, Christ, and Scripture. And this is why I reject anarchy.

[Old Ironsights]

first, I don't call "liberals" by the old term, I call them commies or more appropriately STATISTS. There is nothing liberal about them.

And I don't call Violent Nihilists "Anarchists" either.... so we're even.

"...a social philosophy whose central tenet is that human beings can live justly and harmoniously without government and that the imposition of government upon human beings is in fact harmful and evil. Anarchists are distinguished from Marxists and other socialists in that the latter believe that the state must first be taken over before it can "wither away"; anarchists are too suspicious of the corruptions of power to believe that this is desirable or even possible."

To accept this is to reject God, Christ, and Scripture. And this is why I reject anarchy.

Explain. God is not Government any more than Government is God. The Bible presents a Moral Code and the path to Salvation, not a blueprint for Civil Rule.

If you will remember, God spent a great deal of time trying to persuade the Hebrews to NOT fall into the trap of "Government" (Judges vs Kings).

As recounted in the I Samuel and II Samuel, the Hebrews approached Samuel, the "judge" of Israel, and demanded a king. The account makes clear that both Samuel and Yahweh considered the desire for a king to be an act of disobedience towards Yahweh; the Hebrew people, according to Samuel, would greatly suffer for this disobedience.

It's clear that the monarchy is viewed as a negative development in Hebrew history—this is amazing considering that the account is written after centuries of Israelite and Jewish monarchs. In the Hebrew view of history, it represents the Hebrew refusal to be ruled by god in favor of a human ruler. In the history of the settlement of Canaan, the book of Judges , when Gideon is offered the monarchy, he replies, "You have no king but Yahweh." So the institution of the monarchy creates a new conflict: the conflict between Yahweh and the Hebrew monarchs. This conflict first rears its head in the relationship of Samuel, as judge of Israel, and Saul, as king of Israel. Samuel speaks the words of Yahweh; Saul disobeys them. This conflict would form the basis of a massive change in the nature of Hebrew religion, the "prophetic revolution," which is played out against the backdrop of the incongruence between rule by Yahweh and rule by a king...


All of which is irrelevant to the intent of the Original Topic - which is to show that people can, do, and SHOULD do good despite government... and make a big deal about it when Government attempts to thwart your good deeds.

Oh, and BTW, I do not claim to be an Anarchist, or even an "Anarchocapitalist" (a nonsequitur BTW). Like LeFerve I am an Autarch (elswise known as a libertarian, an advocate of self rule), which is really what the Author in the OT is really talking about anyway. (Such is the fate of the political manipulation of words when the word meaning "no-ruler" becomes a placeholder for nihlistic socialisim... Ah well...)

[donw]

God DOES give guidlines and what he expects of leaders (kings, princes, etc) in order for them to have His blessings; honest, moral, sober, discrimate properly against good and evil, sexually moral...just one example is pv 29: "when the righteous thrive, the people rejoice, when the wicked rule, the people groan"

he also tells what WE are to do about government as believers: Mt 22:21 "give that unto ceasar which is ceasar's"... ez 6:10..."pray for the king"...there are many, many more verses in scripture to support the government under which we live...

HOWEVER, it does not say that you're not to try to change it if it's unfair, unjust, unscrupulous etc...(that i'm aware of)

Judges, Kings and Chronicles are replete with history of the good and bad leaders. Saul, David and Solomon all "had thier problems", too.

in short: the bible DOES give guidlines for leaders to be righteous, good leaders whether the non-belivers, leftist, communist or whomever like it or not.

[Old Ironsights]

And yet, all of those pronouncements came AFTER Samuel - AFTER the Hebrews demanded to be put under the thumb of Human Rulers - as instructions for how to live with the mess they demanded/created.

It was NOT the way God had wanted it from the get-go. Samuel made that quite plain.

As for the rest, the bible gives guidlines for everyone to be righteous, not just "leaders", whether the non-belivers, leftist, communist or whomever.

But it does NOT give guidelines for Civil Governance.

[AmBraCol]

As much as I'd love to see "self rule" applied universally, there is a vast portion of our populace which has no basis upon which to rule themselves. Yes, God was the "first King of Israel" and the people rejected His rule over them when they insisted upon a human king. And yet, that is human nature. Rather than cultivating a close relationship with the Creator whereby one gains the foundation for a healthy rule of self and family, folks prefer to lift up humans into positions of authority over themselves and others. Our society no longer has the solid foundation upon which it was built. We have allowed that foundation to be eroded to the point where we totter on the brink of chaos. Many of us DO rule ourselves, but apparently we are more and more in the minority with each passing year as more and more folks turn their backs on any sort of absolutes.

Here's a couple of interesting video clips about the problem of evil.

http://www.thetruthproject.org/about/cu ... 000201.cfm

[PaulB]

Really there are several discussions going on here. One about the meaning of words. Personally, I think it is too late to revive words like "liberal" and "anarchist"; in fact "conservative" is becoming corrupt in meaning as well. Friedrich Hayek noted this process in his "The Road to Serfdom":

The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they... have always held... The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most effective way to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.

Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed....

If one has not one's self experienced this process, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this change of the meaning of words, the confusion it causes, and the barriers to any rational discussion which it creates... And the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of words describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people. Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.

I don't know of any case where a useful word that has been corrupted, was "rescued" and restored to its former meaning. Does anyone? It seems that the best we can do is coin new words for the old meanings, just as "libertarian" is mostly what we used to call "liberal". I guess the new word for "anarchist" is "anarcho-capitalist" or "an-cap".

As to anarchism, the problem with saying some people are not up to self-government (therefore we cannot have self-government) is that it's saying we must build society based on the lowest common denominator. It's the same argument gun prohibitionists use: because some people are irresponsible or violent, everyone must be disarmed. I don't buy it. My life is not controlled based on what others do. I reject government control. Government control is merely control by people in government, very often the worst dregs of society. I think we can do better than that.

Speaking of Proudhon, I have a great quote by him:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

BTW, the vast majority of interactions between all people are "anarchy", or "self-government". It's kinda strange to think that people are somehow incapable of it.

[AmBraCol]

BTW, the vast majority of interactions between all people are "anarchy", or "self-government". It's kinda strange to think that people are somehow incapable of it.

If everyone were capable of self government then our doors would be unlocked and our prisons empty and you'd be able to walk the streets in perfect safety.

[Old Ironsights]

BTW, the vast majority of interactions between all people are "anarchy", or "self-government". It's kinda strange to think that people are somehow incapable of it.

If everyone were capable of self government then our doors would be unlocked and our prisons empty and you'd be able to walk the streets in perfect safety.

True, but, as I am fond of saying:

I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.

Just because THEY aren't capable of self government doesn't mean I deserve to be subjected to their nanny.

[AmBraCol]

BTW, the vast majority of interactions between all people are "anarchy", or "self-government". It's kinda strange to think that people are somehow incapable of it.

If everyone were capable of self government then our doors would be unlocked and our prisons empty and you'd be able to walk the streets in perfect safety.

True, but, as I am fond of saying:

I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.

Just because THEY aren't capable of self government doesn't mean I deserve to be subjected to their nanny.

This is true - but by the same token, just because you and I may be worthy of trust and allowed to govern ourselves, those who are NOT should be reigned in - including many of those who wish to rule us. There are no easy answers, that's for sure.

[Old Ironsights]

...This is true - but by the same token, just because you and I may be worthy of trust and allowed to govern ourselves, those who are NOT should be reigned in - including many of those who wish to rule us. There are no easy answers, that's for sure.

I think that, by in large, so long as those who ARE capable of self rule are also wiling and capable to defend themselves (i.e. by not being disarmed) those who cannot govern themselves will, in fact, be governed by their desire to not get killed when they try to victimize.

The problem right now is that those who would otherwise be governed by their desire to not die at the hand of their victim have been given OSHA protection in the form of stupid anti self-defense laws.

Stupidity and violent agression should be lethal. When that is the case, the number of those who "need" to be governed drops precipitously.

[JP_TX]

How interesting. The Ghosts of Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley returned with the spirit of Chris Hitchens for another grand debate on the worth or worthlessness of American society and mankind as a whole.

Right here in a gunfans website. Who'd a thunk it?

Bravo gentlemen. Bravo!