Why is it that many peaceful, law abiding people are starting to promote anarchy? Firstly, let's get the definition for anarchy clear as it's often confused with chaos.
an•ar•chy: Absence of government.
an•ar•chism: The theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty.
So why would someone want to be without a government if they are good people? Could it be because government rules and regulations are causing harm or preventing us from helping our fellow man? On the face of things, government regulation can seem to make sense, but it doesn't take into account individual circumstance and this is where it is failing miserably.
I met a woman who had taken it upon herself to help some of the many homeless people she was coming across in Adelaide. She’d often stop and talk to them, spend some of her time listening to their stories, but wanted to start doing more. So she asked for donations of items in good condition or sealed food to make up bags that could be given to them. Things went well and she reported back to the donors on how grateful these people were and how much something as simple as a new pair of socks brightened up their day. But then a government official intervened and said that only officially registered charities were allowed to assist them.
Not wanting to give up, the lady got in touch with the homeless centre and asked if they could take all the donations she'd collected to distribute. They were reluctant to, because they had no more room to store them, but they did eventually take them. Unfortunately this one shelter in Adelaide can't reach all the homeless, so those ones that this woman could have helped, now have to go without.
You might ask why the homeless didn't just go to the shelter. There are probably a variety of reasons. Firstly, the shelter is in the city centre and can only sleep so many people. If someone turns up for the night and are turned away because it's full, they are not allowed to sleep within a certain distance of the city centre, so they then have to leave the city in the dark and try and find somewhere to sleep. There is also a high likelihood that many are afraid to go to the shelter as they aren't always the safest places to be. I wouldn't know personally, but have a read of @cryptic-cynic's experiences being homeless here.
I recently read an account of an odd encounter by @kafkanarchy84. Would he have helped this woman further if he hadn't been in fear of authorities himself, purely because of association?
Let's look at road ‘laws'. Now don't get me wrong, speed and drink driving limits make sense. After all, you are traveling at high speed in (or on) a big, unyielding metal contraption. If you lose control it can do a lot of damage. I personally would never get behind a wheel if I'd had anything to drink. I also try to stick to speed limits, but anyone can make a mistake and either drift over the limit a bit or miss a change of speed sign, get caught out and receive a fine. In fact, someone who doesn't purposely speed is more likely to be caught out because they aren't as hyper aware of speed cameras as someone who knows very well that they are speeding. So who does this law affect?
In Australia we have a lot of two and three lane roads and there are rules that you should ‘keep left unless overtaking’. However, there are also roads that go off to the right and you need to be in the right hand lane to turn onto them. So, if you're pulled over for being in the right hand lane, who makes the judgement that you are not overtaking or turning right shortly? Apparently the police do as people are being ticketed for not keeping left, even when they need to turn right!
Peaceful people have questioned government before, but it's amazing how easily they can be made to be seen as dangerous and violent, given the right propaganda. In Europe, one of the most dangerous groups in government eyes are gypsies and travellers. Probably because they are free and don't pay into the system. They wouldn't want the rest of the people getting ideas; so the media tends to vilify them, calling them thieves and destructive. I have to admit that I was taken in by it. When a group of travellers turned up at the pub I worked in I was worried about what they'd do. I needn't have been. They were more respectable than some of the locals we had in. What was funny was that they were all wearing the latest fashions from the local shops, but they'd kept the tags on so they could take them back when they'd had their night out. It was cheeky, but it wasn't illegal, unlawful or even against the shop rules.
The Battle of the Beanfield In the UK was an atrocious incidence, but it had the outcome that government wanted. Essentially the police violently destroyed a growing community of peaceful new age travellers and the courts made sure that they received no compensation other than to cover legal costs after many had their homes destroyed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHyDaAXw8Ck
If you prefer to read, then this is what Wikipedia has on it.
So when certain types of people in your country start being called evil or terrorists and their only crime is questioning the status quo, maybe stop and think a moment before becoming part of the lynch mob.
Two things.
Governments are insane.
Anarchy means no RULERS...not no rules..
If a rule must be enforced...perhaps the rule needs to be changed.
That's actually a very good point. Generally there's usually a good reason for rules within a community group and they are for the benefit of everyone. If you're not going to follow those rules then leave the group. Unfortunately its not that easy to leave the system.
it will be
Promises, promises! Dont tease!
Couldn't agree more, especially about travellers and gypsies. In Scotland the government recently introduced a ban on wild camping in the Loch Lomond National Park area. I used to volunteer as a park ranger, and I personally believe there are already laws in place to control bad wild camping behaviour such as burning trees for firewood and littering, which will probably continue despite the wild camping ban. I don't think they want people to be self-sufficient.
But the thing that has really moved me towards anarchy/voluntaryism (I'm not quite there yet, but have stopped voting for political parties) is the increasing lack of choice in government - eg, the "left" and the "right" being for the same wars (it's such a huge subject); the corruption and lobbying in government and the manipulation. Oh and there's so much more - where do I start?
Keep thinking about this stuff and you'll get there in time.
Maybe :)
Is squatting on public land being self sufficient?
Once upon a time we were all hunter gatherers. Some chose to stay that way, does it make them wrong?
No, some choose to become meth addicts and fail to pay their bills. They are not hunter gatherers who didn't want to give up their traditional lifestyles.
There's that risk of tarring everyone with the same brush. There's also no saying that the addicts didn't become addicts because they feel stuck in a life cycle they don't know how to escape and often don't even realise why they need to escape. Some of the biggest addicts are aboriginals whose grandparents were ripped from their traditional way of life and they aren't able to integrate into the western way of life. A lot of westerners even struggle with the western way of life.
@funbobby51 Do you mean in the way the Royal Family do?
We don't have a royal family here. So no.
When one is peaceful, they have far greater clarity of thought. This leads to common sense and taking actions to avoid the controls and forced actions of religions, societies, governments and criminals.
yep i agree with you
Great post. I am so tired of people believing government laws = morality.
Most of the time its the people in the system that cause harm to their fellow men. Its like a school run by arrogant boss instead of being a leader. Implementing rules that would only favor their own interest.From where I stand and my experienced I can conclude that the system of government hinders individual progress and cooperation.
Exactly. Speed limits are more about collecting fines than keeping people safe. How fast someone drives on a road is highly governed by the design of the road. Narrow roads with shrubs or tress on the sides make people drive slower. Problem is we build all our roads as wide as interstates with curves to match a race track. Then they post a super slow speed limit sign on it. It is not an issue of people being irresponsible, it is bad design!
Great design if your goal is to write a lot of fines.
Thank you for re-steaming this Matt, it’s a very interesting topic
Precisely
And its increasingly getting worse
Anarchy is extremely unstable and always leads to a concentration of power with some individuals or some group. It's not a valid ideology or political belief because it can't exist in the real world. Minarchism is a valid political belief because it involves some form of power being concentrated.
The government has two specific purposes: to enforce and uphold the law of the land, and to defend its people from external threats.
Governments have assumed far too much power because the people became complacent. Reduce the power of government to the point where it can only perform its basic purposes.
We're not talking about a vacant throne; we're talking about not having one at all.
That's not possible. Where there is any form of society there is a throne. It happens in the animal kingdom and it has happened at every point in human history.
Maybe the future has new stuff in it.
Since the entire history of animals, dating back to the earliest groups we know of, involves some sort of power structure and hierarchy, it is absolutely delusional to believe that the future could somehow be any different. Power dynamics are inherent within every species. You cannot fight nature.
Hold my beer
Lol!
I agree, i try to keep an open mind, when reading about this no goverment stuff ,
my mind keeps going to the places around the world where there is no functioning goverment.
I feel goverment is to big, and we should be looking at making it more efficient but abolishment is just crazy.
Take away goverment, warlords appear, groups like issl, hell Somalia is a perfect exsample of a country without a functioning government, and it isnt the utopia of concerned ppl looking out for each other, its a hell hole, where peaceful ppl are enslaved to warlords just to be left alone.
Democracy isn't perfect, but it is the best system we have ever had. We are more feed, safer, live longer, and have a higher freedom then ever in history.
Ok the system need work, and in 150 may look alot different.
So you think that we should support the violent coercive warlords that control our lives, because if not we would be controlled by coercive violent warlords? What if a majority of people were opposed to coercive violent warlords? And what if those same people were even moderately self sufficient and capable of self defense? Many people are almost or already there.
First of, its nice to see you have discovered you can reply on a relavent post, instead of running around following me from irrelevent post to post spouting this at me.
YES i do think we should, because out of all the warloard we could follow, as you put it. The one i following looks out for me.
"And what if those same people were even moderately self sufficient and capable of self defense? "
You telling me ppl in the 3rd world arnt capable of living self sufficentcy?
Dispite most of them living of grid and on subsitence farming already?
And why do they live like that?
They havent got a functioning goverment
I know i wont convince you @miscreantpie
And i read this stuff not to argue, but to try to understand why people have these ideas, maybe be converted by a compelling argument, or at the least understand how ppl think it will all work,
i love the ideal of no goverment, just dont think it could ever be pratical.
And i respect your passion and vigor, but please, keep the coversation to rellevent post,
Ppl disscussing there experiance with abuse dont need to hear your thoughts on taxsation, its close to spam at that point,
Thanks for the chat
Coercion with a smile is still coercion. You don't get to ignore facts and pretend to be an innocent victim because someone is persistently trying to convince you to stop robbing people. My persistence is not spam, it's conversational self defense. The actions that correspond to the ideas you hold are violent, to the degree that using physical self defense is not unjustified, you should consider yourself lucky I have enough compassion to take the time to explain why you are wrong in hopes that you will change. I do this because it is in both of our best interests. Peaceful conflict resolution is far more effective than using violence, and should be used whenever remotely possible. Keep in mind however "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable"
Best wishes, don't get yourself caught up making peaceful revolution impossible, it's all too easy to do in this world.
Just feel if this is how you go about trying to change someones mind you that you have missed the mark,
I dont feel the system is perfect, and i believe any change to such a complex system will be small and gradual, as it has been since we lived in trees. To make change be the change, live to your beliefs treat everyone with respect, defend your ideal, dont attack others for there's,
To live in a world with no authority we must be our own authority. We need to realise we are all capable of evil, and we arnt this benevolent being, that given the means and power wouldnt abuse it. The system we are in contains the worse of our own dark side, because this dark side still exsits in all of us, untill humans as a hole learn to deal with this in them selfs, we will never govern our self.
Its not i dont agree goverment is bad per say, i just dont think as a society we are emotionaly grown yet to govern ourself.
If your keen read this the following, its on your side, may explain my mind set. A tad more
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@tarazkp/buying-in-to-sellout-killing-the-goose#@lostdomium/re-tokoya-re-tarazkp-buying-in-to-sellout-killing-the-goose-20180220t232010787z
Democracy is tyrannical. It's the tyranny of the majority. A constitutional republic is the only way to go to ensure a small government will protect the God-given rights of the people.
Anarchy is a brief transitioning period between an old system and a new one. Like you said about Somalia, it's run by warlords. Mad Max is probably a good look at how far anarchy gets us.
Under democracy we don't have more freedom than ever. We have less freedom than was had in the 80s and 90s. Democracy has taken away our freedoms far more often than it has protected them.
I don't think any one way of doing things is perfect. Some people want government, others would prefer to stick to nomadic ways. Many advocate smaller governments which has got to be better than a big all powerful one. You can at least walk out of there with small government if you're not happy.
what is it anarchists want to do besides not pay taxes, do drugs and speed?
We own ourselves, and want to be left alone.
All with the freedom of mind own themselves.
being left alone is not really doing anything, what do you want to do that you are prevented from doing now besides speeding, not paying taxes, getting high and owning an unregistered machine gun?
I think perhaps we're coming at this from different perspectives.
There are men I'll never meet, thousands of miles away; making dozens of decisions each day about how I should live my life.
There are also men all around me, with guns, who believe I should abide by all of those decisions.
If they catch me doing something in violation of any of them; they will enthusiastically attack me until I'm either compliant or dead.
I can't give you an exhaustive list of the things I want permission for (even if I could, it'd need updating daily)
I don't want different decisions; I want zero policemen.
then who do you call when their noisy teenagers across the street?
What's wrong with noisy teenagers? 😉
I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. They have no right to trespass on the schoolyard after dark. I don't want to deal with them myself, if they turn out to be violent teenagers I don't want the liability of defending myself from them, it is not even my property, so I put that liability on my public servants, what's the alternative?
If there is no policing you end up like Chicago. Rampant violence and high murder rates.
Does Chicago not have any police?
yeah, and 100,000 gang members.
Not in most areas, hence the excessive gang violence and highest murder rate in the US.
Is your question really; What do you need freedom for? ........Well guess what ....non of your business you don't get to decide : P
no, it's more along the line of, "what are not already free to do"? If you want to drive fast you can go to a race track. If you don't want to pay taxes just be poor. you can get a machine gun with a tax stamp.
Why do I need to ask you for permission to do things?
If you get to decide when I can do things, what hoops I must jump through, what stickers or stamps I must have. That you have a right to my money if I get above an arbitrairy line of wealth which you decide what that is.
If I can tell you what you can and must do, or can and must not do,
that you need to ask permission and sticker and stamps from me. And that if you get money above some abritrary line that you are not poor anymore, according to me, and you must give me that money.
or else I incarcerate you and if you defend yourself from me, I can kill you if you do not obey my myriad of rules.
What makes you think that you are free?
And that your not my slave?
What makes you think that you have an obligation to obey me?
What makes you think I can take your money and you must pay me?.........and say.......If you don't want me to take your money/possessions, then you have the option to stay poor............really?
The better question is: Whats so great about forcibly controlling other peoples lives? Do you think that putting a gun against somebodies head and telling them what they can and can't do is acceptable? Is this an effective approach to making the world a better place? If not then you should be opposed to any form of government. Because that is effectively what you are doing when you support the government, the system is designed so that people can hide from the responsibility of these atrocities behind the curtain of government, despite the fact that anyone who participates in this sham is directly responsible.
At the core, what anarchy is about is taking complete personal responsibility for your own life. As typically the individual has more interest in preserving and bettering ones self than anyone else. Supporting government is the dumping of certain responsibilities off onto "society" as whole, with the claim that we are incapable of sufficiently taking care of them ourselves, which is a complete lie.
So, what anarchists want to do is precisely whatever the fuck we want to. Because it is our god given right to do exactly that. Ideally, without forcibly infringing on anyone elses right to do the same.
so pretty much the three I mentioned? I am just curious if there are any specific things.
I see, specific things. Maybe to be able to help your fellow man without fear of reprisal? Yes, people have been arrested and at least temporarily encarcerated for feeding the homeless.
I think the fear is that as more and more regulation comes into play we may end up in a similar situation to China under Mao or Russia. How far is too far? Did you watch the video on the Battle of the Beanfield? All that violence because the councils didn't want a festival becoming permanent.
that's funny, I have never been afraid of that. Seems like the people who make that claim are often running an illegal commercial kitchen, which does not seem like a big deal until they give a bunch of homeless people without insurance food poisoning. I think I had a Spanish teacher in high school make me watch that one. There are lots of ways to feed the homeless.
Often the homeless end up feeding themselves from bins. Who's to say that won't give them food poisoning? Things are rarely straight forward and simple, there's always more to stories than meets the eye. That's why I feel every point of view should be heard. It's been informative reading all the comments on here. They are all valid points, even if they do disagree with each other.
when you get involved you become responsible. There was a story of a guy who built a set of stairs in a park on his own. Some were upset the city was going to remove them. But obviously those stairs were not up to code and someone would be injured on them, then who pays for that?
There was outcry because his stairs were only a few hundred dollars and the stairs the city then put in cost 100 times as much, but no one is going to slip down those and die very easily.
No, what you already mentioned is a vastly oversimplified view which has a clear intention of belittling the importance of true freedom. Which is pathetic, by the way. I explained it as concisely as anyone could ever hope to in my last paragraph. It is characterized by it's non specificity, that's the point. If you took a moment to ponder what anarchy IS instead of just making smug dismissive comments you would realize that.
I personally have trouble thinking of anything I am not free to do now.
I guess it depends on the country you're in. In Australia we now have anti-assosiation laws that prevent some groups from gathering or wearing club colours.
That is fucked up, if you have any sort of hate speech laws and you don't have freedom of assembly then you are not living in a free country. It's like they are trying to turn it back into a prison colony. Maybe Australia is ready for a Trump or a Brexit?
I want;
Pay voluntary for the services one needs. (and others)
Not doing drugs, but let others do drugs if they want to.
Drive carefully not to hurt anyone, and let others drive the way they want, as long as they don't are an immediate danger to others.
Keeping drunk drivers of the road, by not serving them more than one alcoholic (when they are the one driving) while they are in my house (It's a rule I have now)
If they would drink and wanted to get in the car; steal the key's and give them a place to sleep or find some other solution. But that never happens because most are not stupid.
It's not about the money or having no rules
It's about the rulers.
It's about me wanting to be an grown human being that I am, that is responsible for the things I do and pay for.
And not staying a child whining for daddy and mommy fixing it's problem.
But most of all it's about the violence and tyranny that needs to stop.
Or as @mattclarcke said so beautifully short
I edited some mistakes out and added a sentence
so drugs, speeding and not paying taxes?
End slavery.
well you have to do a lot of drugs, irresponsibly, speed a lot, irresponsibly, and do a shitty job of dodging your taxes to actually be incarcerated for any of those things and none are capital crimes.
Let's say I would do a lot of drugs, how would you get a right to incarcerate me?
Edit ;
Let's say I build a deck on the house I worked for and own, what gives you the right to incarcerate me.
Let's say I don't replace the windshield of my car (for the second time) because there is a minor crack, in the left under corner, that goes nowhere, and is perfectly safe) and that costs over five hundred dollar to replace, (with all the lost hours in time it's dubble that. If not more, If I wouldn't do that, so I would not have that sticker of yours, what gives you the right to incarcerate me?
Let's say I have a tree in my garden that 3.30 m. high you say you may not have a tree larger then 3 m. high, what gives you the right to incarcerate me?
What if I wanted to build a house and you say you can choose between these two stones, what if I picked another stone, what gives you the right to incarcerate me.
If I have a fish swimming in a bowl for a decade and a half and you say you must put that fish in a aquarium that's square, and I don't do that, what gives you the right to incarcerate me.
I could go on and on.
I was under the same impression, and for some ppl its just that. But for others its a way of thinking, a utopia of sorts.
I dont think people are emotionaly mature enough to live in a society based on mutral respect and working together on our own accord, not yet anyway.
We have evolved to this point slowly, and we will continue to grow as a species, and maybe this is the future our kids, kids to look foward to.
The trend in America in most things is towards increased recognition of civil rights, look at the advances in gun rights in the last 20 years.
This seems to be an interesting question and I guess it varies depending on the anarchist, just as what every Christian wants is varied, every feminist, every vegan... darn these labels!
-isms are schisms.
when there is peace somewhere, no conflict, no coercion, it is automatically anarchy.
so you kindof have it backwards. where there is governance is actually a small portion of reality, that certain individuals and entities seek to grow.
so, peaceful people are already anarchist whether they want to be or not.
A better restatement of what you should be asking is, 'why are peaceful people cooperating with governance that perpetuates conflict and coercion?'
As in, a peaceful person would not pay taxes to a government that starts or perpetuates wars.
"Why are so many peaceful people paying taxes that support war?'
This is true, but most people can't see it that way. The assumption is that anarchy is violence and if you oppose government you must be violent. So my approach was more to try and get people realising that just because you question government policy, it doesn't mean you are aggressive or a terrorist as they might like people to believe.