or: No rulers + natural rules + equal rights = true freedom
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 place[d] 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.
Are there good/benevolent/useful elements to being governed? Surely, but they occur in the context of the above.
What anarchy is and is not
Anarchy is best described by what anarchy isn't (i.e. it is best described apophatically):
What Anarchy Isn't
Anarchy is not a system, or even an idea. Anarchy is a description of the natural order. There are endless ways to elucidate the true nature of anarchy, but the most effective elucidations are those that focus on the rights of the individual human being. Ultimately, anarchy is the only logically self-consistent moral/ethical position for a human being who:
- professes to oppose the initiation of violence against his fellow human unless in self-defense;
- believes in the egalitarian nature — in the equal value of the lives of — human beings;
- understands therefore that no other human being can somehow acquire the natural right to initiate aggression against other human beings;
- understands that one does not have the right to delegate a right that oneself does not have, such as the right to "vote" for a group of people (e.g. a political party) to collectively receive such special rights (the right to rule) that individuals do not have.
What anarchy really is
Anarchy is an absence of a legal monopoly on violence.
Anarchy is the only truly consistent moral position, because the idea of "authoritative" enforcement of rules, no matter how long a history such a practice may have, is fundamentally premised in (the initiation of) violence.
As researcher Mark Passio points out, if we are honest with ourselves and stop euphemizing, it is obvious that "authority" and statism are no more than euphemisms for slavery and violence; and as anarchist freedom advocate Larken Rose most eloquently explains, the belief in "authority" is actually "the most dangerous superstition" on the planet and lies at the root of most evil.
What anarchy really means
Mark Passio provides a powerful original, etymologically-accurate, definition:
The True Meaning & Definition of Anarchy
[Published on May 28, 2015] Mark Passio reveals the true definition and Latin origin of the infamous term 'Anarchy'. Anarchy comes from the Greek prefix an-(av-): "without; the absence of" and the Greek noun archon: "master; ruler".
Anarchy does NOT mean "without rules." It literally means "without rulers; without masters." Anarchy is the state of existence where there are no Masters and no Slaves. Therefore, Anarchy means the absence of Slavery, or in other words, Freedom.
This is an excerpt from Mark Passio's phenomenal lecture entitled: "Natural Law - The REAL Law Of Attraction And How To Apply It In Your Life.".
So they've gotten enough people to call "freedom" "chaos"! Think about that! They've gotten enough people to believe that the absence of the state of slavery means chaos instead of freedom. It's almost unfathomable. It's almost incomprehensible, the mind-job that's been done on this species.
A mind-job which we ultimately created for ourselves in order to experience extreme levels of darkness and limitation, but which we are now in the process of leaving behind during the dimensional shift of our consciousness back towards divinity status as the self-sovereign Creator gods that we really are.
The website NoGov4Me has a questionnaire about the real "political spectrum":
Where are you on the new political spectrum? Many political diagnostic tests purport to place their respondents on some scale or spectrum according to their beliefs. All, however, wind up with the person being an advocate of at least some level of government. This test is based on a true political spectrum of anarchy (no government) on one end, and total authoritarianism on the other. Take this brief self-evaluation quiz to see how close to a free human being you've become after all these years on the planet.
The questionnaire reveals the unconscious (hidden) logical contradictions in the mind of a statist.
What is a state?
Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.
A state is an abstract concept that describes the borders of the "jurisdiction" of a group of people who believe they have rights that other people (their subjects) don't have — i.e. that they have acquired "authority" — and thus that they have a legitimate monopoly on the initiation of violent force. As Wikipedia puts it:
The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, commonly but controversially known as monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"; thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination." In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.
Statism (or archonism, "belief in rulers") is thus the morally-inconsistent belief that there can be such a thing as legitimate "authority" — the right to initiate violence to enforce authoritarian rules.
It is also the illusion, or delusion, that one can delegate a right that oneself does not have — the right to rule — to a 3rd party called a political party, in memetically-consolidated mind-control rituals of acquiescence called "democratic elections".
It may be worth noting also, that it has been observed by "rigorous scholars" studying historical states that a state that starts out with benevolent intentions (if such were possible) necessarily turns into something else given enough time:
The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)
Daniel Sanchez combines the theories of Robert Higgs and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to form a theory of the cycle of the state. Article text: http://mises.org/library/higgs-hoppe-and-cycle-state
In other words, the observation is not missed by minarchists (advocates of "as small as possible" or minimal levels of "government"), that if initially-well-intentioned "states" may at times be relatively benevolent and even useful, that's only because not enough time has yet passed for them to become tyrannical or "authoritarian".
What is government?
Governments are tax farms with a monopoly on violent force initiation. Conceptually, the idea of government is, as Frédéric Bastiat most eloquently put it, "the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Government is (the illusion of) the institutionalized, outsourced, sanctioned "authority" to commit violence against individuals. The violence and violent coercion is real; the illusion is that its "authority" is legitimate because its subjects are given the illusion of choice, thus that there is "consent of the governed":
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
The illusion of the "divine right of kings" (rule by one, monarchy) has simply been replaced by the illusion of "consent of the governed" (rule by many, democracy).
Voluntaryism is the opposite of involuntaryism, which is organization by coercion, i.e. authoritarian enforcement by means of violence.
Anarchy/voluntaryism is true equality. Authority/involuntaryism implies inequality.
The non-aggression principle
The site 5 Steps To Anarchy explains it best:
What is the Non-Aggression Principle?
The non-aggression principle or NAP (sometimes the zero aggression principle) is a simple concept that helps identify and avoid unethical behavior in ourselves and others. The principle states that it is unethical and unjust to initiate coercion, physical force, threats, or fraud against other people.
“Initiation“ is the key word; since there's obviously no magical guarantee that all people will adhere to this principle, you are perfectly justified to respond as necessary to stop aggression if it's used against you. NAP is not the same as pacifism; neither is it a strict, be-all-end-all definition of what is unethical.
The principle may sound rather obvious at its face, but once you really start to look at things, you'll start to notice just how much modern society is based on aggression, from government (see “The State is Institutionalized Violence“) to parenting (through spanking and threats rather than understanding, explaining, and reasoning) and everywhere in between.
Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. According to G. A. Cohen, the concept of self-ownership is that "each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply."
The word sovereignty implies self-governance. A sovereign does not have a government external to himself. Meaning that we shouldn't care about who's in what office or not in what office, or whether it's a de jure government, or a de facto government — they're all irrelevant because sovereign people are 100% responsible for their own existence — and I'm not saying they don't work together, I'm saying that they are whole people that have taken the burden of their existence off the rest of the planet. That's sovereignty.
Few concepts have been more obfuscated with clever lies and misconceptions. Following are some of the most common comebacks from people when explaining what anarchy/anarchism is.
But who will build the roads? How can we possibly do x, if not for government?
Larken Rose dismantles the blatant mind-control behind this common retort:
If Not For Government
This is for all the people who don't think we would have roads, protection, or anything else, without "taxes" (i.e., mass extortion) and the "guidance and management" (i.e., violent domination) of "government" (i.e., a parasitical ruling class).
It's a utopia!
Setting aside the ethical and moral considerations of involuntaryism (coercion, i.e. violent enforcement of "authority"), the common belief that anarchy "has never been tried" is very far from the truth.
Probably the best existing example is Zomia, a large landmass inhabited by millions of people who are not subjected to the rule of any (group of people calling themselves) governments. Zomia is populated by diverse cultural groups living in a voluntaryist rather than involuntaryist society. They have consciously avoided domination and hierarchy for centuries.
James C. Scott's book-length anthropological and historical study of Zomia, titled The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, is summarized this way by Wikipedia:
For two thousand years the disparate groups that now reside in Zomia (a mountainous region the size of Europe that consists of portions of seven Asian countries) have fled the projects of the organized state societies that surround them—slavery, conscription, taxes, corvée labor, epidemics, and warfare. This book, essentially an “anarchist history,“ is the first-ever examination of the huge literature on state-making whose author evaluates why people would deliberately and reactively remain stateless. Among the strategies employed by the people of Zomia to remain stateless are physical dispersion in rugged terrain; agricultural practices that enhance mobility; pliable ethnic identities; devotion to prophetic, millenarian leaders; and maintenance of a largely oral culture that allows them to reinvent their histories and genealogies as they move between and around states.
Scott admits to making "bold claims" in his book but credit many other scholars, including the French anthropologist Pierre Clastres and the American historian Owen Lattimore, as influences.
On page 324 of his book, Scott writes:
Simplifying greatly, we might identify four eras: 1) a stateless era (by far the longest), 2) an era of small-scale states encircled by vast and easily reached stateless peripheries, 3) a period in which such peripheries are shrunken and beleaguered by the expansion of state power, and finally, 4) an era in which virtually the entire globe is “administered space” and the periphery is not much more than a folkloric remnant.
Indeed, humans lived in stateless societies until very recently, and several ungoverned communities have existed around the world in more recent times, yet the control system's propaganda has made it seem as if the idea is an unattainable utopia, by simply suppressing the knowledge of the very existence of the vast area of the planet known as Zomia and its inhabitants living (relatively) peacefully in a state of anarchy.
Scott concludes with the following observation at the end of the book (p.337):
The valley imagination has its history wrong. Hill peoples are not pre- anything. In fact, they are better understood as post-irrigated rice, postsedentary, postsubject, and perhaps even postliterate. They represent, in the longue durée, a reactive and purposeful statelessness of peoples who have adapted to a world of states while remaining outside their firm grasp.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the valley understanding of the agro-ecology, social organization, and moblity of the peoples who elude them. They've sorted these people, as it were, into the right bins. In addition to radically misunderstanding the historical sequence, however, they have got their labels wrong. If they merely substituted “state-subject” for “civilized” and “not-a-state-subject” for “uncivilized”, they’d have it just about right.
And that deliberate conflation of "civilization" with "state-making" is nowhere more clearly exposed than in the social interactions of day-to-day life, because, in fact, the best example of anarchism in a real world scenario is what nearly every person does nearly all the time. The only exception is when they're advocating political positions — which are mind-locking memes created by the "news" media's reporting on the supposedly-relevant actions of politicians (i.e. the people who call themselves "government" who are supposedly vested with "authority").
Market anarchism / anarcho-capitalism
Ultimate Video On Anarcho Capitalism!
[Published on May 1, 2018]
Market Anarchism is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions unjustly and inefficiently monopolised by the coercive State should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of market society.
As explained in the above video, and as the site Peace Requires Anarchy explains:
In the words of Roderick Long, “The first explicit defender of Market Anarchism was the 19th-century economist and social theorist Gustave de Molinari.“
In his 1849 essay, translated as The Production of Security, Molinari made, in the words of Murray Rothbard, “the first presentation anywhere in human history of what is now called ‘anarcho-capitalism’ or ‘free market anarchism’.“
While it is true that there were anarchists before Molinari who were pro-market, such as “William Godwin in England, Josiah Warren in America, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in France,“ Roderick Long points out that “what Molinari pioneered, in 1849, was an explanation of how market mechanisms could replace the traditional ‘governmental’ function of the State – protection against aggressors…. Thus I don't see anything properly describable as market-based anarchism (as opposed to merely market-friendly anarchism) prior to Molinari.“
It is worth noting that Molinari's case against the state's monopoly on security in The Production of Security is not so much a moral argument as it is an argument of economic efficiency.
As Rothbard writes, “In contrast to all previous individualistic and near-anarchistic thinkers, such as La Boetie, Hodgskin or the young Fichte, Molinari did not base the brunt of his argument on a moral opposition to the State. While an ardent individualist, Molinari grounded his argument on free-market, laissez-faire economics, and proceeded logically to ask the question: If the free market can and should supply all other goods and services, why not also the services of protection?“
In the following excerpt from his essay Molinari describes one of the main advantages of having a market for security (as opposed to a monopoly on security—what most people think of as “governments“ today): [...]
So even from a purely economic perspective, an anarcho-capitalist society would be more effective/efficient at protecting individuals from harm by other individuals or groups. And once established, such a society would likely never allow the emergence of a large dominator criminal gang such as a "government", given that there is already now more private security agents in the U.S. than there are "law enforcement officers" (a $350 billion industry booming since 2010).
Statism is the utopian ideal that just the right amount of violence used by just the right people in just the right way can perfect society.
The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The Individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist.
Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty.
Wow!! I just read some of the comments here and the state slaving morons are prolific. It's amazing how people don't see the facts and that is that the "government" can NOT legislate private persons and private businesses. Do some actual research you fucking morons and learn the truth. If we are "governed by consent" then removal of consent makes the governors criminals who are committing organized crimes such as theft, extortion, coercion, and fraud just to name a few. WTFU already assholes and stop supporting the oppressors. You aren't going to be included in their future plans. You are just dumb ass pawns.
America's withdrawal from the world, or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival, would produce massive international instability. It would promote global anarchy.
That's why I'm so good at analyzing politics; I admit my libertarian bias. Yeah, I'm a libertarian, I believe in lots of guns, lots of speech, and I don't care what people do, leave me alone. That's what I really legitimately believe in. Oh yeah I'm biased. I think that the modern Democrats and Republicans are both a couple of authoritarian movements, and that Trump's populism is vaguely tolerable compared to the alternatives, but isn't even nearly far enough.