At the root, Anarchy means “Without a King”.  When you say the word Anarchy to most people, it conjures up images of mobs throwing rocks and molotov cocktails and raised fists.   That’s not Anarchy.  That’s Chaos.  Two are linked in popular culture, but the reality is that they are two different things.

Anarchy doesn’t mean “Without Rules”.  Far from it.  Look at conditions of Anarchy here in the US.  What do you really know about The Wild West?  Forget Hollywood’s visions of it, and look at what it really was.  A period of time when people lived far from the the effects of regular Government and any legal oversight.  What they had instead was social order based on common law.  The nearest Sheriff was a 3 day ride on a horse… or maybe longer.  Especially out here back in the day.  You wanted to go talk to someone in the government?  That would take almost a week just to get there.

What were those people like?  In a word?  Respectful.  Never in the history of he US… and dare I say, the world, has a people lived in a time with so much peace, prosperity, and growth.  People were responsible for themselves.  Their own welfare, education, sustenance.  You sank or swim on your own labor, not that of others.  People were not comfortable with their poverty, they worked to get out of it.  People believed in God, and they read from the bible.  Many learned to read from the bible.  They were industrious.  They built things.  If they wanted something, they made it or grew it.  Bridges were built.  Roads cut through mountain passes.  People worked together.  People, the individuals, were independent… conservative by nature…. but they were independent… they were Free.

That forced growth.  With that growth came Government.  And everything went down hill from there.  Respect is almost completely lost.  Dignity was lost.  A lot was lost.

Anarchy isn’t a bad thing…  If you think about it, Anarchy is the ultimate ideal of conservative values.  But you have to separate the distinctions from “Conservative” and the GOP.   This doesn’t mean I am against Republicans or I’m staunch Libertarian… George Washington admonished us to avoid political parties, and I agree with him.  Unfortunately the Parties have a lot of power in this country.  They completely dominate this country and it’s government.  People are not loyal to the Country and the Constitution which is our national foundation… they are loyal to their Party.  I find that disgusting.

This next year is all about the politics of finding Party Candidates… not necessarily the best person for the job.  Republicans are fighting for that nomination.  I think the worst Republican that’s fighting for that position is better than Obama.  But all of that mess is a puppet show.  Don’t get caught up in it.  It’s important, yes.  But don’t overlook the local level.   Find the right guy for the job and support him… in all the local offices.  Regardless of Party affiliation.  Even if he or she is Libertarian.  We have to shore up our foundation… our Freedom.  Penn Jillette puts it well.

The reason I am concerned about this now is because I believe that very soon we will see a new period of Anarchy.  We can panic and run and lose it all… Or we can get ready for it and embrace it.  Because it’s not the end, but the beginning. We need to be faithful. We need to be prepared. We need to hold on to freedom.

16 thoughts on “Anarchy”

  1. Makes you wish the ballot had the choice “None of the above”. I don’t care for either party.

    “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.”
    – H. L. Mencken

  2. One thing about the West was an awful lot of them men who went out there who populated not just the ranches but also the towns were veterans of the US Civil War.
    When a gang robbed a bank for instance,they tried like heck to get out of town fast. It wasn’t the law that they worried so much about but giving the towns people too much time to get a hold of their shotguns and rifles. I remember a report by Mark Twain about an overland trip out West after the war. An incident were hostile Indians were reported ahead of the traveling party resulted in the travelers shaking out into a skirmish line with no orders and advancing over a hill with due caution.
    As for supporting good men, sorry, if a man has the wings of an angel but is a Democrat I won’t support him.

  3. Anarchy works like this… take what you want and pay for it.

    I’ve been an anarcho-capitalist (or voluntarist) for a long time now.

    The principles are so simple we teach them to children. Don’t hit people and don’t take their stuff.

    I am happy to allow others to pursue whatever forms government they want, so long as I am free to accept or reject them. I have no more right to force my political will on others than they have to force theirs on me.

    Mine is the only political philosophy which respects people enough to allow them to accept or reject it without the threat of violence.

    It’s a position which I reluctantly cannot argue myself out of, despite the horrible social costs incurred.

    The sad thing is, advocating pure liberty and absolute individual freedom will not win you many friends.

    We need to get over the illusion that some people have the right to control how other people live.

    1. Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria.

      The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

      The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism.

      But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. – RAH

  4. Anarchy does not work like that. It may start like that, but it always devolves to something worse when it produces a climate of ‘every man for himself’. That is where the molotovs and the guns come out. This is the crux of the problem I have with libertarians. They get absolutely stupid about drugs, cults polygamists and other turds. They insist that we give these turds ‘the first shot’ too. They advocate independence until the shit hits the fan for them – then they change their tune.

    At some point we have to work together to agree on things. In the old west, if you were on your own – you died. The people that did best worked together in groups, split duties, pooled resources and shared work loads. That is where that respect came from and most city people don’t understand that.

    Having said all that though – I like Penn. He is probably the brightest man of the bunch.

    1. History has proven us both right. But you are stuck on the every man for himself bit… See, people did work together… with no one ordering them to. That’s historical fact. And yes, sometimes the guns did come out. That’s how we got Napoleon after the French Revolution.

    2. We call this the argument form Apocalypse.

      It’s structured like this, If we do x then we’re all gonna diiiieee!!!

      Other example include every anti-gun argument ever made made.


      While you have every right to be critical of any solutions offered and propose alternatives, at the end of the day if your solution only works when forcibly imposed on others, you are wrong.

      1. People already do things I don’t like.

        The important difference is that right now they have a means to force everyone else to do them, or at least force everyone else to pay for them.

  5. What I don’t get is the people who cannot get past the idea of the two party system, the ones who do not understand that you do not have to vote D or R. A friend I have had political debates with for 20 years recently had the audacity to tell me “You are a right wing conservative- therefore a Republican”. Of course he considers himself an enlightened independant, but only votes D or R. What part of “none of the fucking above” is so hard for people to understand? It is OUR country, let’s remind those knob polishing sell outs in DC of that fact!

    1. That’s one reason we need to switch to approval voting. Instead of only being able to vote for one individual, you can vote for as many as you like. So if someone wants to vote for “anyone but Obama,” he doesn’t have to vote for the candidate most likely to beat Obama (the R nominee – thereby penalizing all the third party candidates)… he can literally vote for every candidate other than Obama. Or some subset – you cast your votes for everyone you would be willing to see get elected, which could be anything from none to all of the candidates.

      Right now, folks win office, and immediately have low approval numbers, because so many voters really didn’t actually want that guy… he was just the lesser of the two most popular evils. With approval voting, the results of the election will more closely resemble what voters actually wanted.

  6. The first question should be, can we solve this with more freedom. I haven’t heard a simpler explanation of libertarianism before. Thank you Penn Jillette.

    To those who think that a third party or an independent candidate can’t succeed, look at the history of the Republican Party. I’ve come to the conclusion (a while ago, actually) that the only vote I waste is the one that I cast for someone I don’t support.

  7. Ogre, I like what you had to say and mostly agree. One thing today I find infuriating is if you criticize a liberal politician to a liberal they jump all over you with rhetoric about you so and so republicans,yada, shame, yada. And every stupid thing the libs do is still the republicans fault.

    In my case where I try to explain I’m somewhat of a blend of christian conservative and libertarian who believes in small non intrusive government, they can’t seem to compute. Lots of anger on the left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *