LOL mroe anarchy!

[Godslayer Jillian]

Seriously though, I'm writing an argumentative essay for my English class, and, predictably, I decided to write it on anarchy.
My thesis is that "the only acceptable form of government is no form of government."
I hope you guys don't start thinking "I'm getting tired of all this anarchy" because that would just be stupid.
Anyway, here's the first draft of my essay, and I just want to know your opinions about it.
Just one thing; this first draft has no bases nor sources, and I know that. I wanted to include sources already, but the teacher told us not to until the final draft.


If millennia of civilization have taught us something, it is that freedom and equality can never be achieved by force; that it is only a façade when a select few claim to have established order by usurping and exerting power over other people. Every time someone forces their will to someone else, whether it is as a physical assault, or an undesired bureaucratic regulation, oppression is created. It is unthinkable to believe that anyone can “know better” about yourself and your decisions than you. This is why the only acceptable form of governance is no governance at all: anarchy. Despite society distortions, Anarchy is a responsible and humane creed, and is not only possible to accomplish, but has already been accomplished.
Contrary to a popular belief, anarchy is not chaos. When a government is overthrown, chaos doesn’t arise from anarchists. It arises from the people that always worked and thought within the establishment. Their world has been shattered, they are not subjected to a boss, to a leader, to a law, and don’t understand it. They have been given perfect freedom, and don’t know what to do with it. Chaos arises from fear, not from anarchy.
What anarchy is is simply the idea that no one is more qualified than yourself to run your own life. It is direct action. It is not waiting for permission to act upon your free will. Every time a group of people gather voluntarily for a project, a scheme, not by necessity, but for the sake of the purpose, that is anarchy. Every time someone acts by himself, you are an anarchist. Every time children prefer to go out and play in the sun or in the rain rather than be spoon-fed by the media through television; that is anarchy. Every time people bypass voting on a resolution for providing homeless shelters, and go to the streets and feed and clothe the poor; that is anarchy. Every time anyone acts without needing permission or following a leader; that is the essence of anarchy.
Anarchy is the lack of government, and the government is the exercise of authority, and if authority means the use of power, then we must ask ourselves who gave the government that power, and why. But more importantly than why we once gave them power; we must live in the present and ask ourselves why we allow them to keep that power. Why do we think the government is better fit to decide what our course of action should be? As an anarchist saying goes, many people say that government is necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say that government is harmful because no men can be trusted to look after anyone else.
Any form of government is authoritarian by nature; they are dependent on an elite group, a vanguard party, to protect the individuals from themselves, saying they cannot be trusted. A certain government might be humane to its subjects. It might offer them a lot of freedom, or it might design equality among its people. The state might be materialistically prosperous. But an argument’s validity cannot be taken seriously if it works under false premises, and how can a government be respected when its foundation is based on the monstrous premise that people have too much liberty?
Once, people decided on a social contract by which they ceded their power to others and got rid of the burden that is running their own lives. Since then, their sons and daughters have had to pay the price of those circumstances when the appointed powers remained. The social contract became something we inherit, not something we choose, and we had to adapt ourselves to a system we never established simply because it existed before we did. The authorities once appointed by the people never chose to dismantle, and why would they? Only the most virtuous would willfully relinquish their privileges for the common good when there is no need to do so. We cannot expect them to willfully give us back our freedom. Why would they do such a favor to someone that obviously won’t stand up against them for the ideals they demand? It is up to the people to reclaim everything back. If the government really were necessary, why does it demand our loyalty and subjugation rather than already assume we will comply with the apparent logical path that is the system? If the government were really necessary, why can families and friends solve their problems without consulting a book of laws? If the government were really necessary, why does it monopolize and continuously displays aggressive force to make people obey?
A common question is how a society without cops would work, but this question barely is an argument against society rather than a mirror upon the current system. People don’t need the police. The police exist only to protect the rich from the poor; they preserve inequality. People don’t need cops to solve their own problems. We don’t need them in the family, and we don’t need them among friends. The police only becomes necessary when people decide that they do not need to become responsible of looking after one another; that the misfortunes of their neighbor are not their business – let us ignore the murder next door, that’s why we have a police, it does not concern us.
Buddhists have always taught that the fulfillment of the self doesn’t come by abundance, opulence, and indulgence, but by freeing oneself of the dependence of this desires of plentitude. Equally, anarchists dream of a society where there is no government because there is no need for one. People are responsible for their actions and rise only as far as their community rises.
The only people that fear a world without government are the people that fear themselves and what they would be capable of doing with perfect freedom. They have lived under certain restrictions, certain taboos, their whole lives, and appropriately only imagine the abolition of the system means the enactment of everything they believe to be wrong an evil. They have been indoctrinated under a false dichotomy: It’s this system, or utter chaos. They erroneously believe that under this society there is, to some extent, order and happiness, therefore it is impossible to have them under any other system or lack of system. But the establishment is not order and anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy is freedom. The establishment is regulation; limitation. Anarchy lives under the same romantic ideals of the French Revolution: Liberty, equality, and fraternity. To many, equality doesn’t allow for perfect liberty as it drags people down, and liberty cannot allow perfect equality as the people’s freedom will create inequality and instability. But they are indeed reconcilable by fraternity, an honest brotherly love towards the others in the community. There’s no reason for a brother to show superiority if it does not benefit the family. At the end of the day, he is a brother. And brothers we are. People are not foreigners to their own species. It is the abstracts of private property and Victorian individualism that alienate us. Our values have taught us that this is a dog-eat-dog world; that we are supposed to be only concerned on our own well-being; that other’s lives do not concern us and they are mere occupiers of the same space we transit rather than full-spirited human beings like any other. This is unnatural. It is unnatural that we could ignore all the new faces we encounter while moving from point A to point B in our busy and impersonal days.
Anarchy has worked enough times through history to prove skeptics that it is not a romantic ideal. For over thirty years, Spain was a haven of anarchists prior to the impending fascism in the Iberian Peninsula, particularly Catalonia. During the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, it was the Anarchists who first took arms against the arising fascist forces of Francisco Franco, while Spain’s liberal Republicans were too hesitant about acting against Franco’s rebellion. Somalia has been devoid of a central government since 1991, and the Zapatista army in Chiapas keeps its struggle for direct control of their land by the people that work it. Under the same capitalist countries that feed propaganda to its denizens to denounce communism and anarchy, there are anarchist communes and movements. There are easily tens of thousands of squatters in America alone, occupying unused private property and giving it a good use rather than respecting its ownership contract and leaving it as an asset for a man only interested in profit. Food Not Bombs chapters exist in most big cities, salvaging food our consumerist society so easily discards and wastes and gives it to the hungry and the homeless. In 1999, we saw over forty thousand anarchists congregate in Seattle with a soul in their art, a dream in their minds, a fire in their hearts, and a rock in their fists.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Anarchy has worked for numerous times during human history, and its reality does not need nay more romanticism. Anarchy is poetry in action. It is the final liberation of man to a realistic Utopia. Anarchy is not peace; there will always be conflict. Conflict is necessary; violence, however, is not. Anarchy is simply the constant struggle to attain perfection without ever depriving of an individual from his inalienable right of liberty, without denying him the inheritance that is this world he has obtained by the sole act that he exists, and without denying him his will to accept or deny this inheritance and let him do as he chooses with it. Anarchy won’t ever be perfection, however, but one must strive for the impossible to reach the possible. There will still be humans that willfully harm others, but it was his will to do so and it will be the will of others to bring forth reparations, rather than a cold, unaffected, authoritarian third party. There are still crimes under the governments that promise to bring order, but at least under anarchy, the people are not subjugated ‘for their own protection.’ The human being is not perfect, but it has the capability of love and common sense. He doesn’t need a book of Law to dictate him what is right and what is wrong. The same existence of such a book implies that these rules were self-evident to the writer. Why is the writer of the law a better human than the soul that has to live its life under it? Are humans indeed so selfish and ignorant, while others are so superior, that it is the natural order of our species to have an elite class? Do most humans indeed deserve to have their rights taken away by a select few that “know better” about how to run their lives? No. No man deserves to decide another man’s life any more than he can deem him worthy of love or not.

[HumanePain]

Why did you change the last part to exclude the historical examples? 0_o

The only part that needs changing is a simple grammatical change, in the first part:

"Despite society distortions"

should read

"Despite social distortions".

But other than that, it is very well written and convincing!

Now, in response to your actual diatribe:

Practical application of anarchy to the United States today would be fraught with danger to the entire world. Anarchy would allow today's deadly arsenal of military weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, to fall into the hands of those who care not for idealistic goals of individual freedom. Lives would end, not be enhanced as these selfish and power hungry opportunists would reach for the leftover might of a previous government power and exert it to the benefit of a few and to the detriment of many. Let us hope and pray that real anarchy never takes place as long as the debris of the U.S. Government will be mushroom clouds and birth defects from radioactivity.

[Silvara]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

...anarchists say that government is harmful because no men can be trusted to look after anyone else.

So true. It's a wonderful essay Jillian, you would make an excellent public speaker! Be able to open peoples minds to ideas they never would have thought were attainable.

[KontanKarite]

So well put together, Jillian. I agree with all of it and if it is your will, I would be pleased to post this in both my blogs on Myspace and Live Journal.

[Godslayer Jillian]

So long as it has proper authorship, but you'd have to wait until they grade my final paper, because college is bullshit and I don't know if they could tell me something about plagiarism and stuff.

[KontanKarite]

Let me know something or send me the final copy when you've had it graded. ^___^

[Drake Dun]

Wow. I'll come back and read the whole thing through carefully in a bit, but from what I'm seeing it's good stuff. And I don't just say that because I'm sympathetic to your politics. It's shaping up to be quite an essay.

[ionic_angel]

Sadly, I'm one of those people who can't be trusted with power. I'd institute a program of building large, spooky cathedrals and tax people to pay for my boot collection.

While I think your essay is interesting, I can't agree with it because I believe that mankind is ultimately selfish, cruel, violent, and doomed to self-destruction save for the intervention of God.

And if you're an atheist, then take that to mean I think mankind will destroy itself.

Sorry to be such a pessimist. It just seems that people are intent on proving the idea right.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Sadly, I'm one of those people who can't be trusted with power. I'd institute a program of building large, spooky cathedrals and tax people to pay for my boot collection.

What's wrong with that? I vote you for President!

[Delkaetre]

Interesting little thing, but the 'Anonymous' thing about Scientology's gotten pretty big.
Anon, the actual activists rather than the 4channers, is proof that anarchy works- it's totally leaderless, but all it takes is one person to say 'maybe we need more water at the next rally' and already there are offers to bring dozens of litres to share. Anon's been perfectly behaved in London, even picked up its own litter after the rally (how often do you see something like that?), has completely avoided any incident of violence despite what the Scilons' videos would have us believe...
Anon manages, without any kind of leadership or government or hierarchy, to establish basic codes of behaviour to prevent anyone getting in trouble as well as organise hundreds of people all gathering at once in the same masks and outfits, people arranging for food to provide the rally with sustenance (everyone brought cake, and in London one anon arranged for a collection so that everyone put money in to a communal food-fund for chicken. That anon also brought 24 litres of water, carrying it all himself).
If it were possible to unite people with purpose in this manner more often, anarchy could really work- everyone put in time, effort and their own resources. Some people spent a lot of money on travelling, making signs and banners, printing thousands of stickers and fliers, etc. It's really incredible.

[Smile]

I enjoyed reading your essay very much, and aside from some grammatical errors, as Humane Pain has already pointed out, this essay is fine. I too, believe that the government is an edifice built upon the fear of close-minded people. When the people, collectively, choose to grasp their own lives in such a way that it actually becomes their own lives, then a Utopia could really exist.
And I think a country who needs an anarchic revolution badly is...America. And I would be there to fight if there ever were such a thing.

[Underwater Ophelia]

I think your ideas are very well thought-out, but honestly, I don't think this essay is written very well. I realize you said this is a rough draft, so maybe you're already thinking of these things, but I just thought I'd point them out.

First, I think your thesis is far too general, and could be improved by having your main ideas briefly included.
Second, as I was reading it, I felt you tended to ramble just a bit, and while I could always get back on track, it was a bit hard to follow.
Third--this you may have done on purpose, but I'd immediately take the word "cops" out of it and replace it with "police." Slang has no place in a formal essay.

[Apathy's_Child]

I don't pretend to know much about anarchy, but it seems to me to have a huge flaw. As you say, it doesn't mean there will be NO governing at all - it simply tries to avoid a small elite group who control everything, from abusing that control. Therefore, government gives way to the rule of the mob. And, since there are no laws to stop the mob from imposing its own rules, and individuals from increasing their own status within the mob hierarchy through corrupt means (eventually a hierarchy will develop, as it does within ALL social structures, and human nature will out), surely the logical conclusion of anarchy is...... government?

I could be way off base, but I'd be interested to see you deal with this problem in your essay. Unless it's total dogcrap, which is possible.

[viscus]

I didn't read your essay too throughly, but I just wanted to say that I think your premise is flawed.

There cannot be a situation in which their is "no government" short of everyone living self-sufficiently by themselves, because politics is endemic to society. If you get a group of people together, some will try to exercise their will over others, and you'll end up with some form of government. It might be informal, and it might be direct democracy, ochlocracy, or oligarchy, but it will be government nonetheless.

True anarchy is not possible.

[Apathy's_Child]

Yeah......... that's what I was trying to say. And failing. And disappearing up my own Foucaultian asshole.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

Yeah......... that's what I was trying to say. And failing. And disappearing up my own Foucaultian asshole.

LOL, no I knew what you were saying, I just wanted to put it in my own way.

Most anarchists that I've talked to put priority on dismantling hierarchical power structures, but they're ideal form of government (even if they don't admit to themselves that it is government) is some kind of Rousseauian direct democracy.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by viscus

If you get a group of people together, some will try to exercise their will over others

But not authoritatively. Again, this is a rough draft, so I couldn't talk about much, but my final essay will be very influenced on Chomsky's idea of justified authority. I won't explain it right now, but don't worry, it's not a shallow justification for another high power.
Just think of a time with some friends. Someone decides to see a movie at his place, and someone brings chips, and someone brings pizza, and someone buys the movie and stuff. Everything is done voluntarily and authority is menial, only exists to solve an immediate conundrum, and gets dissolved in the moment and stops having any relevance at all in the future.

[ionic_angel]

How do you solve for evil?

I.e., the fact that some people in and of themselves desire to oppress others, merely for personal gain?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

How do you solve for evil?

I.e., the fact that some people in and of themselves desire to oppress others, merely for personal gain?

Simple. Teach the young differently.

Obviously, we're doing it wrong already.

Example: School uniforms. What tries to make every child equal in the eyes of the beholder is actually teaching them that there is indeed a class system in place. The uniform teaches the richer kids that they have to simplify themselves because a select few can't make it to where the rich kid is at and it teaches the poor that indeed, the rich are better in regards of possession and belonging. The rich might wear a uniform for a few hours a day, but when they're home, they can still wear the Nikes and play their Xbox 360s.

The poor kids wear the uniform and come home to something where the uniform was indeed better than most shit they put on their backs.

Teach the younger generation about fraternity, not uniformity. I could go on about this, but I have to go for now.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Simple. Teach the young differently.

Obviously, we're doing it wrong already.

Example: School uniforms. What tries to make every child equal in the eyes of the beholder is actually teaching them that there is indeed a class system in place. The uniform teaches the richer kids that they have to simplify themselves because a select few can't make it to where the rich kid is at and it teaches the poor that indeed, the rich are better in regards of possession and belonging. The rich might wear a uniform for a few hours a day, but when they're home, they can still wear the Nikes and play their Xbox 360s.

The poor kids wear the uniform and come home to something where the uniform was indeed better than most shit they put on their backs.

Teach the younger generation about fraternity, not uniformity. I could go on about this, but I have to go for now.

That doesn't solve for the fact that some people, no matter their education, will seek out an advantage over their fellow man. If the rest of humanity has butter knives and I have a gun, why should I NOT be king of the world?

There's always the answer of "education", or "morality", but inevitably someone will decide to toss those under the bus because they were smart enough to realize they could do so.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by viscus

LOL, no I knew what you were saying, I just wanted to put it in my own way.

Most anarchists that I've talked to put priority on dismantling hierarchical power structures, but they're ideal form of government (even if they don't admit to themselves that it is government) is some kind of Rousseauian direct democracy.

That's interesting - when anarchy is treated as a means to an end, I'm a lot more able to get behind it.

[agrees with Ionic ^]

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

That doesn't solve for the fact that some people, no matter their education, will seek out an advantage over their fellow man. If the rest of humanity has butter knives and I have a gun, why should I NOT be king of the world?

There's always the answer of "education", or "morality", but inevitably someone will decide to toss those under the bus because they were smart enough to realize they could do so.

That's also simple. When one tries to assert their will over you, don't comply.

Even in an Anarchistic world, we can't expect everyone to be perfect and hell, even in the midst of all these governments, we still have conflict. So what good is the system of controls set in place anyway?

Let's put it this way. If I intend to kill you for example, a cop WILL NOT save your life. Sure, I might go to jail, but you're dead so my intentions are already achieved.

I will say this much, I doubt that any country right now is ready for anarchy by tomorrow. People still put too much stock in material possessions and social status.

Essentially, we have to start teaching the younger generations that material does not matter. Your gold plated Nike shoes are pointless.

Even today, we have poor people in the ghetto that's convinced they aren't worth anything unless they have a full blown FuBu wardrobe.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

That's also simple. When one tries to assert their will over you, don't comply.

Even in an Anarchistic world, we can't expect everyone to be perfect and hell, even in the midst of all these governments, we still have conflict. So what good is the system of controls set in place anyway?

Let's put it this way. If I intend to kill you for example, a cop WILL NOT save your life. Sure, I might go to jail, but you're dead so my intentions are already achieved.

Simplistic and unrealistic. The reason people don't go ahead and indulge in murder when someone angers them is the fact that they fear loss: loss of their freedom, their possessions, and their lifestyle. So the good of the current "system" is that people operate under the fear of the sword.

In a truly anarchic society, only the strongest will operate without fear. On the other hand, with no banding together of the masses to inflict their will upon the strong (government), the strong will be able to take as they please...and they will. In every time period where government was overthrown or inoperable, this has happened.

The system works because the mass of the weak is stronger than the individuality of the strong. Thus the ultimate and highest purpose of government is established: to ensure equality for all under the law.

To state that one can simply choose not to "comply" with the demands of the strong ignores all the lessons of history and of the nature of tyrants. Tyrants do not ask, they take. They do not plead, but command. And those who do not comply with the strong will die.

Furthermore, in an anarchic state, there is nothing to prevent groups of people from assembling to enforce their will upon others. Tyranny is not the opposite of anarchy, it is the direct descendant and inheritor.

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

I will say this much, I doubt that any country right now is ready for anarchy by tomorrow. People still put too much stock in material possessions and social status.

Essentially, we have to start teaching the younger generations that material does not matter. Your gold plated Nike shoes are pointless.

Even today, we have poor people in the ghetto that's convinced they aren't worth anything unless they have a full blown FuBu wardrobe.

Possessions are not important? While as a Christian I sympathize with this, I must note that food and water are possessions, and that ideas are poor meat. The fact is that people desire possessions: food, water, clothes, housing, medicine, entertainment, etc. People will always desire these things, for, without them, life becomes nasty, brutish, and short, if I may borrow the phrase.

And some people will desire these things enough to injure, maim, or kill for them. It is a stark fact that equal distribution of such commodities has proven impossible even within the frame of government...without such a guiding hand, belief that such necessities shall be evenly doled out bespeaks of a grand but naive innocence.

Anarchy, even with the best intentions and education, would bring no universal brotherhood, no peace, no wealth, but rather the dark and despairing squalor of a new dark age, out of which tyrants and kings would stride once more, ruling by the bullet and missile.

[Paigeybobert]

Amen, brother. You got your point across very well. I'm proud.