Anarchy Is Not What They Made You Believe [VIDEO]

in anarchy •  2 months ago

FINAL IMAGE (28).jpg

Anarchy is rising.

That might sound like an ominous slogan for the next “Purge” movie, but it’s really just an accurate assessment of the world today.

And no, this “anarchy” won’t come with bombs and fire and bloodshed---that’s the state’s job.

No, anarchy is rising in the sense that people everywhere are waking up to the simplest, purest truth: self-ownership.

Back in July, I spoke on a panel at Anarchaportgual with economist and anarcho-capitalist Walter Block, exploring the truth about anarchy and what it actually looks like. Also part of the discussion was Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof and Raphael Lima.

“Critics of anarchism are always using Somalia as an example of anarchy,” said Walter, “It’s not… if it’s anarchy it’s not libertarian anarchy.”

Block shared noteworthy insight:

“You know where else there’s anarchy? There’s anarchy between countries! Portugal and the United States are in a state of anarchy in regards to each other in the sense that there’s no world government…

Right now we have 200 countries or something like that, and each of those countries is in a state of anarchy with each other because there’s no world government over them.”

It’s easy to get caught up in the labels people use to describe things. “Anarchy” is just a word describing complex phenomena in reality.

And while statists will try to boogeyman you into fearing unchecked human freedom, who’s in charge of governing government? Is their freedom to rule any less “dangerous” than our freedom to rule ourselves?

Learn the Truth About Anarchy:

During the panel, we discussed everything from the origin of statism, where anarchy exists today, Somalia, pollution, privatization, and more.

Anarchaportugal was a success for its first year---it’s refreshing to be reminded that freedom is popular across real and imaginary borders.

The World’s Premier Liberty Event---Anarchapulco---is already spontaneously organizing to bring you the ultimate experience in free thought, free expression, and true freedom.

It’s happening February 14-17, 2019, and tickets are selling fast. We expect to be sold out soon, so be sure to SECURE YOUR SPOT now before it’s too late!

Life Unchained is not to be feared, but embraced.

jeff-berwick-bio.jpeg

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

@dollarvigilante Are you in Iceland now? Didn't you ask in one of the hotels for a restaurant? If yes I was the receptionist and I was too shocked to ask If that was you, anyway, I hope you enjoy it here (:

3634e0bc014437c86bb48a7420d0ab5d.png

I’m a lifetime anarchist 💯

Posted using Partiko iOS

Anarchy create always bad situation but freedom create always good situation i hate anarchy always

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·
·

Yes bro but its not fair for honest man

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·
·

Anarchy means only the absence of rulers who trespass against the natural rights of others. How can you argue that freedom requires trespass? That's a contradictory and absurd position.

·
·
·
·

What causes the absence of trespass? What prevents the person with a machine gun from ruling the person with a knife? How can you argue that freedom doesn't imply trespass? Clearly you spent a minute on your position. Did you spend two?

·
·
·
·
·

Not trespassing causes the absence of trespass. A better question would be, what is trespass, and is it ever excusable?

What is government if not a man with a machine gun ruling a man with a knife? Hell, in some parts of the world, knives are even "illegal."

Peaceful, productive society exists in spite of government, not because of it. Government is a parasite. It requires a host upon which it can feed. Propaganda to justify its predation is the sedative it injects to lull the victim into ignoring it.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

·
·
·
·
·
·

I started replying in good faith, but I stopped and deleted it after the third paragraph.

I'll leave it this way. I agree with you that parasites should be eradicated and maximizing freedom is desirable. Beyond that it is difficult to bridge our concept framings and I consider most things you said to be substantially incorrect in relation to generative positions.

Do you think it is fair to say you, yourself have no intention of improving the theory of 'anarchy' and are proceeding directly to implementing it via persuading others?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I am not sure what you are asking. Anarchy means not imposing upon others, and resisting imposition by others. The philosophocal aspect requires consistent analysis based on universal and reciprocal principles. Modern politics is all about double standards to justify trespass.

·
·
·

I think you don't understand the meaning of anarchy. I prefer not to be a subject of any state or ruler. You should too. Anarchy is freedom.

Posted using Partiko Android

While Anarchy sounds very alluring to most freedom lovers

I'm still waiting for someone to put forward a manifesto or even some practical suggestions as to how Anarchy could be implemented in such a way that it affords freedom to the people without rapidly turning into free for all for all kinds if criminal gangs, warlords and tyrants.

I could imagine it working if everyone was good and honest and honourable. Unfortunately that is not the case in any place I've ever heard of. So unfortunately there's nowhere that it could possibly be put into practice and work successfully.

I believe that since we're not all good, honest etc. we're never going to achieve a successful Anarchy and will(albeit reluctantly) have to settle for something a little less ambitious but obviously something that affords the highest levels of freedom attainable under the given circumstances.

To the best of my knowledge, historically Constitutional Republics have afforded higher levels of individual freedom than any other kind of system. While these were far from perfect and usually eventually became corrupted and devolved into socialism which evolved into Tyranny or communism(which is itself a tyrannical system).

So they can afford a high degree of freedom for a limited period of time. However I believe that if they were properly implemented Constitutional Republics could indeed be sustainable and the key to the proper implementation is the Constitution itself. Since it's non-adherence to the Constitution that ultimately leads to the Republic’s destruction.

You might notice that the American Constitution, although it lays down a large set of rules which the Government is to follow, it doesn't prescribe any penalties or punishment for those who violate, conspire to violate or advocate the violation these rules.

So why would "bad" leaders adhere to the Constitution when they could gain advantage by violating it and if they are ruled against, nothing bad happens to them. It just means they're supposed to stop that particular violation so they're inclined to move on to some other profitable violation and so on.

With a myriad of these type of incidents constantly occurring it's no wonder the Constitution's power and authority becomes weakened and diminishes over time.

However if these violations were punishable with stiff penalties (which they should be, since they erode the very core of our civilization) for those who inspire, implement, support, and facilitate them, this kind of corrosion could 'for the most part' be stopped.

While there are many other flaws in the American Constitution none is as dangerous to the wellbeing of the Republic as this one.

·

Absolutely. The dirty secret that Anarchists don't like to talk or think about is that everyone is free to participate in anarchy right now. Of course if you start going around and doing whatever, you will find that a larger group will immediately provide consequences. Of course anarchy will always be surrounded by or embedded in other, larger groups because it lacks the ability to form the strong collaborative agreements that are necessary to coordinate larger groups. In fact, it is primarily opposed to rules (which are a form of structured agreement).

Anarchy fails on so many levels and in so many specific ways that it really isn't even an ideology any more than 'rebelling' or 'resisting' is an ideology. It is a one dimensional cartoon of an ideology designed to appeal to emotion and intellectually lazy people. I place anarchists at the same reasoning level as flat-earthers. Both movements are prime examples of psy-ops pushed by the same group ultimately for the same reasons.

·
·

I think the ideology of Anarchy is quite nice actually.

We humans need ideas/ideologies to work towards, even impractical unattainable ones.
My understanding of the ideologies are simplified thus:

  • Socialism: "The ideology of wanting to take care of as many people as possible"
  • Capitalism: "The ideology of economic mobility for all"
  • Anarchy: "The ideology of the free human"
  • Communism: "The ideology of a total collective ownership, and a society with no currency"

All ideologies have weak spots naturally, but that is why they are called IDEologies, and not REALologies.
Always working towards ideologies are more important than the ideologies themselves I believe, because when we stop caring we hand all decisions over to those that have no vision for society save control, and that is how one end up living in an authoritarian state.

·
·
·

Optimism is a positive force for sure. Ideals are important. People should work toward ideals. Good and evil are ideals..

Your descriptions of those ideologies are close to how I would describe them if I were trying to sell them. I don't consider the happiest bumper-stickers that I can make for ideas to be very useful when exploring or comparing them.

As an engineer, I do begin with a positive criteria list but the vast majority of time is spent on negative criteria because they represent the problems to solve before the positive criteria can be implemented. To get past the first step of considering something like anarchy the detail of the ideas used to express it needs to be increased and an articulate list of negative factors needs to be generated.

Utopia: "The ideology of the happy human"

·
·
·
·

Well yes I did put a positive sticker on all the ideologies, because it is the positive aspect people work towards. That is the whole point of ideals.
Nobody sets out to work toward anything negative.

However as I said all ideologies have weak spots, and one all share is psychopaths.
A psychopath will worm his way into any society and take advantage for himself/herself to the detriment of everyone else.

The ideologies I mention might all end up failing thusly:

  • Socialism: Psychopaths starts undermining democracy, takes over government, and uses their position(s) to suppress the population.
  • Capitalism: Psychopaths climb the economic ladder through shady business dealings, uses their economic leverage to buy government, and rig the system to their advantage. Leaching the population into poverty.
  • Anarchy: Psychopaths gather gullible followers and forms a large hostile group that takes over by superior social cohesion and might.
  • Communism: Joseph Stalin puts himself in the center of society, starts killing everyone that can possible threaten him, gathers resources from all, but does not redistribute. People starve to death rather than living safe long lives in an egalitarian society.

Human nature prevents us from having a fair society.
Jake the dog (adventure time) has a cute cartoon that sums it up nicely:

Likely, for the best chance of fairness we need the presence all ideologies supporting/competing with each other, and people being educated enough to switch between them at need.

A sort of free marked of ideologies if you will.

·
·
·
·
·

I agree. That is all vaguely correct.

Some additional evolutionary considerations to explore:

Psychopaths:
*Psychopaths tend to occupy upper hierarchies because they have evolved for it. Applying anthropomorphic instincts to direct groups/super-organisms is a poorly fitting heuristic. Psychopaths lack many of those limbic instincts and out-compete those that don't because it frees them to conform to the factors of that system better.

Collectivists:
*History is an enormous catalog of events that partition the evolution space into 3 groups. Dominating, submitting and resisting. It is a Darwinistic filter that selects against resistance. The iterated effect of this is specialization into two groups - essentially masters and slaves. The slaves have adapted to prefer slavery and even if given freedom their instincts will drive them to seek a new master. Interestingly, it isn't clear that this survival strategy is incorrect either. When man eventually encounters more dominant life, the slaves will likely still be slaves and the masters will be pruned.

Choice:
*Democracy rewards the individuals and groups that are more persuasive than others. Groups with superior opinion control technology out-perform groups with inferior methods. That is a selection filter which necessarily advances opinion control technology. The iteration limit of that evolution is indistinguishable from mind control.

Capitalism:
*I was going to show that the consequence of capitalism yields the opposite of free markets - although interesting, it would be a bit too long.

·
·
·
·
·
·

All very true, but I belive it is not only a biological factor in play.
Humans and Society also develops psychologically. For instance a man does not have to be a slave type even if all his ancestors were.
He can educate himself to redirect his survival instincts elsewhere.

This I belive is the essence of the Anarchy ideology. It does not tell society what it should be as a whole, but gives the individuals a psychological option to step outside the role/expectations society has for him.

@dollarvigilante is correct when trying to inform people they do not have to conform to the great collective instincts of the general population, but rather can go their own way.

The reality is, if you can find a way to thrive without, there is no law or custom in life you are obligated to follow.

Ultimately only you can judge you, everyone outside yourself who tries to hold you accountable to anything you do not want to be accountable for is trespassing on your self-given rights to yourself.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

With respect, that is all mostly incorrect with a few well stated and valid clauses.
You are writing about your religious position now. I'm not sure how to respond to that. It doesn't seem sensible to argue religious convictions. You seem nice, good luck to you.

"Self-Ownership"? Is that not like the core value of Socialism? (Means of production, etc?).

·
·
·

It seems I misunderstood you. With all the focus on private property among libertarians I thought by the frase "self-ownership" you meant owning property or production.

I totally agree btw. In fact it was one of my earliest core principles thought up in late childhood (10-12 ys. old) that the only thing I truly owned or would ever truly own was myself.
My big ideal at the time was Conan the Barbarian. Not for his physical strength, but for his strong will to protect his own life over all else, and for his relationship to his god Crom (Crom makes no demands and gives no help. He only expects you to be strong on your own).

Anyway I still think like that, more than 20 years after getting inspired by a comic book :p