Understanding Anarchy

When you hear, or read the word anarchy, what comes to mind? Don't think about it too hard. Just hold the picture that first pops up in your mind's eye. I'd bet that most of you imagine something to do with either riots in the street, violence or some sort of conflict. Am I close?

Now, what if I told you you were wrong? What would you say, were I to tell you the reason the word anarchy is incorrectly associated with violence, chaos and disorder, is only because most people are taught to believe the very idea of living without government, is tantamount to danger? Even casually, the word itself is often only used in pieces like this one.

Consider this, you who are so well versed - from your earliest childhood lessons - in the need to be ruled over by others: "anarchy" is not synonymous with "lawlessness." Anarchy's primary definition, according to Merriam-Webster, is "absence of government." Let me repeat that. Anarchy is not lawlessness. It is self-rule.

While it might be a little early to try and explain why some people would want to live in a world without government, my goal today is to point out the truth to the average "American Idol" fan. The anarchists of society want a peaceful life more than any other. We tire of seeing the world putting different riders, on the same, old, tired horse.

Has anarchy ever truly existed before? Any form of government which has ever existed has always been a case of the few having power over the many. Those in power bend everyone else to their whims by force, rather than each person choosing their own fate. This has been the case in every form of government, regardless of style, since the dawn of civilization.

But like so many other myths and superstitions held over from our primitive days, it will one day be set aside as unnecessary, and stifling to society-at-large. Unlike every form of failed government in human history, which repeatedly fails in every attempt, anarchy has never been tried.

In a society established around autonomous self-rule, noone submits to another involuntarily, and protection of each individual's rights are the primary role of law enforcement. Yes, law enforcement, and even a military, are very essential parts of an anarchist society.

Perhaps my readers have even heard it expressed as the right to swing your fists all you like, as long as they never hit anyone else's nose. In other words, as long as nobody else is being hurt, do as you want to, with your own life. People are basically good, and have an inherent ability to decide for themselves, what makes them happy.

Is anarchy violent? Or, are the vicious and violent in power, now? For those who might still believe anarchy to be chaos and violence, I give you a challenge. Try to refuse the will of an anarchist. Tell them you don't want to follow their customs and traditions. See what sort of response you get.

It's a good bet they may try to explain their position; perhaps they'll be hurt - or they might even call you a name or two. Then, try to merely tell a local government employee you want to repair the roof of your own home, and you see no logic in paying a fee for their permission, since it's your personal property.

When you've completed both parts of this challenge, come back here and let me know which response was the most threatening. The anarchist? Or the authoritarian? Was it the anarchist who threatened to take your money (fines), freedom (jail), or even your life (the gun), should you choose to continue resisting? I'd bet not.

Anarchy is simply the idea of living your individual life without government dictating your life's details or your personal beliefs. Anarchy (and especially anarcho-capitalism) is also the future of Mankind, much to the chagrin of the power-elite everywhere. Any questions?