TV-friendly "anarchists"
There are some people and groups who claim to be "anarchists", and yet who fly the black flag of violence and coercion. Who call themselves "socialists" and "syndicalists". Who reject people's individual choices and progress.
This, to say the least, is a pitiful contradiction. An anarchist is someone who desires a society without government. That is the universally accepted definition. And government is nothing more than the process of legitimized coercion. Therefore there cannot be an anarchist who supports legitimate coercion (and no one thinks of himself as a "criminal"), who calls himself "socialist" or "syndicalist" (since these positions require a government to exist), or who rejects people's free choices.
These so-called "anarchists" are therefore something else entirely. But what?
This phenomenon is present in other areas. Just look at religion. Christians have managed to manufacture a whole "Satanic ritual abuse" construct out of thin air. Satanism is not about child abuse, it is a philosophy of life. Nothing about it encourages child abuse. And there is absolutely no evidence that this "ritual abuse" is actually taking place, apart from the testimonies of the faithful and memories manufactured by unscrupulous therapists. It is a Big Lie instigated by the authorities in order to smear the name of a competing religion, same as they have done to witchcraft throughout the ages, and now do to atheists also.
Could these "anarchists" also be a fabrication of the authorities to smear anti-state movements and paint them as a violent unruly mob which only desires chaos? That seems like a good possibility. These "anarchists" have about as much in common with anarchy as teenagers who sacrifice their cat have in common with Satanism. And yet the media has substituted real Satanism for this kind of exhibition, because crime and violence sells more than philosophy. The same applies here also.
But the lie is always grounded on impression and stereotype. People imagine that Satanists, as the opposite of Christians, are very evil people, and therefore that is the stereotype that sticks. What do people say when you talk about anarchy?
"But criminals will be free to roam the streets and create terrible chaos!"
When your average Joe hears about anarchy, he imagines a system of chaos and dissolution, and that is what he is served on the telly. He sees these pretend "anarchists" who are violent and don't seem to follow any morality whatsoever. At the same time, these "anarchists" present statist ideas, which appeals to the viewers as well.
For the longest time, it is this stereotype that I had in mind when I thought "anarchist". I thought that anarchy was an ideology of violence and criminality. How could I not, when what the statist authorities present to us is our window to the world?
What is the solution? Should we debate them? Not at all. Should we denounce them? Not at all. The best solution is to ignore them, just as we would ignore any other puppet of the state. The least attention we give them, the least we contribute to the problem.
6 comments:
I was thinking about writing on this very same topic, its funny that you bring it up.
I had a copy of Murhpy's "Chaos Theory" in my room - and we had a few friends over for a small (large) party on Monday evening. 'Bout 3am, I was about ready to go to bed, and one of my friends saw it, glanced at the front & back covers and kind of shook his head, "Doink, this is not the answer" or something like that.
I said, "Look, Gene: I'm very, very drunk right now, and I just want to go to bed. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you at some later, more sober occasion." He wanted to press the issue, and I wanted to go to bed. I went to bed.
It was very clear to me that his understanding of the subject matter about which he was attempting to engage in debate, was wholly incorrect.
Oh yea, I've seen that book cover before. It looks like a great book. Is it interesting?
Aren't libertarians against the ~initiation~ of coercion, not coercion per se?
"Aren't libertarians against the ~initiation~ of coercion, not coercion per se?"
Yes, technically you are correct. Although there are notable exceptions (Stefan Molyneux is against coercion), most libertarians would agree with you. I'm still on that side as well, although I can see Molyneux's argument as well.
It's a good read for someone curious about how an anarchy might provide for things typically regarded as government duty - I'm certainly not trying to knock it. It's written in a very simple, easy to understand style, which is nice for most people who don't know how to read big words, or long sentences, too.
it wasn't terribly enlightening for me, seems as I've pretty much figured out by myself that actuarial science combined with the profit motive can pretty much solve any problem you throw at it.
On the other hand, it was only like $5 - so it might be a nice book to have around just in case you need to give someone a crash-course...
Steven, you disgust me. SRA is "real" only for people who WANT it to be real. The only "true" satanists are ALWAYS CHRISTIAN. Every time. You want sexual abuse? Look at your fucking churches, and get the hell away from me and decent people. You support terrible abuse and exploitation of children by fucking with their heads and tearing them away from their families.
Get help.
Post a Comment