Why I am an Anarchist

When one tries to get to the bottom of things, it’s helpful to start with first principles. One such principle is the notion that one cannot use force against another human being to achieve one’s goals. Any deed, no matter how well-intentioned, loses its virtue if achieved by the use of force, or the threat of the use of force.

Which is exactly how the state achieves all of its deeds. Anything the state demands is backed by the threat of the use of force. The monopoly on the use of force is one of the very definitions of a state. This, ladies and gentlemen, is an unacceptable proposition.

It is unacceptable because no human being has the right to use force against another to achieve their ends — unless the end is to defend one’s own life because it is threatened by force.

And until the state is comprised of something else than human beings, none of the state representatives have the right to use force to achieve their ends either.

It’s an illusion to think they did. A superstition. “The most dangerous superstition” of them all, according to Larken Rose.

It’s an illusion to think they had any rights none of us individual have. How would they have acquired such a right?

Man made law is the arbitrary spelling of words to prohibit certain actions. And a “spell” it is, because what is wrong on this side of the invisible line called border is perfectly right on the other side. Magic!

Apparently a right is not objective.

Of course it is. A right is called a right, because it is the right thing to do. We should stop saying “we have rights” and start saying “we have to do rights.” It’s not hard to figure out what is right. Right is what does not cause harm to other sentient beings.

Let’s dispel some more illusions:

Taxes are not our “fair share.” Taxes are protection money. If we don’t pay, goons will come and kidnap us. If that’s not an exact depiction of how the Mafia operates, I don’t know what is.

We don’t pay taxes voluntarily. If we did, there would be no threat of force. Simple as that (I’m not saying we shouldn’t contribute to create a better world. I’m saying the exact opposite. I’m saying we should stop using force, which never creates a better world).

To claim our “fair share” was part of a social contract makes no sense, because we never saw, let alone signed, any such contract.

“Just following orders”

Law enforcers cannot pass on their distinction between right and wrong to a third party, which is what they think they’re doing when speaking the famous words: “I was just following orders.”

This is synonymous with saying, “I don’t have a conscience.” Here’s why:

Kidnapping people (which is what arrests are), robbing people (which is what the gathering of taxes is), murdering people (which is what wars are) don’t become rights because you replace the words kidnapping with arrest, theft with taxation or murder with war or humanitarian intervention or even peace mission.

All of these things remain universally and forever wrong.

Pretending not to be able to distinguish between a right action and a wrong action is in fact pretending not to have a conscience. Which, of course, is impossible. Another illusion.

No rulers

This is not to say we don’t need any rules. Just like this is not to say that we shouldn’t contribute to form a civilized society.

Anarchy does not mean “no rules.” It means “no rulers.”

The good and the bad things a state enforces are done by individuals. It is therefore bollocks to say we wouldn’t get things done without a state. The state is merely an intermediary that isn’t needed, especially not in the digital age.

We have technologies such as the Blockchain to organize in a transparent way whenever mass-scale organization becomes necessary, which isn’t that often actually.

The state may organize, but it also enforces. And, for the last time: enforce means to use force to achieve ends. It is, of course, individuals who use this force, and they are absolutely wrong to do so.

This is not an opinion. It’s a fact stemming from first principles.

You can also use the golden rule to describe this first principle. Don’t do unto others as you wouldn’t have them do unto you.

Simple. And True.

The individual vs. the collective

The state, the father, was once evoked to give rise to the son, the individual. Once it becomes a tool for the collective, things go downhill. The collective is morally inferior to the individual, because it is the individual’s consciousness that distinguishes between right and wrong. The collective does not have a conscience. It only has the majority vote, which is based on all sorts of things except on what is the right thing to do.

If you were allowed to tell others what to do, or even to use force to get them to do what you want them to do, it would mean that it was a natural phenomenon for there to be masters and slaves.

This is obviously not true. How does one know? Well, we’re all born butt naked, how about that?

The only way for us to actually think that there are some people that are born with special rights — how else would they have acquired them? — is to believe it was so.

And that has been the case throughout all of human history: whenever we believe in false gods, whether that’s deities in the classical sense, kings and queens or politicians, we become susceptible. It is the only way for us to actually end up thinking we should shut down our own consciousness and be told right from wrong. But shutting down consciousness is impossible. One can only pretend to do so.

A few last remarks:

People would still be interested in providing health care, building roads and educating their children without a state. They would simply have more control over how these processes are handled.

This requires responsibility. Like consciousness there’s no way of getting around responsibility. After all, it’s just us humans here on earth.

To say you care about something but not wanting to take responsibility for it is a contradiction in terms. Saying “I voted for this person to take of something for me” is an admission of laziness.

Sure, you can pay someone in a voluntary agreement to get a job done, but you cannot pay somebody to decide over everyone’s lives — and you sure as hell cannot force everybody else to pay for your scheme of changing the world.

A nice side effect: If we all took on more and more responsibility, the question of meaning would eventually vanish.

I’m going to leave you with five questions that the great Larken Rose came up with. I’m courious to read your replies:

1. Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2. Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3. Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4. When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5. When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?

With great freedom comes great responsibility.

Much love,

G