A Discussion on the subject of Anarchy (as distinct from reactionary socialism)

Anarchy - The much derided antipathy of good order.

Anarchy: The absence of any formal system of government in a society. A situation in which there is a total lack of organisation or control

Govern: To control, regulate, or direct something. To control something by restraint

Mention anarchy and a range of negative reactions will ensue. We are attuned to the concepts of control and organisation as being desirable such that any opposition is undesirable and bad.

Indeed, control, organisation and restraint are seen as desirable attributes in any person. Such attributes allow us to interact with our fellow man and our environment in a reasonable way without infringing each others natural rights.

Most of us would consider the meaning of our natural rights to be to live and be free. We would expect to be able to eat drink and have shelter. We would expect to be able to move think and do freely and without restriction. Anything which inhibits these actions is therefore an infringement of such rights.

Clearly, if any actions we take in exercising our rights consequently infringe the rights of others this would be unacceptable as would any action which would remove those rights from someone else. So the concept of sharing and interfacing is introduced, demarcation and settling disputes over infringements. And so our system has evolved. So also the concept of possession and ownership has also developed as a means of ensuring the protection of our rights.

However, the dichotomy is that possession and ownership is, itself, an infringement of the human rights of others, unless possession and ownership can be shared in an equal manner.

In the same way, whilst control and restraint are necessary to ensure equal availabilty of rights, the imposition of control and organisation are also an infringement of basic rights.

It is therefore arguable that control organisation and restraint applied voluntarily by an individual on their own actions to preserve the rights of others is pre-eminent whilst any form of control restraint or organisation applied from external sources is unacceptable.

Therefore, if government is about control organisation and restraint applied to individuals from an external source then it becomes unacceptable. From this perspective, if anarchy stands in opposition to formal control through government then, conceptually it has at least as much to commend it for the preservation of human rights as does formal government.

Arguably anarchy is the only possible route to true freedom.

This being the case, why is anarchy presented as being so undesirable?

Humanity has been attempting to achieve an appropriate means of co-existing throughout history since the collective efforts of hunter/gatherers. Different thought processes, philosophies and belief systems have evolved. Concepts of wealth gain and control have developed along with the concept of success.

Humans have learned to control the thoughts actions and responses of their fellow humans and learned how to use them for their own personal reasons. In recent western history the mechanisms have been achieved through religion, monarchy, social structure, government and commerce. The right to life and freedom has been controlled for virtually all people by the judgements and actions of just a few individuals, and the machine rolls on.

The fact that the vast majority of humans accept the influences and controls placed upon them does not justify the control process. If people choose to devolve responsibility to others, it is failure of that responsibility to exploit the opportunity.

Of course, for people who wish to wield that influence over others, it becomes relatively easy to exploit the trait of human apathy. However, to increase the degree of control more sophisticated forms of influence become necessary, through exploitation of emotional responses. Behave and go to heaven or misbehave and go to hell. Accept government or suffer the consequences of anarchy. Fear (frequently irrational) is a powerful motivator, a step into the unknown, uncomfortable. So, for people who wish to maintain their control, it is, perhaps, natural to attach fear of the unknown to a concept such as anarchy, for anarchy would require them to yield their power and accept their equality with their fellow human.

The concept of success is attributed to those who have acquired more. More possession, more power, more control. However, more acquisition is actually synonymous with more infringements of the rights of others. Consequently, anyone who achieves success in these terms should be considered entirely unsuitable as someone who could protect such rights for others

Until the concept of success changes from physical acquisition is good to physical acquisition is bad and equal sharing of resources becomes the accepted norm……