Statism, Anarchism, Or Something Else?
As the ruling class has demonstrated, there is "law for thee, but not for me"!
Does the Truth start with a spark?
Previously, I mentioned that Gary D. Barnett is one of the few current publicists I read with pleasure and recommend for further consideration; not because he and I agree on everything, but he is lucid, original, and sounds authentic.
He and I seem to work on the same project, so I consider him an ally.
Today, LewRockwell published one of his articles that made me think further than usual:
Gary completes his article with the following, highly-commendable quote:
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century
The article made me raise questions, so I sent Gary the following e-mail:
Gary,
LewRockwell has indeed become the abomination I described; your articles represent the only source of fresh air on it.
As you and I seem to be working on the same project, I would like us to agree on common grounds, objectives, and means.
Today, you have published one about anarchy.
You are trying to re-define the word “anarchy”, opposing the manipulatively-established meaning. Wouldn’t it be faster and more effective to introduce a new term for the meaning you are describing? Only a new idea can defeat an old one.
The tyrannical power of governments originate from the inescapable concentration of power that sooner or later always happens, when various tribes live on the same land. Even Prairie Indians were very much willing to kill others from neighboring tribes for a couple of horses, yet they had no government; only followed human nature. The only place, where your idea of freedom has ever existed was on remote islands with a single tribe on them (well, the Arawaks were quite peaceful, only to be exterminated by the Caribs on the Caribbean), and once a tribe exceeds a certain number of members or the idea of personal possessions enters the picture, power struggle comes first, followed by laws that cement in the power structure, for “the common good,” that is, for social stability (nobody wants a 100 Years’ War or a War of the Roses). So, where and how do you believe “freedom,” as you describe it, could possibly exist? Getting rid of the government doesn’t destroy social structures that inescapably generate new “governments.”
Looking forward to your ideas. You and I could also have an open public discussion about all this, if you prefer that. I certainly would. You are close to being the only current publicist I’m finding worth considering, because we are already “allies.” Of course, if “anarchy” is only an academic subject for you and you insist on non-cooperation based on personal responsibility, then there is nothing left to discuss. In that case, however, what would be the point in writing about “anarchy” and “freedom”?
Best,
Ray
The ball is in his court. I asked him about this article, because I wanted to include his responses, and what is important is that he believes that it is possible to return to previous concepts assigned to the same word (namely, “anarchy” in this case), but he said I was too busy to engage in further conversation and I am more than welcome to publish whatever I want, so here it is.
Continue thought ... personal responsibility, humility and a continual questioning of what’s going on. To be able to adapt and adjust is a continuous project. Nature has a way of smacking down stupid, the penalty for stupid is extinction.
Eat good food, Do good work, be honest- especially with yourself-
Thanks for all Ray:)
Goodness! IMO, both extremes - totalitarian control and anarchy, are not useful. When society is stressed, extremes seem to polarize, msm and the forces pushing humans into what ever the control grid vision is they have and have fostered and nurtured a polarized population. This is useful to keep the whole population from noticing the machinations of their demise.
These are the same tactics used for all of humanity over the ages.
Hello!!! Since the scientific method crept onto the scene- via Galileo, Francis Bacon , founding fathers esp Jefferson and Ben F. The deist gang , conflict was set into motion as belief structures were open to questioning.
I’m thinking that freedom requires virtu