Introduction

Currently reading the book “Anarchism: A Theoretical Analysis” by Alan Ritter. I like it so far, pretty interesting stuff, and perhaps one of the things I like the most about it is that it’s not afraid to level criticisms at the Anarchist philosophy even when it’s trying to present the movement as a legitimate political ideal, a view which few people in the present day and age actually hold. I kind of wanted to shed some light on one particular criticism of Anarchist philosophy, and attempt to contribute my own thoughts and ideas on what I feel Anarchy is to me.

The criticism in particular I’m referring to in the book is that of “justice” in an Anarchist society. If Anarchy is understood to be a philosophy which advocates the absolute freedom of individuals, then how can anyone take action to limit the freedoms of another in an Anarchist society? Regardless of how well meaning the majority of individuals in a society might be, there runs the risk of an outlier who represents an unnecessary threat to the well being of the people, such as a serial killer. Under a state government, the individual would be thrown in jail because freedoms are not absolute. But under Anarchy, imprisonment or “censure” would be a similar limitation on one’s freedoms. Ritter’s basically pointing out that Anarchists are trying to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak, by ensuring some level of domestic safety while still maintaining the illusion of total freedom. So does one have to exist at the expense of the other?

Ritter explains a basic triad system Anarchists have historically used to answer this problem. Contained within it is a basic logic puzzle. The triad is comprised of subjects, who are of restraints, and therefore can try to reach specific objectives. Subjects, restraints, objectives. My way of explaining the logic puzzle within is to imagine a rational human being who lives in a place completely devoid of government. Then, assume this person has an objective. This individual’s objective is to fly. Off the bat, the individual already suffers from a restraint; namely, the fact that his human body is not designed to fly on its own. He is now restricted to using any resources he can access, and his understanding of basic sciences, to determine some way to fly.

So, obviously a big part of the human condition is restraint. By nature of being comprised of matter, we’re sorta stuck. But is that an excuse for government controlling us for our own well being? No, because the difference is that the individual still has choice, namely the choice to try and acquire the resources necessary to master flight, to observe the world around him or her to learn the scientific principles necessary to attain flight, and to combine the two choices to complete a machine that would give him or her flight.

But this doesn’t answer the question of the serial killer. Theoretically he has a choice to kill whoever he chooses. Here Ritter and I disagree. Honestly, here most Anarchists and I probably disagree. Because I maintain that while he still does have a choice, anyone in society has a choice to defend themselves against his mental instability, and arguably not just the individual that the serial killer might be targeting at the time but anyone who feels threatened by his or her instability.

But this doesn’t explain how or why governments are any different. In theory, governments do the same on a somewhat wider scale. But I maintain that it is precisely what makes my own version of Anarchy so different.

Governments as we understand them now, nationalized states, fail two-fold because ultimately they are their own separate entity that divides itself from the standard human population and fights for their own well being, and their sheer magnitude causes it to affect all walks of life in so many different ways. What makes it a separate entity is that it can fight for its own individual welfare. In America the elected officials, the government agencies, the military, the laws and norms and politics all promote the well being of the government and the government alone, and enact and partake in actions and activities that facilitate the continued growth and strength of the government against the knowledge and will of its people. Consider the nuclear arms race during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States as an example of governments taking action for the sake of their own betterment. Consider the taxes that were needed to fund those and other countless projects during the era, or any other era. Consider how some regulations have thrown economic balance out the window, or how in the mid-to-late 1800’s anti-union legislation enslaved the working populace to the greedy robber barons who gladly took government funding and in turn demanded (and succeeded in getting) tariffs to protect themselves from foreign competition. Consider any nationalist government, slogan, or campaign which has promoted the importance of self-sacrifice for the greater good and promised rebuke and insult to those who dare raise their voice in protest or dissent against the will of the nation. These are all clear and powerful signs of the power of government, because who really wins in these situations? The established power structure gets stronger, the wealthy benefit from the growing strength of government, and those with potential at the bottom are crushed, any and all semblance of a free existence disposed of.

No matter how progressive governments pretend to be, their existence is inherently detrimental to the well being of a people. In America, public education is getting worse and worse, and in some school districts there is little to no hope for the children who go to these schools because the political powerhouses like the teachers’ unions want to limit the choices these kids have to maintain their power. Special interests tear apart government funding with their conditional economic assistance while their rules and demands spread the money too thin. Politicians look to scam the populace for votes by promising much and delivering little as they do nothing but plan for their next big election and corporate sponsorship. And still the pain of segregation is felt even today, impoverished areas becoming dead zones trapping those who live within for an eternity of enslavement and an endless, inescapable cycle of crushing poverty.

So what is Anarchy for me? It’s not about the freedom to do whatever anyone wants free of consequence. It’s about smashing and abolishing the damaged cancerous ideals of government and re-establishing control of our destiny as people. No more special interest rules and regulations but simple common sense reasoning, whether that means communalized planned societies or libertarian government-free competitive markets. Do we need some rules and regulations to guide us? You bet. Do we need someone out there determining what justice is, entrusting some ethereal entity to do what’s best for us? No. We’ve gotta learn to start trusting ourselves and stop hiding behind a flag and imaginary lines on a piece of paper with a hidden agenda. We’ve gotta stop pretending like laws and rules are sacred and realize that when they do more harm than good, they’ve gotta go.

I don’t know where I stand politically right now and how to best go about it, but I know where to start and what I’m looking for. I know that states are bad, and I’m sure that an alternative exists somewhere out there. And if not, I’ll make one. I believe in the spirit of Lockean social contract, and that rules should only exist to protect the freedoms of the people. If that means the people want to create communes, than let them, and if not, let them too. I believe we need to stop forcing living ideals, moral systems, and value judgments on the lives of others, but to not be afraid to fight for what we need to live against anyone who stands in the way.

My name is Damios, and I’m a Well Intentioned Extremist.