Rise Soldiers of Anarchy - Let Anarchy Reign - Part II
Anarchy and Law
As I wrote in the previous article in regards to this topic, there still exists a lot of confusion as to the definition of anarchy. Anarchy doesn't mean living in a world without rules, but living in a world without rulers.
There are some definitions of anarchy that go on to explain that anarchy involves both the absence of a state and the law. This is false. While anarchism is existing in a world without a state; there's very much room for law, it's merely undocumented law that's not enforced by an external body called the state. An anarchist doesn't believe in the concept of universal laws as often such regulations become draconian measures that don't put into consideration the situation and individuals involved. If we are to consider that each person (and the organizations they may form) as unique, then it's unreasonable to expect everyone to follow the exact same rules. Rules will still be created; they will merely be more flexible. The concept of the law will still be put in place, however instead the law will be a natural process in the interactions between two people or groups of people, rather than an enforced artificial construct initiated by the state regardless of whether the situation calls for it or not.
As an example of anarchy being practiced on the field, let's take massive crowds of people for example. In giant crowds, often we find the constructs put in place by the state are ineffective. That's because it's difficult for the body of the state to actively be in everyone place at everyone time. A lot of activity simply gets missed or completely overlooked by the enforcement of the state due to the constant need to triage the situation. People, who are many times naturally smarter than we give them credit for, soon realize that when standing as a small blimp lost amongst a giant sea of people that the vehicle of the state has no to limited power.
From there, a person who has come to this realization could probably commit a dozen of what many would consider crimes, without facing any repercussions involved by the state. He could violently and deliberately push the guy in front of him and then claim it's only an accident. He could potentially steal that lady's purse. He could perhaps randomly assault an individual, attempt to run away, and get lost in the crowd. He could probably commit all of the following actions without fear of being arrested by the police who frankly have no way of witnessing any of these crimes, nor do people have any method of reporting the said individual to the police, considering the police is most likely too busy futilely trying to control or patrol the crowd.
The frightening reality is if you take a man or woman and place them into the heart of a crowded mob, they literally have the freedom to act as stupid or criminal as they please. Yet very few will initiate such chaos. Why? They fear the consequences of such actions from the mob more than they fear the reaction from the state. In a conventional case with the state, if you get caught stealing that purse, you'll most likely be asked to kindly give it back and repay your debts to the individual or society in some way. Most likely through fines, community work, offering your labour free of charge as compensation to the individual from whom you stole, jail time, etc. In retrospect, the consequences of what I have listed are not nearly as bad as the real possibility that you may get caught stealing in that mob and then consequently ransacked. A person analyzing the risks and benefits of stealing a purse in a crowded mob will immediately conclude it's in his best interest to keep his hands to himself. In contrast to the conventional situation with the state, whereas if he gets caught the situation isn't that bad; and if he doesn't get caught he immediately profits. In the case with the state, he may just decide that stealing the purse is a decent calculated risk to take.
Therefore, in such an anarchist environment, we have already established the rule of law, although be it unwritten. I refer to this process as natural law.
The Anarchist Position on Personal Arms
There is a lot of debate in anarchist circles in regards to our position on firearms. At a glance, we have two distinct divisions that on the surface seem hypocritical to each other. If you ask an anarchist his or her position in regards to firearms, he or she will come to believe that anarchy can only be achieved if either everyone has firearms or nobody has firearms.
On the surface both these views come across as hypocritical and polarized, of course this overlooks the one issue they have in common - both sides are in agreement that neither one person nor an organization should have a monopoly on force. In a world where everyone has weapons or nobody has weapons, we essentially have natural law and order enforced by the neutralization of force. The hard question to then ask is which option out of the two is A) the most realistic and B) the most effective.
To get a better understanding of this issue, let us take a look at nuclear weapons. There is a lot of controversy surrounding nuclear weapons, suffice to say peacekeepers yearn for the day to see all nuclear weapons vanish from the face of the Earth. They should be careful what they wish for. . .
With the "conventional" weapons we have today, the untold destruction militarily powerful nations could unleash are incomprehensible. If one nation believes they have an upper hand over another, whether the belief is real or perceived, we could have damning consequences on our hands. What keeps such politicians who have illusions of grandeur in line is the fear of retribution from nuclear weapons. The Russians and Americans call it the M.A.D (Mutual Assured Destruction) policy. Nuclear weapons make wars unwinnable and thus keep the peace. In hindsight, the development of nuclear weapons has been good for humanity. We haven't had a World War in 70 years. Yes, we've had multiple skirmishes between nations that have nuclear weapons and those that don't have nuclear weapons (wars are caused when the neutralization of force isn't established) and civil wars. We'll talk in greater details as to why this is happening and how it relates to personal arms later in this article.
Now replace "nations" with "people", replace "nuclear weapons" with "firearms," and replace "M.A.D" with "fear of retaliation." Seeing that I can't see the guns disappearing any time soon, neutralization of force can only be achieved if everyone carries guns. The neutralization of force is a valuable goal, no matter the circumstances, because it makes using violence as a means to solve our problems a less attractive option.
I'm by no means a gun fanatic and I'll freely admit it deeply disturbs me to come to this conclusion. Understand that the gun violence we're currently witnessing in the United States can mostly be attributed to disgusting cultural military industrial complexes that turn guns into a form of art. I discussed this in detail when I wrote my article Recognizing Why the Military Industrial Complex Exists. Understand there are many nations on Earth that have high gun ownership rates such as Switzerland and Canada that barely experience any gun violence.
Keep in mind, the guns (much like nuclear weapons) are not meant to be used, they merely act as a deterrent. It's a pageant when you think about it, everyone carries a gun like everyone carries a wallet and wears clothes. The idea is to present a proposition to would be murderers. Yes, you could shoot to kill many people in this room, but you won't be able to kill everyone, and in so doing you'll most likely get killed yourself. From there, most rational people will analyze the risks and decide not to attempt murder. As for the irrational people who want to go postal and shoot everyone in a room, they will do so regardless of whether people have firearms or not.
Of note, in order for firearms to act as a proper deterrent, the firearms must be visible rather than concealed.
The good news is that as humanity evolves the anarchists who hold the point of view of a world without guns will eventually be right, though it may take a thousand years. While it may seem counter-intuitive, the only way to achieve a world where we can all live in peace and harmony without guns is to at first achieve a world of peace and harmony where we all carry guns. The guns are mostly a display of show and tell. "Here's my gun, I won't hurt you; if you don't hurt me." After almost half a lifetime without even seeing someone shoot a gun, a brave individual may one day decide it's no longer necessary to go through the trouble of lugging a firearm around. Over time people may become so accustomed to people carrying firearms that it's hardly noticed. In many ways people will forget why they carried the weapons in the first place. Then, another brave soul will decide it's too much of an inconvenience to carry a firearm and then so forth. Eventually the end result will be a peaceful society without guns. . .
Anarchy and Defense
A cynical Republican will argue that we need government in order to protect us from other governments. Let us analyze this statement for a minute. Are you telling me, a young man who is dragged out of his household, away from his family by use of force, told to put on a silly costume against his will, will suddenly show loyalty destroying the very nation that can offer him freedom away from that harsh reality?
I can't see how the side opposing a land of free anarchy can conceivably achieve victory. The rates of defection would be incredibly high. Our state tyrant opponent may be reluctant to send in the army, because every time he does so, it seems to result in fresh recruits for our side. Not only will these defections increase our military strength, but the intelligence they bring would incredibly valuable. Winning the information war is how to win a war.
The military as we have come to understand it is starting to become obsolete. A land of free anarchy is defended by free and voluntary militias. There's no better defense than a well-armed and well trained civilian population who can form militias. The militia is immune to corruption. Men are not trained to blindly follow orders or to serve a title. They voluntarily choose to defend their land and their families. They fight with their heads and they fight with their hearts. With men like that how can we fail?! Are you telling me an army filled with what are essentially slaves to a tin pot dictator, who doesn't give a shit about them, has any chance of winning against such a force of self-determination? I highly doubt it.
Trust me when I say that fighting civilian guerrilla warriors in the wilderness, who know the land like the back of their hands, has been proven a historical nightmare. Simply ask the Soviet Union and the United States, they'll be able to tell you all about their failed excursions into nations they had no business invading. Given these facts, one must wonder if there is any purpose to a military at all other than for statists to (excuse my language) dick flag around.
Still, despite the history, despite the fact the anarchist militia is fighting at high morale while the tyrant's army would have no morale, despite all the defections to our side, and despite the fact we'll have superior information to that of our enemy; many arm chair generals will be convinced war is unpredictable and we could still lose. Therefore, because war can be unpredictable and we could still lose, we need an army "just to be safe."
My response to anyone who feels they need a military to "feel safe." Are you kidding me?! Going back to the topic earlier where I stated civil wars across the world have increased. Why do you suppose that is? As we've discussed numerous times in this article, the invasion of other nations is becoming increasing impractical, so therefore to remain relevant the military directs violence upon her own people. North Korea is one of the biggest human rights violators in the world, yet in the past twenty or so years they have been relatively quiet in terms of aggression towards other nations. The human rights violations are mostly against their own people and the military is thus very busy suppressing their own people.
Militaries, right now as they stand, are nothing but archaic traditions that can only be practically used as a means to suppress their own people. The idea of handing an army to a psychopath state leader in order to defend you is ludicrous. These clowns in costumes only serve to defend the interests of the hierarchy and to inevitably quell dissent in the sea of religiosity that's nationalism and the state.
If paying enormous taxes, and running the real risk the very military you’re funding could turn against you, is just an insurance policy in case a civilian militia may fail in the event of an invasion. I would argue this is very costly insurance indeed. It's the equivalent of paying hundreds of dollars per month in the unlikely event you'll die in a plane crash, and on top of that the insurance agents may perhaps kill you by other means just to make sure you don't die in a plane crash. If you want to pay for something that stupid, go ahead; just don't force me at gun point to pay into it as well. . .
Anarchy and You
In this article we've covered the concept of natural law, how anarchy deals with firearms, and how territory can be defended without a state body. It turns out this is a vast topic and I will have to write a third part that deals with issues such as to how we can peacefully abolish the state as we transition into anarchy, how disputes are settled, and how anarchy is the best system to combat both evil and corruption, etc.
-Donovan D. Westhaver