An Essay by Me

[Tom Sawyer]

I thought I was having a flashback and then realized it was just deja vu...

Caleb is the undergrounds version of Wavy Gravy 

[srqrebel]

Wow, Caleb, WOW!!!

That could well be the most powerful essay I have ever read.

It is like a laser beam to the core of the faulty paradigm that allows the AMOG to exist in the first place, delivering irreversible damage to it.  And you did it without going into extensive detail.  Bravo!

May I have permission to replicate and broadcast this essay to my target audience, without changes?

[Russell Kanning]

you are a "government" only if the US Empire says so .... otherwise you are a despotic regime ruling over people who need to be "freed" to enjoy democracy under the protective gaze of an ex-prez

what are you guys ... a bunch of insurgents?

[dalebert]

This unintentionally infers that the State has legitimacy,

Legitimacy essentially just means "broadly accepted" so the state does have legitimacy. That doesn't mean they have any meaningful authority. Just because they're broadly accepted as having authority doesn't make them right. I was mis-using the word for a long time as well.

[srqrebel]

This unintentionally infers that the State has legitimacy,

Legitimacy essentially just means "broadly accepted" so the state does have legitimacy. That doesn't mean they have any meaningful authority. Just because they're broadly accepted as having authority doesn't make them right. I was mis-using the word for a long time as well.

I looked up "legitimate" on Merriam-Webster, and found that when used as a transitive verb, as Caleb did, that definition is indeed correct, Dale.  Caleb appears to have used it correctly, after all.

I am consequently deleting that portion of my previous post.

[srqrebel]

you are a "government" only if the US Empire says so .... otherwise you are a despotic regime ruling over people who need to be "freed" to enjoy democracy under the protective gaze of an ex-prez

I do understand what you are saying, Russell, and that is a pretty accurate portrayal of the current situation.

I just thought it is a good place to point this out:

True government does not rule over others at all.  "Governing" constitutes the function of keeping affairs running smoothly.

That is why I refer to that which is commonly referred to as "government" today, as the Authoritarian Model of Government.

The AMOG enslaves the individual, by criminally subjugating his will to the imaginary will of a fictitious entity, the "collective".

The Free Market/Voluntaryist Model of Government empowers the individual by leaving him free to decide and delegate his own, and only his own, affairs according to his own will.

[Caleb]

Wow, Caleb, WOW!!!

That could well be the most powerful essay I have ever read.

It is like a laser beam to the core of the faulty paradigm that allows the AMOG to exist in the first place, delivering irreversible damage to it.  And you did it without going into extensive detail.  Bravo!

May I have permission to replicate and broadcast this essay to my target audience, without changes?

yes, menno, anyone can use it. I believe in intellectual property rights, but i don't write for profit, so there is no need to ask.    I mainly write to clarify my own ideas, and also to direct other people to what i have to say, because sometimes it is easier for me to express myself in written than in verbal form.

[dalebert]

Caleb is just emulating his idol- the clown monster from Stephen King's It.

[Russell Kanning]

yes, menno, anyone can use it. I believe in intellectual property rights...

intellectual property?
from the clown?

[dalebert]

I wanted to include a digg counter for your article when I repost it today but has this not even been submitted to digg yet? I did a search and didn't see it!

Also, has this been posted to the New Hampshire Underground yet? I guess I'll submit it to digg but I'd rather digg it there than at Strike the Root. I like STR of course, but I have a greater persona interest in promoting NHU.

UPDATE: Never mind. I found it. Doh!

UPDATE2: I don't wanna wait for a response so I submitted this to Digg. Please digg using this link.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Why_I_Am_an_Anarchist

[dalebert]

This article is now reposted with a new cartoon- The Anarchy Boogey-man.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/03/21/the-anarchy-boogey-man/

[srqrebel]

Here is a valuable opportunity to spread the freedom paradigm far and wide.  We need to be digging the hell out of this!

[dalebert]

Here is a valuable opportunity to spread the freedom paradigm far and wide.  We need to be digging the hell out of this!

Believe me. I would, but I can only digg it once.

[David]

Finnally read it, excellent article.  You Kept It Simple. 

[dalebert]

A message from someone who goes by the handle "Silentchap" in response to Caleb's article. I haven't read it yet. It's kinda long. I might chime in later.

--------

Evening.

I read the essay you posted with the March 21st comic (neat comic, by the way) and couldn't resist writing a response to it.

Starting here...

You state that a Utopian thinker tries to do the same thing that you do as far as crime. The difference is that the Utopian wants to completely remove the deviant behaviour and you merely accommodate for it. Leaving aside the structures that the Utopian creates keep the monsters away, how exactly does an anarchist defend himself and those he cares about from deviant behaviour? And moreover, suppose that someone outside of that circle of known and loved people is the one that is targeted by the behaviour. Is it just too bad for that person? Assume that the person targeted is a fellow anarchist. Can you help that person now? Would you? How big can this circle of people whom you will care about, or for, be? A few hundred? A few thousand? There are cities that size.

How do those cities function? They organize themselves to be more efficient and they communicate with other cities, establishing borders and organizations to communicate. Cities become states which become nations and you're back at square one. Forty billion individuals are currently running around on this globe and their groups overlap. Families belong to workplaces and schools which have their own affiliations and subgroups. And, to contradict one of your statements, lots of these are not voluntary or informal. When last I checked, you didn't get to choose your family, your skin or hair colour, or your gender. These attributes are given to you. Yes, you can modify them if you choose, change them after the fact, but you are what you are at the start. But while you're making up your mind, people set up groups, create stereotypes, and get very emotional based on these uncontrolled attributes. In fact, there are even folks who will get mad if you try to
change them.

Also, if you think a familial unit is informal government, try telling a child to question his mother and see what the reaction is. There are clearly defined procedures and guidelines that people operate under within a family. They vary from family to family but tend to remain constant in that the parents run the show and the kids are supposed to follow the directions of their creators. Kind of like a dictatorship, huh? This isn't to prep us for the systems we're going to discover we're a part of as we get older. It's to keep kids from causing permanent injury to themselves and learn the basic tools that make human life easier and more enjoyable. I don't tell my niece to close the fridge because I want to exert my authority over her; I do it because I don't want her to waste the cold air and raise the electric bill.

Regarding the majority vs. minority point, keep in mind that while there are lots of smart people around, there are also people who are stupid. The stupid can and do create laws and guidelines that are unspeakably moronic on a daily basis based on fear, ignorance, or even sheer viciousness. And these laws are made by a minority, not the majority. It's rare if ever that a government will listen to the entire populous when passing a law and there is certainly not a large number of people involved in drafting it or proposing it for use.

You state that it's sad that people have to exist within these systems without consent and have no choice but to accept the systems as they are. Guess what? You can change which system you support, even if its anarchistic. The choice of government is voluntary because you can choose where you want to be and which system of governing you will support and live by. You're allowed to move throughout the planet, picking and choosing which system you want to live under by taking yourself there. And if you can't find one you like, you can make your own up as long as it doesn't fly in the face of another system. Ah, I hear you exclaim, but I want to live here and I don't want to support this system. Then the onus is on you to change the system, not the other way round. Granted, with a corrupt and densely bureaucratic system, that's a pain in the ass but that's the way things are. The system was established and is supported by people who outnumber, outbuy, or
outshout those who would put another system in place. Shift the balance and you get your own system to live in.

On the notion that governments consider those within its jurisdictions as under its control, in order for any system to function, you have to set parameters for it. Since most folks exist in a physical world, the easiest way to set borders is with physical ones. Most of the time we don't know which system we're being controlled by because disclosure is a pain and usually doesn't matter because most systems tend to operate under the guidelines. While you may not consent to the rule of the place you visit, you are the one who chose to visit and therefore, since you are the visitor, you have to abide by the rules of the place you visit because the permanent residents have consented to those rules. Now if you are native to the area and don't like how things work, you can work to change the way things work provided, of course, that you have access to the system. Here, we do. In some countries, it's a little harder. Oh, and there is one more difference between
mafia and government. You can't elect someone to the mafia. They tend to be a little more vicious and exclusive in their selection process. The retirement package tends to differ too.

Finally, most relationships that we have with other entities are not consensual, Caleb. When you drive, you don't ask other drivers if you can join traffic. You wait for a gap and you join in. When you turn on your computer and access the Internet, you don't have to consent to anything. You just join in. Want to visit a church, get a tattoo, paint your house? No need to obtain permission, you just do it. Yet all of those interactions involve other people, relationships with others. Other drivers will watch you as you approach, websites will note your presence, the preacher will see you in the back row, the tattoo artist will take money from you and ask what pattern you want, and passers-by will notice that you really like aquamarine. These relationships are non-consensual but they are there.

You're angry that the system you currently reside in is violent and those who lead it abuse their power. I don't blame you because I am too. Can it be changed? Not without people like us agreeing on what to replace it with and acting on those ideas. We can isolate ourselves and those we care about but all that will do is present a target for the system. The system deals with its enemies with violence and unlike us, the system has greater numbers, greater funding, and isn't afraid to shoot first as it has demonstrated. Removing ourselves from the system won't change it or those within it.

The principle of an anarchist isn't to love thy fellow person, but to function without an authoritarian system. Individuals interacting with individuals. Period. The problem with that is that when people meet people with shared interests, they start acting on economics of scale, creating efficiencies to help each other. With those efficiencies comes trust, trust that those who run the systems we create will not exploit the people who take part in those systems. Sometimes the trust will be kept, other times it will be betrayed. And the authorized versus the disenfranchised fight begins again. So we either have to stop ourselves from working in groups or we have to learn that trust can be abused and that when it is, you pick up the pieces, fix what is broken, and move on. We try to improve our systems, make things better instead of just letting them continue to break in the same way. We move towards Utopia.

And yes, that last was a small tweak of the nose. Forgive me, but I couldn't resist.

Cheers.