Top 3 Reasons “The Right” Should go Anarchist

I remember a public school high school history teacher telling the class, “On one end of the political spectrum is Socialism, and on the other end is Fascism”. Wrong, he was so wrong. I could even see it then, as an energetic young Republican who hated all aspects of big government… or so I thought.

Socialism is actually right next to Fascism on the political spectrum, because they are both Statist ideologies. The state can solve all problems, and will never be big enough! Everything within the state, nothing outside of it!

So clearly the opposite of everything involving the state is nothing involving the state: anarchy. Not burning businesses and smashing windows, the absence of rulers; the end of subjugation. The sovereign individual, beholden by force to no one, beholden by mutual benefit to those with whom he chooses to associate.

And now that we cleared that up, here are the top 3 reasons for Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians or anyone else towards the right of the statist spectrum to just abandon all pretenses, and go full anarchist.

#1: You hate big government! And for good reason! You know your history, and have seen what happens when the state grows: it oppresses people. The internal police state that cracks the whip over the citizens, mixed with a fiercely nationalistic military that spreads the big government philosophy worldwide are constant and integral parts of a large oppressive government. And currently, just the American military, ignoring the multitude of internal policing agencies, is larger than the next ten militaries on earth.

The Second Amendment was not for hunting, it serves as a check to tyranny. So if guns in the hands of the average citizen can keep in check the largest military and police state on earth, why would we think those same armed citizens could not repel an invasion by the next ten largest armies put together?

anmemedictator

You wouldn’t call the exterminator and have him leave just one little cockroach, would you? No! She’ll have babies, and your house will once again be infested in a matter of weeks. So why would we leave “just a little government”? It’s not going to stay little! It is the camel’s nose under the tent. It doesn’t make sense to leave even a little government, because…

#2: You believe in the free market! The terrible consequences of crony capitalism are quite abundant, from billions wasted on subsidized green energy like Solyndra, to billions wasted in bailouts on failed companies like GM and banks like Bank of America. Then there’s regulations which favor big companies at the expense of the little ones, taxes which make some industries and investments unprofitable, and agencies like the EPA, FDA, USDA, IRS, DHS, etc. that harass the farmer and small businessman to the point of bankruptcy.

Why, why, WHY, would you trust that same government to perform such important tasks as keeping you safe, from threats at home, and abroad? You know that supermarkets have food on their shelves because of the free-ish market, you know that competition leads to better products and more choice, so why would we limit ourselves to Soviet-style rationing systems when it comes to solving crimes and preventing terrorism?

licensing

We choose different restaurants, different books, different movies, clothes, cars, houses; but when it comes to responding to an emergency, we get the one local agency that handles that. When it comes to preventing terrorism, we have to use the FBI or CIA or NSA which we aren’t even allowed to see how they operate, must fund regardless of their success rates, and can’t even be sure they are not complicit in terrorism in order to keep their agencies relevant and well-funded. [This is an example of a private organization fighting ISIS]. Choice in the market is always a good thing, there is nothing magic about crime prevention and justice that makes the market unable to function.

#3: You wish you didn’t have to associate with all these idiots! Government causes all problems we face “as a nation” because otherwise we wouldn’t have to face them as a nation, and they would be solved by whoever they affect most. I don’t want to fund cotton growth in the Arizona desert, subsidizing the real cost of water to the point where there is a shortage. It has nothing to do with me, yet because of the farm bill, I have to pay for these farmers’ water, insurance, equipment, etc. I don’t want to pay for the bombs we are dropping, I don’t want to pay for anyone’s medical care but my own, or those who I voluntarily choose to help personally or through charity. The government forces us all into a group, and then makes more laws and regulations when our forced association–surprise–causes problems.

An open border is only a problem if the government is stealing your money to give to the people who hop the fence, or setting an arbitrary minimum wage which ensures a market for illegal work. Education standards in Arkansas don’t matter to me, unless one of those schmucks is going to grow up to become President and tell the rest of the world what to do. Why do I have a say in whether Coloradans smoke a joint? Why do they have a say in whether or not I wear a seatbelt?

anmemebastia

Stop the forced association of 300 million plus Americans, and there would be a lot fewer problems to solve! And they would be solved by the people that they matter to, and paid for by the people that they matter to, voluntarily. In the end, we would all have more individual control over our lives, (money), and circumstances, and get to choose which issues will be solved with our money. Instead, we are forced to “solve” problems we don’t care about, that don’t affect us, or that were caused in the first place by forced grouping!

So right-wingers, if you hate big government, if you believe in the free-market, and if you wish all these politicians, bureaucrats, and assholes in general would just leave you the hell alone: you may be a budding anarchist, ready to bloom!


Joe Jarvis weaves the anarchist philosophy into his fiction novel, “Anarchy in New England”, in much the same way Ayn Rand wove her anti-government philosophy into “Atlas Shrugged”.

For a gripping, fast paced fiction read that delves into the philosophy of no government, buy “Anarchy in New England” on E-book or Paperback now!

Human Reproduction Naturally Values the Individual

There are two basic reproductive strategies nature has taken, with profound implications for evolution and consciousness.

The first, the strategy used by mammals, is to produce a small number of young offspring and then carefully nurse each one to maturity. This is a risky strategy, because only a few progeny are produced in each generation, so it assumes that nurturing will even out the odds. This means that every life is cherished and carefully nurtured for a length of time.

But there is another, much older strategy that is used by much of the plant and animal kingdom, including insects, reptiles, and most other lifeforms on Earth. This involves creating a large number of eggs or seeds and then letting them fend for themselves. Without nurturing, most of the offspring never survive, so only a few hardy individuals will make it into the next generation. This means that the energy invested in each generation by the parents is nil, and reproduction relies on the law of averages to propagate the species. –The Future of the Mind, Michio Kaku

What a happy coincidence that I came across this passage in a book completely unrelated to politics. It is important to learn from, and work with nature if we want to have success as a species. The natural way of humans is to cherish each individual. Society does not function properly when elites try to organize us like ants in a colony.

An example of this is seen in economics. Keynesians think that the economy can be designed and tweaked in order to continually grow, which ends up creating bubbles—the appearance of demand where there is none, which leads to misplaced investment. But promoters of a free market understand that there is a natural order, and when human interactions are left alone, the proper fruit will grow—mutually beneficial transactions based on supply and demand. The economy is not a machine to be designed and built, it is a crop to be planted and grown.

In this same sense, society, and each individual making up that society, will be better off when the natural approach is taken. The natural approach is what gave rise to our species’ dominance. Yes, it was a risky strategy of nature to spend so much time on each individual, which resulted in arguably the best, most intelligent creatures on Earth. Not just humans, but dolphins, apes, dogs and every other mammal. This is the age of mammals, and things will go south very quickly if mammals are treated like insects or reptiles.

Learn from, and mimic what nature has created. Humans succeeded by valuing every individual. The human race is threatened by those who see some individuals as expendable, in order to benefit a minority of other individuals, in the name of the survival of the species. But nature tells us that without the survival of the individual, there will be no species.

“The Greater Good”, Individual Good, and the Collective

Collective: One Word, Two Meanings

Today, we can see the strategy of doublespeak from the novel 1984 being employed. Language is intentionally ill-defined so that people discuss semantics, and never get to the point of a substantive debate. I see this when collectivism versus individualism is discussed.

Coercion has been folded into the definition of collectivism, because most examples of collectivist philosophy have been implemented by force through government (with terrible consequences for both the individual and the group). So individualists, who believe the good of the group does not supersede the good of the individual, tend to shy away from collectivist philosophy.

But I don’t think coercion was ever meant to be part of the definition of collectivism. It was more of an ideal, that the individual might want to, or see value in, subverting his will to the will of the majority. But in order for any actual good to be achieved, it cannot be done by force. Voluntarily joining a collective is much different than being forced into one. Individualists believe in mutual benefit, and a group can give benefit to an individual. Individuals still make up that group however, which makes each individual important.

The Voluntary Collective

The most important thing about a voluntary group, is that you can leave it.

I was walking in the woods one day with some friends. We had been hiking for a while and turned and twisted around many paths when we came to a four way intersection. Not wanting to turn back, we began to discuss which way would be best to take. In fact after some discussion, we all agreed to take the same path. But suppose I thought a different path was better. Should I attempt to force them to take the path I want? Or should they, being in the majority, attempt to force me to take the path they want? Of course not.

In a voluntary group, I am free to leave or stay. In the middle of the woods my options are to agree with the group, or be left alone. I see value in the group, and that is why I submit to the majority. Not because the majority has the right to force their will on the minority, and not even because the will of the majority is necessarily better in some way than the minority. No one claims that groups cannot be of great use and help. But they must be voluntary groups in order to serve this purpose best.

There were many paths to take, and at times we may not have agreed on the “best” path to take. In fact, “best” could have different meanings to each individual. “Best” might mean shortest path back for the person who wants to be done hiking. Best might mean longest path back for someone who wants to keep hiking, or best could mean a yet un-trodden path to another who enjoys novelty.

But let’s say we all had the same general goal, and when coming to a fork, have different ideas on which path to take. Two people want to go left, and one wants to go right. In a voluntary collective, this is not a problem because everyone can split up if they want. But if we joined this collective voluntarily in the first place—we all decided to go hiking together—then we saw value in the group, and that value would diminish if we split up.

So if I am the odd man out, I get to decide if I see more value in subverting my will to the group, than in taking the path that I think is “best”. It might appear that the collective has overruled the individual, and the greater good has taken precedence over the good of the individual. But in reality, the individual decided that it was overall in his best interests to remain with the group, even though that one decision does not seem to benefit him. He could still decide to go off on his own and leave the group, but this too has consequences.

The individual cannot force the group to accompany him in a voluntary collective, and the collective cannot force any individual to accompany the group.

This is in stark contrast to the types of collectivism promoted through politics. They say everyone gets a voice through a vote, but then the will of the majority is forced on each individual. If you are always the third guy who wants to take a different path in a forced collective, you will never have your individual needs met, and always will you be less important than the group.

The “greater good” never matches your individual needs. That is how individuals suffer in forced collectives. In a voluntary collective, any “suffering” on the part of the individual is entirely voluntary, and as such cannot be seen as suffering, because they have made a choice that the value in the collective is worth more to them than the fruition of their own goals as an individual.

The “Greater Good”

What is ironic is that modern collectivist philosophies ignore that a group cannot exist without individuals. Yet collectivism is sold as promoting the greater good. Well, the greater good for who? If individuals in the group suffer, what greater good is being accomplished?

In a voluntary collective, that is for the individual to decide, and the “greater good” still has an individual impact. Walking around the woods, I may not want to be alone for fear of danger. So the greater good is having a large group that can come to the aide of an individual; it is a trade. An individual joins a group as an insurance policy, knowing that he might have to at times “suffer” to help another individual. But the “greater good” is something felt by each individual: it was worth it for each individual to sometimes give priority to others, so that others will sometimes give priority to that individual when he needs it.

In a forced collective though, the choice is not your own, and therefore there is no greater good. Greater good does not exist coercively, it cannot, because some individuals’ good will always be subverted to other individuals’ good. Therefore it is not a “greater good” in any sense, it is simply some benefiting at the expense of others; a majority good.

The Mongolian Horde Example

A Mongolian horde is on its way to plunder an area. One town decides to build a wall, and not let anyone out. They force some people to man the walls in order to protect the town. The Mongolian horde comes, and though many on the wall die, the town survives. Coercive collectivists would say this is a win for the greater good: the survival of the town.

But there is no greater good, there are individuals who benefited from forcing some to protect their town, and there are individuals who died protecting the town, and got no benefit. Individual good for the survivors, individual bad for the dead.

But outside this town many others decided to group together in order to protect themselves from the Mongolian horde. It is understood that some will die, but each individual takes on that risk voluntarily, because he decided grouping together is more likely to lead to survival, not only of the group, but of each individual. The Mongolian horde attacks, and this voluntary collective has the same results as the forced collective; they suffer causalities, but the group survives.

In this instance, there was a “greater good”, because each individual got to decide what was best for him. It is true that some still suffered while others benefited, however the assessment was made by each individual. The collective was created by each individual doing what was best for his own good, according to his own assessment of the available options.

Final Thoughts

Individuals, acting in their own best interests, can come together to create a greater good in a voluntary collective. What is called “greater good” in a coercive collective however, cannot be broken down into good for every individual; inevitably some benefit, while some suffer. In the coercive collective, there was no individual assessment of benefit or detriment; it was decided by force who would benefit and who would suffer. So what the coercive collective calls “greater good” is really individual good for certain individuals, at the detriment to others.

What the voluntary collective calls “greater good” was the best option for each individual given the circumstances, and decided by the individual. In that sense, voluntary collectives can only attain a “greater good” by consensus of the group. If there is no group consensus, there is no greater good. When a voluntary group cannot reach a consensus, it simply splinters into smaller groups that can.

Whenever someone is forced into a group, there can be no greater good, because the individual suffers at the hands of the group. Even if the group benefits, this is not a “greater good”, it is a segmented good.

In forced collectives, anything can be considered the “greater good”, since the only requirement is that some benefit. In voluntary collectives, the group will either agree on what the greater good is, or fragment into smaller groups, which will agree on their version of the greater good for the group (or the individual if no group matches their goals).

But through force, “greater good” does not exist.

Forced Grouping versus Voluntary Collectives

“Oh what you belong to ___ group? I thought you libertarians and anarcho-capitalists hated collectives! Ha, everything you stand for is disproven.”

Ever heard that one, or some variation of it? Well I can’t say it much better than Bastiat himself, however I will expand on his rebuttal.

anmemebastia

I feel like a broken record: no we aren’t against helping the poor, we are against forced extortion to supposedly help the poor. No we are not against education, we are against forced indoctrination. No we are not against law and order, we are against forced grouping that makes us subservient to others to whom the law does not equally apply, and who can initiate force without the same consequences as the civilians.

Anarchists and libertarians are not against voluntary collectives, they are against forced collectives.

Yesterday I was walking in the woods with some friends. We had been hiking for a while and turned and twisted around many paths when we came to a four way intersection. Not wanting to turn back, we began to discuss which way would be best to take. In fact after some discussion, we all agreed to take the same path. But suppose I thought a different path was better. Should I attempt to force them to take the path I want? Or should they, being in the majority, attempt to force me to take the path they want? Of course not.

In a voluntary group, I am free to leave or stay. In the middle of the woods my options are to agree with the group, or be left alone. I see value in the group, and that is why I submit to the majority. Not because the majority has the right to force their will on the minority, and not even because the will of the majority is necessarily better in some way than the minority. No one claims that groups cannot be of great use and help. But they must be voluntary groups in order to serve this purpose best.

Forced Grouping

In addition to the post I wrote on Sociopaths Among Us for this blog, I tailored a similar post for my other, non-political blog. A commenter brought up an awesome point, inspired by the book The Gift of Fear by Gavin Debecker. The book is non-fiction about how our intuition is actually picking up subconscious signals which logically lead us to be uneasy in certain situations when everything does not line up, even though we might not be able to pinpoint why.

Interestingly enough, I just thought about this book yesterday because the book discusses a tactic used by these types of people called “forced teaming” where they create a “we” or “us” when there really isn’t one. For example, a stranger approaches you and says “look at this rain we got ourselves stuck in, I guess we’re going to have to go into this dark abandoned structure together”. The point is is that there is no “WE”. The person is a stranger and this is a tactic that they use to get you to do something that you normally wouldn’t be comfortable with doing.

The reason why I thought of that is because I kept seeing political slander ads that said things like, “this candidate is not for us” and “this candidate doesn’t share our values”. I immediately thought, who is “us” and “our values”? It is scary the little things that people or groups do like that that the untrained or unsuspecting person might fall prey to.

Emphasis added. If forced pairing is a tactic used by dishonest people who are attempting to get someone from you, or victimize you, why would we think it is any different when politicians do it? The government is attempting to victimize you and me by getting us to feel apart of a team that does not exist. There is no us when it comes to government! Any “us” is a forced us, through arbitrary borders, or the IRS, or congressional districting, etcetera.

There is no “us” when it comes to a politician. They are attempting to steal your money, and give it away to their political donors after lining their pockets. They want to force you to comply with a new law, or get you to join in on the forced pairing, and benefit at the detriment of your “team mates”. Some want to make sure gay couples can force bakers to make them cakes, and force pastors to say they are married. Some want to throw you in jail if you smoke a joint, or take more of your money for bombing… I don’t know who, just pick a middle eastern country, I’m sure we are bombing them.

But the only legitimate collectives are voluntary, and all the others ones are for someone to gain while the forced members lose. When it is an individual sociopath trying to get you alone inside a dark building, we see the evils in forced pairing. But somehow when a politician does the same thing, so many are inclined to believe them: “Oh I like him, he looks me in the eye”. Great… great… have fun inside that creepy basement.

Any forced collective is bad, because it just means that some people are slaves, or caged to the desires of others. And when collectives are not forced, only the best ones form and persist. When a collective is voluntary, people only join for mutual gain, and can leave when they no longer value the group. And likewise, the group can expel a member who  takes and takes without contributing.