My Initial Statement on Anarchy
Some of you may have happened to note on my Info page under "Political Views", I have stated, "I am an anarchist."
I first had the idea that I COULD be an anarchist in about 2007. My boyfriend at the time said that he was an anarchist. We didn't have long discussions about this or anything, but it was just interesting to me because I didn't know anybody else ...who out-and-out identified themselves as an anarchist (OTHER people were anarchists). It was strange to me to begin with, but it was a seed planted in me and after a while it didn't seem as strange.
In fact, I eventually realized I had always been an anarchist, or at least an incipient one, from at least the age of 18 when I consciously selected my political outlook at the time (at the age of 18, I identified myself as a Constitutionalist). Of course, since then I have read many things, had many experiences, encountered many people that have developed my thinking and view point. I'm not the same person I was then, that I was 10 or 5 years ago. And I will be different again in the future amount of time.
But--I am an anarchist.
I'm still thinking through this. Not so much about WHETHER to be an anarchist . . . but HOW.
So I am going to write a few basics here that are the foundation of my thinking, hopefully to clarify to myself, and I welcome any feedback and for the opportunity to add to my understanding, or even correct it. Some of these things I've known for a long, long time . . . other things I've come to realize much more recently.
The etymology of the word "anarchy" is Greek and it means, or at least meant originally, "without ruler". Or as paraphrased in my favorite etymology online source, "the state of people without a government".
I have very little knowledge in the history of the development of movements of anarchy in the world, and I'm also not that interested in them. It may be that I would have some things in common, but it is also just as likely I would not. I can only share what my purpose is.
The following is very crucial to understand from my viewpoint what anarchy is (and is not) to me, and why I choose it: this: anarchy is NOT the absence of LAW.
Repeat: anarchy is NOT the absence of LAW.
In fact, I choose anarchy because I find in it the best hope and chance FOR THE PRESENCE OF LAW in the life and society of human beings.
I do not consider government, particularly that form of government in vogue these days called the nation-state (nor any other similarly defective invention of mankind), to be a vessel of law. Government is not a vessel or instrument of law, of order, of safety, of justice, of mercy, of peace, or of freedom; or at least not to the degree that is the actual potential of human beings for these things. Government, and the state VIOLATE law, justice, order, safety, mercy, peace, freedom (etc) on a daily basis . . . and while it may have been the best thing we could come up with thus far as a planet, for God's sake let's not stop here. There's more to learn.
There is no human being on this planet who I accept as my ruler, nor will I. There is no human being nor collection of human beings who should rule over another, there is no human being nor collection of humans who should be making choices for another. I am responsible for myself before God, or if there is one who says he does not believe in God, then we are each responsible for ourselves before humanity.
People who are uncomfortable with anarchy, or what they are thinking is anarchy to them, speak about people who commit crimes and if we had no government, these kinds of people would have free reign. A full answer to this is too much for this already very long "initial statement on anarchy". Hopefully I can delve into that more in future writings. However, WHO shall say which human beings have violated law? Which OTHER PERSON besides myself shall say I have done wrong? WHO IS SMARTER than me? (No human is that smart, not me, not anyone). WHO DECIDES WHO IS THE SMARTEST and makes the laws and makes a government and gets to rule? These exercises lead to the realization that we are ALL . . . people . . . no one is that smart, no one is that good, no one is that much to judge another, we can barely take care of themselves.
In anarchy the laws are the same as in monarchy or democracy or any state. For example, Thou shalt not kill. The law doesn't change just because someone embraces anarchy as the form for society. There has to be SOME response to any human being who either deliberately or by some deficiency choose to kill (for our example law). So do not imagine that anarchy is response-less to these things. But the STATE is an inappropriate, deficient response to murderers, and quite often becomes a murderer. So consenting to the STATE and clinging to it as an answer to murderers (as an example only) IS hardly an answer.
There may be no GOVERNMENT in anarchy, but there IS . . . GOVERNING. There is the nurture of LAW and ORDER. The antidote to the STATE, the antidote to government . . . the basic format for the expression of anarchy (which is just a word after all) . . . is COMMUNITY.
Well, this is enough for a beginning. Obviously, so much could be said. But this is the beginning.
