Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
Pin It

In the vocabulary of today, I would perhaps be best described as a social libertarian and a fiscal conservative. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when I would have been called a classical liberal had I been living within the independent but united States of America … but if I lived on the other side of the globe, I may very well have been called an Anarchist … though Anarchy is not at all what most people believe it to be.

It would be humorous were it not so tragic, that so many pseudo-anarchists1 and other “useful idiots” are out protesting government while at the same time demanding complete and total governmental control and regulation over every aspect of the individual and the private lives of the people. Anarchy is a fickle system at best, suitable, much like a republic, only to an inherently moral and just people2.

Government is by nature, enforcement of comparatively arbitrary social standards and norms, through the threat of force and the restriction of personal liberty. The social standards of norms and abnormalities are evolutionary and change over the course of time.

What was considered to be “the norm” mere decades ago, is often seen in an entirely new, and sometimes completely opposite manner today. Anarchy can exist only among a very limited and select group of individuals, as it relies on the strength of the tribe and accepted standards of morality and decency that are commonly lacking in modern, “civilized” society.

There is a definitive need for moral and social standards in modern society, including discipline and law and order, especially in more densely populated, urban population centers. However, any ill-conceived notions that would try to convince people that blanket solutions from a centralized, bloated, inefficient and often distant federal system are the answer, are foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst.


Democracy is by nature, inherently evil … and before you go criticizing that thought, do a little bit of research or at least finish this article please. The centralized form of government is far too distant and separated from the working class people in more rural environments, and is not only ill-equipped to provide much in the way of solutions, but often creates irreparable damages in seeking to implement the same laws in these environments that it does in the inner cities. As evidenced by our founding fathers in the construction of the Constitution of these independent but united States of America, a federal system is necessary given the general apathy of the average person regarding their governance and for the protection of the independent but united States within that system.

This need for a controlling authority extends to the state level as is evidenced by Section Four Article Four of the Constitution that guarantees a republican form of government to the state level3. Any other types of political system that would purport to unite the local people, must only be introduced at the local level. It is however, inherently apparent in the restriction of governance by the federalized system and the Constitution, as it restricts the federal system, that the federal system must also allow for the creation of various other types of systems at the local level, insofar as they do not impede or inhibit or otherwise limit the rights of any individuals within that system.

The powers of the federal government are few and well-defined, any such powers not expressly granted to the federal government, are, by nature, the rights of the independent States. If there are to be restrictive and/or oppressive laws that create criminals wherein no criminal action has taken place, then it should be limited to the local level, wherein the people who reside there can decide for themselves, under what form of government and under which laws they wish to live, even if, at the end of the day, they are still subject to a minimal level of federal oversight.

In the world today, or more notably, in the realm of political activism, we often see pseudo-anarchists walking along hand-in-hand with groups like the American Communist Party, The Worker’s Party, The Democratic Socialist Party and other openly communist and/or socialist parties … though they would all deny their fascist tendencies, fascism remains part and parcel of the same system of beliefs. In truth, and historically, the anarchists or An-Archists were among the first people to be hunted down and massacred during the bloody revolutions (plural, yes!) of “Red” October, 1917.

In much the same way as Statism has fallen to the war on words, so has anarchy. Historically, the further left you travel along the political line, the more government control you have until you reach a point of totalitarian governmental control. The further right you travel, the less governance exists. The confusion seems to lie in the fact that this apparently “linear” system is actually circular in nature. Totalitarian systems breed revolutions that often lead to chaos and a lack of leadership or rule of law until a more normal system of governance can be implemented.

Likewise, anarchy, at least among large numbers of people, often leads to chaos, (though it should be noted that it is not in and of itself Chaos or even necessarily chaotic) primarily in urban population centers, wherein the madness reigns until such a time as the strongest, generally most oppressive of leaders, comes in, and through sheer force, pacifies the rebellion of these individuals who would otherwise continue to spread chaos and destruction.

Anarchy, in much the same way as a Republic, is only suitable for a moral and ethical people at its core. There are people who feel fully justified … even righteous … in their capacity to beat up others and force them into submission for the sake of their “cause”. This however, is not at all representative of a truly anarchic society but of chaos or fascism, intimidation and the lack of any moral or ethical fiber in these people. They are no more representative of an Anarchic system than they are of a republican system … though interestingly perhaps, they do best represent a real democracy wherein the rights of the few (whom are tasked with voting) can outweigh the rights of the many and force the people to cede their rights and privileges under the full force and penalty of the law.

(This system may look familiar to anyone who is paying attention to the nightly “news” and the mainstream media as they push this lawlessness and extremism in the “social justice” movements as some kind of righteous attack on the rights of others)

Anarchy is a system in which there is no protected leadership class. As such, the individuals are as much responsible for one another as they are for themselves. If someone is breaking into a home, there is no real need for a law to say such acts are illegal, immoral or detrimental to the protection of that society. There is an inherent need in a truly moral and ethical society to stop the immoral activities based on what should be simple matters of right and wrong. We lost as a nation when we moved from Peace Officers to Law Enforcement Agents; as Peace Officers were tasked with protecting and serving the people and preserving the peace.

Law Enforcement Agents on the other hand, are tasked with enforcing (whatever their personal interpretation may be at the time of) the law. Given the complexities of current laws, which are excessive, far too numerous and often superfluous in nature and even vague enough to be “lawfully” enforced in a fully arbitrary nature, this has naturally led to great abuses in the system. The SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions in support of law enforcement agents who failed to protect the people and failed to stop crimes as their primary task is merely the enforcement of the law, not the protection of the citizens.

Government serves as little more than a function to protect and to preserve the laws as established by that government, no matter how immoral, oppressive or otherwise detrimental to society they may be. In short, the government has created laws that benefit the government and has armed government agents who enforce that law regardless of its impact on the people.

If and when there is any question regarding the actions of the government, its function as a democratic form of government, allows for the government to investigate the actions of the government agents and determine, with absolutely zero accountability to the people, and to determine whether or not the actions of the government agents, in support of government laws, are beneficial to the rule of the government.

In a democratic form of government, there is governmental rule, not a representative body tasked with serving the people … and thus one of the many reasons that I continue to belittle those who would call our nation a democracy, much less to allow the government to continue to run it as one, completely unchecked and unabated by accountability to the people.

The current democratic form of governance in the independent but united States of America is nothing more than an arbitrarily enforced rule of law based not on social standards of norms and abnormalities, but based solely on the government interpretation of government rights and responsibilities. That which serves the government the best, despite its impact on the citizens, is enforced at the point of a gun with the threat of violence and/or loss of freedom to the individual if they do not unquestioningly submit to the “authority” of the government completely and immediately, regardless of their guilt, innocence or the morality and justice of whatever their perceived slight of government rule may have been.

Perhaps worse still, these violations of arbitrary government laws are often not even based on the social standards of norms and abnormalities or even right or wrong.

Societal standards change over the course of time. In the mid to late eighteen hundreds, if a “woman” was not married by the ripe old age of sixteen, she was considered to be an old maid and not likely to ever be wed. Today, this would often be considered to be “pedophilia” (despite the inaccuracy in the usage of the word) and would likely result in someone ending up in jail.

There was a time (and still should be) when any business owner had the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Those signs were not merely decorative statements, but openly declared the rights of the business owner to run their business the way that they saw fit to run them.

So convoluted are the arbitrary enforcement of governmental authority over the people that there are places where smoking an illegal substance (marijuana) will result in a fine-free ticket while smoking a lawful substance (tobacco) can result in the offender being (unlawfully but not illegally) kidnapped and placed in detention, not to mention a permanent mark on their criminal record for egregious behavior against the government … all for something that is fully lawful in the eyes of the very same government that punishes them. (See: Temecula, California as one example of such egregious abuses of power)

These laws are not in place based on socially accepted norms or abnormalities but as a direct result of government actions to control and … while the term may seem harsh … to oppress the people. Current allowances for the arbitrary enforcement by force and loss of freedoms, are not even based on societal norms, but on subjective and arbitrarily enforced government policies, enacted by the government, for the government on behalf of the government.

That is by definition, totalitarian government here today in the supposed “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave”.

Thomas Jefferson once defined Tyranny as the ability of the government to legally perform acts or actions that were illegal for the citizenry, yet we see this all around us today. Yet today, Martha Stewart can be jailed for the mere appearance of insider trading while our current cackle of corrupt and complicit congress critters can actively trade on insider information quite legally. Is that not the very definition of tyranny?

There is little doubt that many of the readers of this article will be troubled by this, and a great many of them will willingly blame the author for seeing things “differently” than they do, but the fact remains that the actions of the government today are the very things that our founding fathers warned us about. The fact remains that until we the people are willing to hold our government accountable for their actions, nobody is going to hold government accountable for anything!

1The Anarchists were among the first groups actively hunted down and slaughtered during the bloody and destructive revolutions in “Red” (as in blood red) October of 1917. The idea that any true anarchist would follow complete and total governmental control and regulation is not only patently absurd, but almost as insulting as the continual obfuscation and comparison between “Anarchy” and “Chaos”. While these terms may have fallen victim to the governmental “war on words”, historically “Anarchy” is a natural order, the rule of the jungle or of many indigenous and/or native tribes. While there may be a leader or leaders in these groups, they do not accept or enjoy any special privileges or remuneration as part of these duties … but rather, see these duties only as their contribution to the tribe as a whole. Chaos on the other hand, is madness and an inherent lack of reason among the masses, generally leading to destruction and devastation. These pseudo-anarchists, whether knowingly, or woefully and willfully ignorant, seek to create chaos in order that it can be replaced by a totalitarian, “communist” regime, with an all-powerful government … the very antithesis of historical anarchy.

This group that brought us the war on words, is the same group that tries to convince us that a democracy is a good thing … when in fact we live in a republic and not a democracy. Take a look at the proper names for countries around the world, and it should be very interesting to note how many of the communist countries are “democratic” in nature. Democracy is now and always will be, “two wolves and a sheep” voting on what to have for dinner! The sheep will always lose and it is not in any way representative of the needs of the people. One need look no further than Anti Federalist Paper 10 to see what the founding fathers thought about a democracy and why such a system was summarily rejected in the formation of these independent but united States of America.

2An-archy (More commonly referred to today as Anarchy without the original hyphen) - Comes from the Ancient Greek and means "no authority" and not "disorder" or "chaos". Its association today with the current minor Communist parties internationally (as opposed to those Communist Parties in control of national governments) reverts back to the initial confusion of the name with the Proudhonists of the day. This perversion of the term of anarchist was perhaps best contrasted by the observation in 1816 by the English philosopher Bentham, when he stated thus; "The philosopher who wished to reform a bad law", he said, "does not preach an insurrection against it. The character of the anarchist is quite different. He denies the existence of the law, he rejects its validity, he incites men to refuse to recognize it as law and to rise up against its execution". This was built into the original Republic of the independent but united States of America through the rights of the States for Nullification of unlawful federal laws and through Jury Nullification and other inherent abilities of the people and the State to over rule the “rule of law”.

3The republican form of government should not be confused with the Republican Party of today. Rather, this refers to the actual republican system of governance as opposed to an inherently dangerous democratic form of government, again, not to be confused with the political party of the same name, or other various and sundry forms of governance.


Let us know what you think please!

Pin It