Loading...
 

Indian Libertarians

|| Anarchism in Action ||

iljaimine Friday May 16, 2014
My essay The Culture of Sheepleocracy in India brutally elaborates the status quo of vociferous statism. Provoked by the pro-eristic statists, I decided to essay down my thoughts in this essay to convince voters about Anarchism, Anarchism and Terrorism, State and Anarchism in Action. This essay is not a Communist Manifesto. It is simply an argumentative essay or a bold attempt to distort the cognitive dissonances of various people around me. I hope this essay motivates the online readers to ditch their stockholm syndrome. Nevertheless, psychedelicism is something that your government hates a lot. The illegalization of psychedelicism is mainly done through the languages of the government and they are sedition act, defamation act, political intimidation and appropriation. These languages are also the social norms of the people. These languages are spoken in all spectrums, therefore, anarchism is considered as a perilous idea and state as a pacifist idea by the normal society. Any fish that dares to not flow with the mainstream faces ad hominem, social avoidance, academic isolation, etc. The mainstreamists have failed to realize with their real eyes that “to stand alone, takes everything. To stand with crowd, takes nothing.” Only the dead fishes flow with the stream.

Now,

Anarchy is a condition of life without the intrusion of governance and the mechanisms and institutions of the state. Anarchism is the philosophy which has anarchy as its goal. Anarchists believe that the point of society is to widen the choices of individuals. This is the axiom upon which the anarchist case is founded.

The ideal of anarchism is a society in which all individuals can do whatever they choose, except interfere with the ability of other individuals to do what they choose. This ideal is called anarchy, from the Greek anarchia, meaning absence of government.

Whereas,

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one infinite object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous person to any government is an anarchist. An anarchist is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so he tries to discards the state.

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people” is a poetic phrase which uses “the people” in three different senses: the people as a collection of individuals, the people as the majority, and the people as a single entity. In prosaic terms, it means power over individuals, exercised by the majority through its elected officers, for the benefit of the whole population. This is the ideal of democracy.

Voters in a democratic election contribute to the choice of who shall exercise power on behalf of the majority, and in doing so consent to be ruled by whoever the majority chooses. For five thousand years, monarchy was the mark of civilisation. In less than two hundred years, the norm of civilisation has become democracy. Military usurpers used to claim, either that the throne was rightfully theirs, or that they were acting on behalf of the monarch. Military dictators, today claim, either that they have a mandate from the people, or that they are going to organise elections when order has been restored.

It used to be generally accepted that people had a duty to surrender their power unconditionally to a hereditary monarch. Now the accepted form is for citizens to surrender their power periodically, to rulers chosen by majority voting. Anarchists are against the surrender of power, and therefore against democracy. Not just against the perversion of democracy (though that is often mentioned), but against the democratic ideal. They do not want people to give power to whoever they choose; they want people to keep their power for themselves.

Murray Rothbard, in his #0000ff:Anatomy of the State

 

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. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects...The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

It is a disconcerting fact to note that many people have forgotten their sociophilosophical roots. Men have evolved from anarchy. Anarchy generated Men. Today, many are marching towards destructionism. Unlike “creative destructionism”, I propose “destructive destructionism”. Destructive destructionism is a psychological venue in which ignoramus seek solace. This venue is for the ignorant, of the ignorant and by the ignorant. There is no way out. Critical consciousness is disdained, free thinkers are handcuffed, freebies are cherished and anarchists are called terrorists, in this venue. The venue is engineered with servitude and is monitored by the clandestinistic government. In this venue, statists tell me that “We run the government”, “Without government, who will build the roads?”. “Go to Somalia”, etc What these people have failed to logically realize is that this venue is an abattoir. To say that “we run the government’ is like saying “cows run the slaughter house”. To say that “without government, who will build the roads?” is like believing that government can change the laws of physics. These statists are so inured with the empiricism philosophy that they will fight to defend stupidity. In this fight, they blindly dismiss that anarchy in Somalia made it very beautifully. They also dismiss without reading this stuff that there can be rule of law without the state. Moreover, to tell them to do an anatomy of voting is like administering medicine to a dead body. Nevertheless, I am also repeatedly told by them that anarchism is utopia.

Image

Utopia means, literally, “nowhere”. This idea is thrown at all anarchists as an argument that their vision for society could never exist because utopia is and will always be “nowhere”. Well, to remind them, stateless societies have existed before, proving their compatibility with human nature, and proving that they are not utopian. In contrast, a successful government, successful in the sense that it has achieved its purported goals of creating fair law, preserving order, and ensuring justice and security, has never existed and will never exist for philosophical and economic reasons. What has existed is a state successful in the sense that it has achieved conquest, plunder, class warfare, economic dependency, and every other means of expropriating wealth from others. That state does exist; hundreds of them exist and have existed, in fact. Last but not least, Anarchism is apolitical in its characteristics and has apolitical goals, whereas terrorists have political goals as per the definition. To succinctly enunciate, I say that politicians have political goals and now it is conclusively clear to learn that government is an institution of terrorism. To legitimize the government, in the society, people resort to induction reasoning. To inform about deduction reasoning to voters is like speaking arabic in Mexico.

There are many popular misconceptions about anarchism, and because of them a great many people dismiss anarchists and anarchism out of hand. Misconceptions abound in the mass media, where the term "anarchy" is commonly used as a synonym for "chaos," and where terrorists, no matter what their political beliefs or affiliations, are often referred to as "anarchists." As well, when anarchism is mentioned, it's invariably presented as merely a particularly mindless form of youthful rebellion. These misconceptions are, of course, also widespread in the general public, which by and large allows the mass media to do what passes for its thinking.

I am an Anarchist because Anarchy alone, by means of liberty and justice based on equal rights, will make humanity happy, and because Anarchy is the sublimest idea conceivable by man. It is, today, the summit of human wisdom, awaiting discoveries of undreamt of progress on new horizons, as ages roll on and succeed each other in an ever widening circle. Man will only be conscious when he is free. Anarchy will therefore be the complete separation between the human flocks, composed of slaves and tyrants, as they exist today, and the free humanity of tomorrow. As soon as man, whoever he may be, comes to power, he suffers its fatal influence and is corrupted; he uses force to defend his person. He is the State; and he considers it a property to be used for his benefit, as a dog considers the bone he knaws. If power renders a man egotistical and cruel, servitude degrades him. A slave is often worse than his master; nobody knows how tyrannous he would be as a master, or base as a slave, if his own fortune or life were at stake.

I also practice agorism, because

 

  1. Even under perfect conditions the State is utterly incompetent in economic matters.
  2. The State is built on numerous contradictions as in, “We need government because some people are evil.”
  3. The inherent logic of State power is to attract evil people, and it has no conceivable way to stop them from getting into power.
  4. On moral matters the State either implements a shoddy version of what market based law would produce, or it enforces victimless crimes which are at best insanely dangerous.

And, yes, there are many anarchist societies in action. You cannot see it on the main spectrum because the schooling of statism is systematically injected into the young minds. The basic resources like land, water, etc. are monopolized by the state, therefore, anarchism is considered impractical. In a discourse between statists and anarchists, the burden of evidences precisely should rest on those who put their faith in statism because state’s mayhem is not conjectural but factually horrendous. I repeat, do not believe that anarchism is not practical as I am academically preaching my students “apolitical catallaxy” than “political economy”. Now, statists can report this essay to their local police and fulfill their constitutional obligations.

Suggested readings:

Anarchism in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India

HISTORY of Anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism

LIST of Anarchist societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

A disloyal wife and a loyal slut http://indianlibertarians.org/a-loyal-slut-and-a-disloyal-wife/