If there where no Government, no Police, no Taxes, we would have Anarchy! You’d see murders and atrocious acts like back in Stone(d)Age!
Some Random Idiot, You’ve all heard them…
Anarchy, in what in German we call the “Urgedanke” (original thought), has nothing to do with chaos and destruction, murders and atrocious acts, it is, on the contrary, a well-organised society, where each individual has his own responsibility and authority.
Unluckily, and maybe not undeservedly, in recent centuries, anarchism has been the scene of terrorist bombings, and in the last decades, bored young people, mostly from the wealthy upper classes and some other stoned idiots, have taken advantage of “anarchy” as a means for a “Saturday night party”, just to let off some steam on a manifestation.
Anarchism, in truth, is an ancient political and social idea, putting the individual being in control – and as such, should be brought closer to the society and demystified, or, should I say “decriminalised”.
It is (not by accident) the probably oldest social form of human society, and has been more and more demonised by the emerging ruling classes of humans, but has in fact brought ourselves, and the entire nature with us (it’s the other way around) thru millennia of struggle.
Anarchy is what happens when catastrophes hit a country, and the Governments are out of capacity. Then, neighbouring is suddenly a thing. This is anarchy.
Anarchy is what makes the people in an overfilled metro station at high noon not kill each other like a bunch of carnivores would. Everyone minds his own business, and usually complies with things like “common sense”.
This is anarchy.
Anarchy is what happens in a family, where everyone has a role, well defined, and still, no one has total power over anyone else.
This is anarchy.
Anarchy means the absence of domination, not the lack of social order, for there is another adequate expression already:
An “absence of domination” (Anarchy) does not mean that there is “no order” (Anomie). It just means, no one can permanently misuse power to produce obedience to commands from others and justify this thru a socially accepted rule.
Of course, anarchy is also what happens when we want the same piece of meat, and either choose to share or not.
Yes, anarchy can mean brutal, the natural struggle where the stronger may – in some cases – eradicate or weaken the weaker.
Let me remind you that no rule ever made by humans, ever successfully stopped strong from killing weak.
Our modern human rules may be successful in punishing after any prohibited act is done – it, however, cannot avoid the act itself to happen.
The absence of such written rule hence would have no impact at all, it merely avoids more death thru persecution.
In an anarchistic system, laws that can not be broken by anything or anyone, because they are given by nature, are taken into consideration instead of rules made by humans.
These laws, do not need a “ruling class” to enforce them – because they are self-appealing and performing by their nature.
When laws are considered by society instead of human rules, many things we do nowadays which empower us to even think evil, become almost impossible. Since there is no ruling class, there is as well no class struggle and hence, no conflict of interest and possibility to gain positions in a vertical power ladder with a whole society’s support, but only with your own abilities.
In anarchy, Hitler would have had to explain himself to every fucking German, as they would not have received orders thru a chain of people.
Any “law” requiring a guardian is not a law. A law does not need any of this. Only rules do since they can be broken.
That’s right. Anarchy does not need a law book to avoid mass murder.
Law books never prevented mass murder, circumstances do.
Most of us human beings want to be free.
We try to preserve our freedom, get frightened someone may threaten it.
Almost any act will be justified if done in the name of freedom.
Numerous measures have been taken throughout history in the name of freedom already, many will be made in future.
Different, defined systems and beliefs of liberty have developed over time, mostly having two things in common:
– the own freedom of each individual within the particular system is clearly defined.
– it is assumed that a threat from outside or inside the system could/will break that definition.
Generally, several “rules” (definitions) that describe the limits of individual freedom within a system are set up, usually by volunteers.
Institutions are built and populated with random (and volunteer) members of the system. Those are then encharged with either re-define and implement or preserve the definitions of freedom made.
We expect that those in charge search and ward off the assumed threats to our Freedom so each member can practice individual freedom at all time.
Usually, this is done by gaining security, through the control of members (and their freedom) of such a system.
Control, in this case, is only possible if it is clearly defined what exactly the goal or the definition and limit of freedom are, which somehow leads to the question, “Was control made to grant Freedom, or Freedom to justify Control?”
Paradoxically the rules imply restrictions on precisely that liberty, which in turn entail more rules.
When members of a system rely on granted freedom, they have at the same time taken on some restrictions on their liberty.
To cope with that, we generally demand to decide for ourselves who and what later will define and implement our freedom, and control (us) to preserve it, as well as defend from attacks.
However, we finally give away our freedom to other people, to be controlled and receive a limited definition of granted freedom in exchange.
If that is not irrational, it is undoubtedly procrastinative.
We believe to be free, by setting up a set of rules, mostly defined and kept in charge by single individuals, who again and again lead in the same fields of chaos, war and economic crisis.
We can look at this as a “Free sheep in a fence, designed and guarded by a Shephard.”
To reach real freedom, such sheep would have to jump the fence or tear it down and evolve from its dependency towards the shepherd.
In other words, we need to realise we are not free and remove the rules restricting this freedom.
Over time the mechanics in charge to define and grant freedom became habit and norms, profiting a limited amount of the society’s members. The control systems we put in place to secure our liberties are now an almost independent entity not anymore in our control nor in our favour.
What was created for Freedom ended up restricting Freedom!
We forgot what Freedom looks and smells like with our devil-may-care apathetic attitude, and find ourselves fenced and controlled by people we asked to do so.
To be free, we cannot set up rules and boundaries. Freedom should tear those down.