Found this great article which is a fantastic stepping off point for this blog; the idea of being positive! The article discusses much more than that, including a brief history of Anarchism and some alternative definitions (which are kind of funny) of the state. Enjoy!
Source: March 2006 Idaho Observer
When the word “anarchy” is mentioned, most of us envision mayhem in the streets; societal collapse; roving bands of bikers marauding the citizenry and no government to protect us. We have been conditioned to perceive anarchy this way. Such a scenario is among the definitions of anarchy: “Absence of government; state of society where there is no law or supreme power; lawlessness or political disorder.”
Those who hold the reins of political power prefer that we think this way. If we think that the absence of government will result in lawless mayhem, they stay empowered. So the corporate, government, media collective frequently reinforces the programming—life without them would be terrifying.
But like most things in the inverted reality we live in, it’s not exactly true. In fact, we could be doing much better without most of government. There is another side to “anarchy,” a positive anarchy which we can explore, but first: Is the present state of “government” a quasi-anarchy?
A contradiction in conduct
The founding of our nation was based on principles that have ceased to be operational. The unalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator are no longer the concern of government. Neither is establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty. This is evidenced by ample examples of governmental conduct, at home and abroad.
Contrasting the contents of government’s operational rule book, the Constitution, with the vast expanse of what pretends to be government, we see mostly lawlessness and political disorder. The present “government” is certainly not without its laws and a political system to create even more laws, but having exceeded their lawful authority, they are, in reality, lawless—a quasi-anarchy.
The hordes of agencies which currently surround us produce swarms of officers, which are sent hither to harass our people and eat out our substance. In many cases, roving bands of marauding bikers would be more welcome. They are at least honest about their intentions. The bikers will eventually move on, but government bureaucrats plan to make looting the public a career—with a retirement plan.
Ultimately, government is a force, emanating from the barrel of a gun. There are less oppressive options commonly used before the guns come out, but when government deems it necessary, the guns will come out. The primary policy of today’s government is to exert coercion and obtain compliance. Consent of the governed?
Consent of the governed
Consent of the governed is alive and well. The problem is how we are governed and what they do to obtain our consent. Most often, we are deemed to have consented when we fail to object to how they govern. When we fill out the form, accept the benefit or otherwise subscribe to their mandates, we have “consented” to be governed.
Like a problem child, government refuses to listen and is constantly seeking the next level of misdeeds that it can get away with. And like a negligent parent, we allow our child to get away with murder—literally.
When will it stop? Does government plan to have less agencies, “laws” or authority? Government is ever-growing and history says it will continue to do so until its oppression foments a revolution and we return to a state of complete anarchy.
Positive anarchy
The first impression in your mind at the mention of “anarchy” is likely to be images of mayhem and violence. There is a positive side to anarchy that our cursory minds probably haven’t considered. Imagine a society, living peacefully, in a voluntary, cooperative association, where each individual is free to pursue his dreams, impeded only by their respectful responsibility towards each other’s pursuits and dreams. Does that fit the programming that your mind associates with “anarchy?”
Those who fear anarchy the most—government and its corporate comrades—and have the most to lose—their livelihoods and all the power they can usurp—have programmed the fear of anarchy in the public’s mind. What are the definitions of the other side of anarchy that governments fear?
Anarchy:
“At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law.”
“A political theory, which would dispense with all laws, founding all authority on the individual conscience.”
“A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society.”
Anarchism:
“The theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary association of cooperative groups.”
“Political theory that all forms of government and governmental restraint are morally wrong and must be abolished if absolute individual and social liberty is to be achieved.”
“A doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.”
Is this the anarchy that we have all come to know and fear? Is there anything wrong with the absence of coercive government, voluntary association of cooperative groups and absolute individual and social liberty? A bit utopian perhaps, but the principles deserve more consideration and, wherever possible, implementation. This is what our “government” fears.
Our nation’s founders envisioned and intended to form a limited government; a near anarchy with minimal coercive powers and a maximum of individual and social liberty. But we have not kept it. Our problem-child government is now getting away with murder and countless other felonies—with all the immunity and impunity that our spoiled brat has come to expect and demand.
Voluntary society
Leaving aside any discussion of how we might properly discipline our problem child and send him back to his room (the Constitution) until he agrees to reform his conduct and abide by the rules of the house (our nation), we have important questions for which we must find answers:
Is American humanity ready for a voluntary society with absolute individual and social liberty? Is our primary fault yielding our personal responsibility and power to government? Would most people be responsible if there were no government to be irresponsible for them? Do Americans have the intellectual gravity, moral foundations and intestinal fortitude to make it on their own—in the absence of coercive government?
There are two anarchies. The question of which one will prevail depends on what kind of people we are and what we will endeavor to become. On the one hand, is the belief correct that human nature at its base level is rapine, murderous and looting? Or, are most people basically decent, and left to their own resources, will they build a better world for themselves, their neighbors and their posterity?
We need not define anarchy—it will define us, by whether we continue with a lawless, coercive government or create a voluntary society of individual and social liberty.
A brief history of anarchy
Anarchy is not merely a description of an occasional human condition. Anarchism was a movement that began to emerge, with varying degrees and forms, along with communism, socialism, capitalism and the other “isms” as the reign of monarchies began to fade into human history. Columbia Encyclopedia (1963) briefly describes the history of anarchism:
“Theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free arrangements between functional and territorial groups. Capitalism and private property, considered limitations on the freedom of the personality, would be abolished. Necessary production would be carried on by decentralized, freely associating groups. Anarchism differs from SOCIALISM in considering the state an intrinsic evil. Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoic philosophy, is regarded as the forefather of anarchism. It is important to distinguish the philosophic and literary school of anarchism from that which has a political tendency and even a program. The philosophy of modern political anarchism was outlined in the 18th and 19th centuries by William Godwin, P. J. Proudhon, and others. Bakunin attempted to orient the First International towards anarchism, but was defeated by Marx. Bakunin gave modern anarchism a collectivist and violent tone that has persisted despite the revisionary efforts of Kropotkin and Leo Tolstoy. Political anarchism in Russia was suppressed by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution. Anarchism’s only real mass following was in Latin countries, where its doctrines were often combined with those of SYNDICALISM, especially in Spain. In the United States early anarchists such as Josiah Warren were associated with cooperatives and utopian colonies. Violent doctrines were introduced from Europe and, after the Haymarket riot in Chicago in 1886 and the assassination of President McKinley in 1901, a Law was passed forbidding anarchists from entering the country. The execution of Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927 attests to the fear of anarchism in America. As an organized movement anarchism is well-nigh dead, but it retains importance as a philosophical attitude and a political tendency.”
Human beings have attempted to organize many different kinds of political systems. There is a tendency among a few people to entice and coerce people to yield their personal power and authority to various schemes of collective government. If left to follow their course long enough, most end up debased and subverted into some manner of oppressive regime by usurpation. Humanity then suffers the evils of such abuse until such evils become insufferable and, by force, the people terminate such coercive collectives.
Worth a try?
Positive anarchy, with a policy prohibiting the existence of any coercive collective, could be humanity’s answer for future self-government. It may not be a perfect system, and we may not be ready to assume the personal responsibility intrinsically associated with liberty, but at least it deserves a try. As Mae West said, “whenever I am confronted with the choice between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven’t tried yet.”
The evil we have is a government showing us no limits to the horrors that it will perpetuate in the name of government. Government is a force, ultimately emanating from the barrel of a gun. Government IS a terrorist organization!
Positive anarchy offers “good manners rather than law, founding all authority on the individual conscience; the absence of all direct or coercive government and the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society.” Its fundamental principle is “that all forms of government and governmental restraint are morally wrong and must be abolished if absolute individual and social liberty is to be achieved.”
The evil of positive anarchy is that WE may not be ready to live in freedom and responsibility.
Are you ready for anarchy? It’s coming. The economic matrix, a derivative castle of cards, remains precipitously on the verge of global meltdown. The impostor president and the American regime of global terrorists have over extended themselves in their war on everything. They can only kick so much butt with a vaccine-damaged, Depleted Uranium-infested military which is growing tired of fighting against other people in their countries for no discernibly good reason.
The facts which evidence the events of September 11 as an inside job are beginning to hit even the controlled mainstream press. Americans, usually the last to get a clue, are beginning to realize what much of the world has known for sometime. The Bush administration may soon be on trial for its complicity in the murder of Americans on September 11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq waged because of their contrived “Attack on America.”
As the great over-consumer of resources, America has set an example of opulent splendor for the world to follow. Our planet of considerable, but finite resources is challenged by greed and exploitation in this very capable industrial age. Now all six-and-a-half billion of us on this planet want a piece of the American action. There is a limit to how many children Mother Nature can suckle at her breasts.
The elite who deem themselves as the best managers of our little fish bowl in space have had the aquarium grow beyond the level which they can competently manage. They can no longer stay on top of humanity. We are growing beyond them. Their solution is to create a mass die-off and cull the herd with more of their clandestine genocidal agendas.
Social, political and economic manipulations have not been enough. Chemtrails, electronic warfare, vaccinations, gross malpractice by the Pharma cartel, toxification of the food, water and air supply and a state of perpetual war are necessary to maintain their dominance.
These are interesting times. Change will be mandatory. How we change depends on how we respond to the opportunity.
Last month we discussed the other side of anarchy: “A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society”—positive anarchy—the possibility of life after government as we know it.
Most citizens operate under the paradigm that government is a benefactor, a protector, or at least a necessary evil. But, before we revisit the subject, let’s look at a past paradigm and what many would consider a preposterous notion today—The Divine Right of Kings.
The Divine Right of Kings
In 1680, Sir Robert Filmer published Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings. Among the principles espoused by Filmer were that Kings have a divine right of absolute power; that this power is the same as the right of a parent to govern their children; men are born into this world and under a kingdom; we are, therefore, naturally subjugated and owe our obedience to our earthly sovereign patriarch; the power of royal fatherhood began in Adam, descended to Noah and his sons after the flood and continues in the lineages of the royal patriarchs that God hath ordained to rule over men.
In 1690, John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government. The first treatise rebutted Filmer’s Patriarcha, eloquently assailing the Divine Right of Kings. Piece by piece, he dissected the Patriarcha, arguing against the absurdities presented by Filmer. Locke’s first treatise is humorous to read, in part because his style creatively mocks the notion of the Divine Right of Kings, but also because he was quite serious about the subject he was arguing. At the time, the subject was so seriously believed in, that he had to publish it anonymously.
The point? Three-hundred-odd years ago, western humanity lived under the paradigm that absolute power was vested in a king; the king could do no wrong and; all of humanity was, as a matter of divine right, subject to such authority, without question. Today, such a notion is preposterous. We are so far beyond the Divine Right of Kings that we can barely even imagine it for the purposes of historical understanding.
With the perspective of this 300-odd year old paradigm as our historical anchor, let’s begin to move our thinking forward to a time when our present notion of the “divine right” of our ever-expanding, corporate, administrative, government becomes equally preposterous.
The Divine Right of Fascism
Fascism, the amalgamation of corporate and political interests into a dictatorial authority which holds its collective power as superior to and superseding the rights of the citizenry, is rarely declared as an operative political system. But it is the primary form of government actually operating in this industrial age. From China, throughout Europe, the Americas and to the tip of Africa, fascism is cloaked in many names by governments which pretend to operate a variety of “other” political systems.
In the more “liberal” forms of fascism, people are free to protest and organize political opposition, usually to no avail. In its extreme forms, dissent is a well punished crime. Does voting, lobbying, protesting and petitioning really change the current course our country is on? Are the political/corporate machinations rolling along, undeterred by many good efforts? Is the active practice of dissent increasingly becoming a crime?
But more importantly, under what paradigm do most people relate to “their” government? Under the evidence of conduct, do we accept the “Divine Right of Fascism?”
Will we pay a tax, whether or not we owe it, just because government says we must?
Do we comply with the many regulatory “obligations” legislated only by bureaucrats?
Have we grown to accept that a “license” is necessary to travel, to marry and to engage in commerce in many areas that would otherwise be a private right?
Will we allow ourselves to be searched, photographed, scanned, cataloged and identified in compliance with the most flimsy ruse—the pretense of protection?
Can we own and use property including “our” vehicles without the direct and mandatory interposition of the state?
If we fail to pay taxes on real and personal property, will we still “own” the property?
Can our property be taken whenever it is deemed more useful for public or even commercial purposes?
Do we pull over and stop when blue lights are flashing in our rear-view mirrors, knowing that the perpetrator behind us is armed, dangerous and only here to take from us what does not rightfully belong to him or his employer?
Are many of these “requirements” instituted for the benefit of various corporate and commercial interests?
Do most Americans, knowingly or otherwise, accede to the “Divine Right of Fascism?”
We would laugh if someone claimed we were subject to the Divine Right of Kings.
But what do we accept in our relationship to the empire of fascism? Do we give our full faith and allegiance to the deity of government? How many of your friends and neighbors would give you that glassy-eyed-stare, as if you were a heretic, for detailing the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job; that there is no law that requires you to pay income tax; or George W. was not elected because votes are created, not counted, by machines? Have we really made it very far in the last three-hundred-odd years?
The SUCKS
I offer a new definition for modern government, and, in the spirit of administrative governance, its own acronym. We are living under a Social Union of the Coercive, Kleptocratic State (SUCKS). We are compelled to participate with a state of mandatory larceny.
Most Americans have been “unified” by enfranchisement into this Social Union. With birth registration, voter application, and a myriad of applications for permission (permit, license, etc.) to operate and exist, people have simultaneously succumbed to and authorized this Social Union.
Many are enticed by the “benefits” offered by the Union. The SUCKS have a very expansive series of benefits targeting everyone from major corporations down to the homeless. Few can resist such “benevolence.”
Almost everyone has been indoctrinated by the SUCKS educational system. Programming begins early at school and we are indoctrinated often as we progress through life. Enrollment in the SUCKS program is perpetual so long as one continues watching, listening and reading the mainstream media.
Those of us who are wayward and non-compliant people with notions of freedom and personal independence, have received various forms of the hard fist. Coercion is an institutionalized component of the SUCKS.
An unspoken, but fully operational component of the SUCKS is organized grand theft. To maintain the Union many must be employed and all who succumb to membership must pay for its operation. At many levels, wealth and property are taken and redistributed by the SUCKS. This satisfies both the profit and power needs of the kleptocratic regime. Some takings are for income generation; others are to exert control.
We are united under a state which operates primarily as a theft by deception scheme. Frederick Bastiat explained it in his book The Law:
“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”
We have the SUCKS and millions of sucks—citizens, corporations, institutions, businesses and even illegal aliens who actively live by suckling at the breasts of the SUCKS. Grants, tax incentives, government contracts and budget expenditures feed the institutional sucks; entitlement programs and a myriad of welfare programs and societal benefits feed the common sucklings. Again from Bastiat:
“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
My statements may sound like extreme descriptions of government, private institutions and the citizenry, but consider two “facts”: Reportedly, one-third of all workers in America are employed by governments and the average taxpayer gives over half his wages to taxes, hidden or otherwise. Do these simple “facts” adequately evidence the institutionalized suction occurring in America today?
A state of coercion
Would we willingly comply with mere requests for such wealth extraction? If a man with a gun came up to you and said give me half of all the money you have and send me half of everything you ever earn, would you open your wallet and continue to mail him half of your pay forever? Many Americans do, because strong-arm mobster tactics are an institutionalized component of the SUCKS regime.
Coercion is a government policy and many government employees carry guns so that you will be effectively coerced to give them half of what you earn and comply with their mandates, however violative they may be of any legal, lawful or common courtesy principles. In addition to gun-toting employees, those carrying briefcases and a special class of “judgment” providers in black robes facilitate the ongoing exercises of legally plundering the citizenry.
The majority of prisoners now warehoused in “correctional” facilities are not there because they violated another person or their property and therefore belong in prison. The majority of them are there because they “violated” the mandates of the SUCKS and must be coerced into compliance with the SUCKS’ institutionalized system of legal plunder.
Limited anarchy—
Limited government
The problem before us is how to create just enough government to do things for us, without creating so much government that it does things to us. How to give limited powers to a government which will serve us and keep that government within those bounds, continues to be humanity’s challenge. We have yet to demonstrate the ability to effectuate the operation of limited government on a sustainable basis.
The tendency of those who operate collective organizations like the SUCKS is to create evermore solutions in search of a problem. Or to quote Burke, “necessity is the plea for every infringement.”
By finding more problems which require government as the solution, or at least by spending lots of time and money pretending to solve the problem, government expands its scope of authority. In the due course of time this expanded “authority” greatly exceeds any actual authority granted to it. Eventually, a third of the people will work for government and half of what we earn will be taken to pay for it.
The challenge
The challenge before us is how to create and maintain a limited government. Essentially, we need to develop and implement a system of government that is not much larger in its scope of authority than organized positive anarchy—”the absence of all direct or coercive government… and… the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society”.
How can we refine and redirect the American experiment in self-government? There are three phases if we plan to get anywhere:
Phase One
Phase One is where most of us in this “movement” are now—waking up America, exposing the beast—an educational process to win the hearts and minds of the people and extricate them from the SUCKS matrix. This important first step is necessary to release the population from the cage to which it has grown accustomed, but it is only a first step. We must also accept that statistically-significant numbers of individuals are uneducable and will refuse to step out of their cages and into freedom.
Phase Two
Phase Two is rarely given any serious consideration. The people can’t vote them out, sue them effectively, bring criminal charges or institute any mechanism to mandate accountability and limit the scope of their “authority.” The SUCKS have afforded themselves numerous shields of immunity and offensive tactics against any person or group which attempts to dethrone them.
Those who have wreaked holy hell and havoc on this planet and its people are criminals posing as a government. Fraud, treason and crimes against humanity are but a few of the potential charges. They must suffer the consequences of their crimes and be actively removed from power. The mechanisms within our current fascist collusion of power are not designed to remove the criminals which operate the system. Phase Two requires the development of mechanisms to terminate the present paradigm of power and hold the criminal element accountable. Effective Phase Two procedures are likely to involve serious martial challenges—a potentially violent armed civil conflict between the people and the forces of “government.”
Phase Three
Phase Three is perhaps our most important consideration: What system of governance do we want for our future? To move forward, we must acknowledge that the original American experiment in self-government has failed. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is our right, it is our duty to throw off such failed government and to provide new guards for our future security: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
What new form of government might we institute? On what principles should it be founded? How can we organize its powers so we do not end up repeating the current failed experiment?
Are we ready to grow up and finally end our allegiance to the “Divine Right of Fascism?” How many of us are ready to move forward and what can we do with the huddling, witless masses–the clueless hordes that have surrendered their all to the present paradigm—the SUCKS?
Are you ready to live responsably, in freedom and without a coercive state regulating your every move? If so, stay tuned for some concepts in civilization engineering.
