Anarchy Essay: What It Is

Anarchy Essay: What It Is
Anarchy government USA reason Igor Panarin system capitalism socialism regulation mob rules martial law
People like to govern personal actions. Few are the men and women that are happy to be in diapers. Just as humans like control over bodily function, humans desire power. Perhaps government started through tribal chiefs. There became an important role for leaders. However, this is a very problematic role, as sometimes humans like to govern actions of others. That is, eventually most of humanity wants to be a leader, but as populations age to adulthood, it means increasing suppression. Suppression is the inherent problem with leadership, as with being lead it means someone is subordinate. Most people don’t like being subordinate.
Both separation and unity are forms of government. Separation is usually punishment, as humans are social. Unity is generally reward. However, to have the right to govern our own actions, means that it is imperative that the actions of others aren’t governed, so far as we can help it. Freedoms that one person takes away from another is as a spreading plague, as it is only human to desire something in return for giving up a freedom. This is the provisional aspect of government. The same is true with separation and unity. Anarchy is not a call to either, as every person has some beings he or she desires to be separate from, and some with which he or she desires a feeling of unification. However, to say anarchy is all separation or all unification neglects the jelly that is anarchy. There must be give and take, freedom from government so long as freedom, happiness, and punishment are reasonable.
With anarchy, there is of course give and take, and consequently a bottom line with both nations and people. That is there is not an exact form to anarchy. Anarchy would operate more like jelly than steel. Take for instance my jelly way of liberal thinking. Often I like 50% majorities, but that is entirely morally relativist. I also like weighting opinions, but 50% should suffice to overthrow any ruler. Sometimes I’ll gladly join a very small minority. I am writing this as a minority anarchist.
Anarchy is funny because it can’t be legislated. That is the hypocrisy of democrat liberals. Freedom knows no bounds. It is only in an anarchist environment that the crux liberty is possible to be lived. Anarchy must take with it a grain of salt. It will never be absolute. There will always be government, jelly not steel!
Similar to giving and receiving, both sustenance and lack of it are not imperative in anarchy, which is the ultimate freedom of choice. This is why there are nations in the first place. It is the idea of you and me, separation that is felt among nations. Nations take personal interest in their people, but less in others and such it is a grand scale similarity. Both individuals and nations desire freedom. It is also a fact that governments do not necessarily protect that freedom.
Humans are reasonable. Anarchy is not a chaos void of reason, but it is a place where reasoning skills become heightened, such is the playing field of the world’s rulers, the playing field of the stars of reason, hopefully! I say hopefully because nations get sick. Sometimes a nation’s leadership is poor, which is another problem with government, that leaders are just as fallible as everyone else. Consequently, there is time to pull the plug on a nation, just as sometimes a doctor pulls the plug on a person and cuts the feeding tube. Life and death decisions and decisions of a much lesser magnitude still would exist in anarchy. The future tense is used because anarchy is theoretical to the Western world, as more primal or brute instincts have long been lost to civilization. Aside from action and its subdivisions, with or without intent to control, there is greater ability for reasoning skills to flourish when government of the actions of others is reduced. This is only logic, proven from my argument.
This is definitely not to say that in anarchy minding one’s own business is imperative. Altruistic actions made in daily decision making are very important to an anarchist ideal, though one cannot say that they are mandatory though at least altruism serves as a means to subordinate oneself to another leaving the possibility of receiving something in return.
Are there any scoffers? Ye are only a product of sentiments your teachers had toward anarchy. These come out of the book of Judges in the Bible, which was a period of anarchy in the history of the nation of Israel. It’s generally not considered a great time, and so this opinion has influenced the human conception of anarchy ever since.
Government is not void of reason though perfection always seems to be hoped for in the next one established. Historically though establishing a government is as important as having an operating system for a computer this is not to say bigger operating systems are better. Windows Vista is proof of this. Perhaps, with the next government decisions will lead to doctrine as concerned with system repair, as it is with just making sure the system runs. Maybe, the USA operating system was too small to be rectified before it was too late. By now it is time to get new computer. I don’t see why the operating system is necessary, and that is why I am an anarchist. Yet, I am not against operating systems, imperatively, just as each individual program needs some sort of system.
It was said when the system was established that it needed to check and balance itself. I guess that would be RAM, ROM and a Processor. Okay, it wasn’t a perfect analogy. I can’t compare the branches of government to the parts of a computer using similarities. However, no one was able to conceive at the time the present need for a system overhaul. Consider the option: taking as much time with the mechanism for putting a leader into power, as removing him or her. A President might as well be as a crucial functional unit to a computer. If one can be voted in, then one should be able to be voted out. That’s IBM wisdom, not Macs!
See, anarchy is not devoid of leadership, nor is it devoid of interaction though it is inherent that all interactions are for the purpose of governing. Leadership is natural. Humans have to raise young in order to continue as a species and that means the young have to be lead, so it is true that humans naturally fall into leader and follower mentalities. With anarchy, though I don’t think if it is natural it has to be good, I am not trying to escape nature. The escapement of nature can only lead to dystopia.
Throw a tennis ball at a wall and watch it ricochet. That’s government! If you ask me, then I say that’s God at work. He caused the ball to ricochet, as he is the sustainer though I don’t like everything that He sustains. Government is as inescapable as the human master and slave relationship. Yet, many people try to escape this horrible institution! Anarchy is only void of imperative government, and by this I mean government which can exist over a majority of people that do not like it. To someone else it might mean something different. That is moral relativism is not an imperative, itself.
If a great amount of people don’t like the government, 50% or greater, then I say keep no president and have other branches work out the problems so that the nation is worthy of political representation. Who knows maybe then anarchy would exist as much as 50% of the time! I know that if my computer runs 50% slower because of overload that it is probably time to do some maintenance. The same should be true to states of anarchy.
Most people I’ve met don’t understand anarchy. I am probably not helping! Usually, the best word that comes to mind to describe their idea of anarchy is dystopia. The end of any big government is a dystopia. Folks like Igor Panarin say the USA’s time is almost up. The idea that comes to mind if you say anarchy is the end of the USA for most people. This is synonymous with a worthless dollar and food shortages. Also, there is this idea that anarchy is when people hoard resources, which can also be coupled with martial law where the military is more a source of fear to common citizens than a protection.
I want to dispel anyone’s idea that this is what I have in mind as an anarchist for utopia, food shortages and the like. Surely, quitting strong government through anarchy is not an ideal form of anarchy. If I believed that, then I would have to consider something such as quitting heroin to be ideal. Nationally, the end of a government could be likened to quitting heroin. Of course it isn’t ideal when there are sudden states of anarchy, but anarchy is a great idea, but like any idea it is not a god. It is not as if, if its anarchy, then it has to be good. Anarchy is not necessarily good. Even Igor Panarin says that this coming collapse of the USA government is not ideal. Nobody wants to deal with a giant person quitting heroine. It’s as much problem for the person as it is for the people around that person, especially those that live with the person, analogous to turmoil in international economic partnerships.
Anarchy should be thought of as the natural state of mankind even before the event of addiction to government, an idea as powerful as heroin. Given that government has been the norm, finding a place to implement that context might be impossible. Anarchy needs to have a proper context. Inherently, it is no more and no less evil than government, yet I espouse it, especially when it is coupled to socialist or communist values in the sense of the roots of the word, not Marxism. Keep fixing government and it might be in a utopia, but I can’t come up with a perfect government idea any more than others have historically. If there is that person with the perfect idea of government, then perhaps the people will give him or her a chance to prove it, but to me it seems more like an unlikely scenario. Just as there are parents, so will there be government.
A protector is someone that is comforted by control. He/she would likely oppose anarchist values. Some people will always believe control is good, and spare no expense so that control may be maintained, so hopefully such a person that likes control will see that anarchy is its own self regulating form of control. What? Definitely not in today’s thought climate, but that would be an optimal time for implementation, especially if this became the craving of the populace, as it is humanities protectors that stand to impede the implementation of anarchy the most. That is if the protectors say anarchy, surely the time for anarchy is here! Something of biblical proportions would need to happen to common thought. The protectors will be the last to change. There is no need to rush them, that wouldn’t be an anarchist value.
That’s right! Government is not needed to produce regulation, only taking initiative to be proactive to justice. It should happen, but it will only when humans are ready to be witnesses to crimes, and do something about it without the need for uniforms and badges. Uniforms and badges are gimmicks for monkeys. That is, Marx failed in his Communist Manifesto where government became the means to implement socialism. Government induced sharing doesn’t work.
Capitalism failed too. At its heart, all but greedy people, people on the level of two year olds need to have a sense of material worth that comes through capitalism. Capitalism is monkeys using green paper to go shopping. Capitalism also conjures up the idea of stores full of goods, but only a few people having the ability to purchase them. Capitalism certainly leads to material wealth, enough that humanity could all prosper by.
This is the proper context for anarchy implementation: if the people of a land are able to interact well enough, that is as well as that of the interactions’ of real nations, and then anarchy has a chance. Anarchism is separate from socialism and capitalism, but it is like an umbrella that can protect both these things. There are two problems anarchists may have. Capitalism without slavery is a lie. At the very minimum, this is the employer and employee relationship, the mildest form of slavery. Similarly, socialism without government to enforce it is a lie. Both of these things are not acceptable to anarchists. As an umbrella, within anarchy there is room to explore both slavery and government, yet there needs to be a phenomena such that these aren’t imperative to society, jelly not steel. That is people need to relate to each other in anarchy as nations relate to other nations in the global setting. Though jelly, a sense of justice needs to be greater than the sense of what is right by the law. That is there needs to be some benefit for the herd to turn to anarchy. Though some nations oppress others, anarchy holds that both socialism and capitalism could exist well enough simultaneously that a balance could be found, a balance where everyone is happier. That is capitalism seems to know of no need to give charity, while socialism is strongly charitable, perhaps too much so, but if a balance is to be found, it is in anarchy, where these two ideas intermingle.
There are all sorts of interactions nations have with each other, war, trade, the need to acquire resources, unequal levels of power and even a loose sense of mob rules justice. Take for instance the United Nations. This institution is a way nations can unite as a mob in international affairs. The people that lead these states and the way they interact with other states are as their brains. These brains are very similar to human brains. Sometimes they even malfunction. There are all sorts of things that can go right and wrong with the leaders of nations, such that a comparison might be made with interactions of nations, and interactions of individuals of an ideal anarchist society. That is anarchy is not a solution to problems, but it is an ideal.
Anarchy does not solve the problem that some nations oppress other nations, just as bullies develop in the school environment. There is no real answer to the problem: Why can’t we all just behave? However, that is not to say that minimal amounts of improvement are possible to behavior, primarily, government. The improvements anarchy can make are a sense of justice higher than that of law, a sense of regulation greater than that which government can provide, and a sense of wealth where capitalist hoarding no longer seems necessary.