Many have heard of Anarchy and many arguments against Anarchy have been devised. Many oppositional views to anarchism are conceived because of the popular misconceptions of anarchism and anarchist related ideologies. Many, when Anarchy is mentioned, are bombarded by thoughts relating chaos and destruction in a distopian society. As malevolence is associated with anarchism it creates the misrepresentation that those who advocate anarchism are, with no question, advocators or promoters of violence, hate, terrorism, destruction and chaos. Many Dictionaries as well describe anarchism as the 'Absence of any form of political authority, political disorder and confusion, or the Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.' In order to develop an educated opinion regarding anarchism, the myth that anarchism means chaos and all anarchists advocate violence must be eradicated. Anarchism, to ideologically sound minds, is (Building or retaining)a society deprived of systematic governmental oppression. It's logical according to ideologies that no hand but their own hand shall govern them. This does not entail that an advocator of anarchism pursues violent retribution. Authentic Anarchists pursue knowledge and idealism to enable a more civilized society. Anarchism is widely associated with progressive and peaceful activism, humanitarianism, vegetarianism/veganism, social revolution in concerns of racism, sexism, homophobia, segregation, and the slaughter of culture, individual freedom and the environment by Big Business, extreme capitalism, and free trade-Multi-National Corporate Interest. It's been cleverly instilled, by oppressive forces, in the individual minds of society that anarchism and anarchists are an atrocious threat simply because it has in the past provoked intellectualism in aspects of exploiting secret government and military operations and encouraged common people not to be deceived by the lies they were fed. Regardless if violent revolt took place, the idea was founded on anti-oppression. When you challenge what you've been taught to believe you'll be enlightened in the validity that anarchism is not based around 'virulent' ideologies or paradigms.

With it established that Anarchism is not based around chaos and destruction, let's focus on anarchism as a belief structure and how it would apply to society and in the individual mind. America's political system is currently entitled a "Democratic Republic" (The replica government existing before the NSDAP established a National Socialist government in Germany during the Third Reich.) comprised of three main branches of government, the Judicial, the Executive and the Legislative branches. (All which are undoubtedly corrupt.) The three main structures of government revolve around a course theme; The Constitution. The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments guaranteed freedom. Considering the principles and your responsibilities, your freedom would not be compromised if you refrained from infringing on the rights of others. The idea of freedom with no limitations so long as you didn't infringe on the Constitutional rights of others is seemingly a good idea; when put to practice. However, the constitution has contradicted itself in the respect that with its benevolent promise it bred a gaggle of laws that serve the needs to one subject but neglect another. Various political organizations were established from the confusion The Constitution wrought. The Constitution actually, to current date, plays an insignificant role. It's only used as a promise to keep American citizens loyal and in certain government practices such as the Judicial Review. The Constitution, if not already, will be obsolete soon. Let's examine the truth of what American politics really 'cause and affect.' Freedom in its most abundant form is, in fact, only guaranteed to wealthy white-collared Business owners etc. While the collectively disproportionate, wealthy upper-class enjoys their freedom (Having cocktail parties, playing golf, and driving around in their BMW's) the middle and lower classes incinerate thirty to eighty hours(+) a week working in the establishments owned by the wealthiest of Americans. It's not a wrongful practice to earn money, but considering you're working forty (+) hours making five hundred more or less a week while the wealthiest of Americans are working as little as one hour a week and profiting millions, it should make you shudder.

Furthermore, human beings, regardless of how they got there, are suffering without homes and food. If freedom was guaranteed for all persons, they would have the rights of food and shelter. (Some people insist shelter shouldn't be a right, but I look at it from this perspective: It can get to temperatures where simply sleeping outside can deem you a corpse. [Not very nice.] America enforces health codes. Sleeping in alleyways and deriving food from waste reciprocals isn't my idea of healthy. Many other facts pertain to this but the primary reason I think shelter should be a right is because Vagrancy is a crime.) "If people didn't starve, there would be no upper-class." We've observed that capitalism has created extreme social classes where a higher class has control over a lower class.

Let's continue and observe executive influence over the extreme social classes. Police are believed to be there to "protect and serve" which may be true, but to whom? The wealthiest of Americans endure no, if not very little, police harassment. Their rights are indeed protected. If an incident does occur where a horrible, and only if a horrible crime is committed the police will follow every article of due process in a respectful manner, it's often neglected when dealing with the poor. If the investigators arrive at a rich person's household, they will leave if told it's not a good time by the residents whereas the doors would be kicked down in an underclass residence. The police are also said to be 'crime fighters.' Sure, the police have been known to fight crime every now and again, but let's look at what police are really there for. Crime, regrettably, is the most dense in inner-city areas. The police are supposed to be fighting crime, right? Why hasn't crime been dramatically reduced if a source has been determined? In the city you'll see a police officer in front of wealthy establishments standing guard- often they will open doors for people and greet them. Last time I checked opening a door for someone isn't fighting crime at all, but I could be wrong. Why then are there an estimated twenty police officers guarding businesses in 'Baltimore's Inner-harbor' doing obviously nothing to prevent crime while people are being murdered, robbed and victimized in the inner city not more than ten blocks away? It's simplistic really. The police are there to protect wealthy property and social value. Which ultimately brings me to the conclusion of 'what American politics cause and affect'.

America, a "Democratic republic," capitalist country, actually revolves around the theme of Monetary opposed to the idealism of Constitutional, free living. Our so called freedom is merely a sedative, if you will, that keeps us ignorant to the profound truths our government has hidden from us, and most importantly keep our mindset in a serene, loyal mode to ensure economic prosperity-- To Keep us quiet, well behaved and convinced of our freedom so wealthy Americans can make more money. (It's much like when Mommy and Daddy sent their kids off to bed so they could stay up with their friends, party and be reduced to a drunken stupor.) Of course we're around to help run their businesses and fight their wars like pets. Don't kick the dog, it might bite you, so be nice to it so it'll remain loyal.

Patriots and Jingoists live in a pseudo world where they're intrigued by the "glory, founding" days of American settlement. The thirteen starred flag waved through the air and meant freedom from English rule. Oh, it was a revolution indeed and they fought bravely to keep it. [Note the hint of sarcasm.] They fail to realize, however, that the idealism has been butchered and the majority of Americans are only as free as the leash will stretch.

What comes next? If you oppose the existing form of government you need to countenance another form. In this case the form shall be no form. Again people will assume the world would be chaotic with no form of political government, but realize that the world is full of chaos as it is. Anarchy would eventually disperse the chaos and over a progressive period of time eliminate it altogether. I'll explain my theory of anarchism. Right now there's an established Government in the United States which instills the fear of consequence into people. If someone has contempt for a law, they will be punished. The fear of consequence shields society. A violator of the established rule doesn't learn through individual experience, they "learn" by force which doesn't affect the individual as it would through experience. "What's wrong with laws that shield society?" If there's this existing force of government that instills the fear of punishment in society, actions, which stagnate human civilization, will not be surmounted through ascertaining that, using reason and intelligence, it's wrong. They simply realize "If I do this I go to jail." With that mentality things are not learned, they're just avoided because of consequence. If law stops a murderer from murdering, it's not because that person realizes murdering isn't right, it's because he/she knows they'll be thrown in a cage. When an entire society has this mentality it's difficult to evolve and evolving is our interest as a species. The existing government represses society as a civilization henceforth it must be eliminated. There exists in nature a code, when something prevents evolution it is eradicated or the species will not evolve (or it will become extinct.)
"If you get rid of government, there would be people killing each other everywhere, right?" A popular response to anarchy, ensuing another popular question is "Should rapists and murderers be left unpunished?"
If you simply evaluate what occurs in the world, you will see that you wouldn't need to rid government to see this happening. People are needlessly being murdered all over the world, and the question about going unpunished-- Join the Military. Which brings me to another factor relating chaos and death that government has the potential to deliver. If the theory that rule must be eradicated periodically to strengthen civilization had been practiced, the government would not have been able to procure the amount of money necessary for research and development of biological and nuclear weapons. Anyone concerned with people being murdered needlessly should now be advocating anarchy or 'reduction of government'. People are worried about petty confusion and periodic chaos that would most likely ensue an anarchist 'deformation'. What about the capability the government now possesses (from lack of anarchist uprising) to ignite a nuclear weapon? If a nuclear weapon detonates in the right location, it will, not only obliterate hordes of millions of people, but it would send the world into a nuclear winter. I would imagine the periodic chaos and confusion ensuing an anarchist upheaval would have dramatically less impact than the chaos and confusion a nuclear explosion-induced nuclear winter would bring.

Think about it folks, if anarchist uprising, or revolutions that reduced government would have taken place periodically throughout history (As Thomas Jefferson thought necessary as to keep non-oppressive government.) nuclear weaponry, capable of reducing you to nothing, would not have been devised. You silly, lazy, brainwashed humans. But the questions remain.
"How would we get clean water or safe food?" Human beings will learn that without the "benevolent" help from our government agencies, organization among self-governed people could clean the water and inspect food for safety. It's a matter of progression. Humans will evolve and learn how to organize peacefully and non-suppressively. You don't need a suppressive force of government to clean water and make sure food is safe. Humans will eventually be able to work together without written rules. I know it's hard to conceive, but it's logical. "But with anarchy who would ensure hospital security and protection for those who can't fend for themselves?" Good question. It's horrible to realize that humans, if no one was stopping them, would attack defenseless people, or people at all for that matter. However, with this degree of violence, stupidity is definitely a factor. As evolution in any species, the weak would die off. As humans have come, or will soon come, to the position of civilization where mind power displays more importance than body power, the weak-minded would soon die off and the more reasonable, intelligent people would flourish--this would be possible in an anarchist society; government keeps stupid people alive. "You say government keeps stupid people alive, which implies they should be killed." Everyone has a right to live, it doesn't imply they should be murdered at all. Stupidity will slowly fade away without government because we will be forced to work, non oppressively, as a team. "As a team? You sound like a communist, anarchists don't want to work in teams." Negative, there are plenty of anarchists that pursue utopia, which won't be probable for a couple centuries, and they're willing to do the work necessary to live in a truely free society without the interference of harsh government. As for anarchists who desire living independently will be able to live the way they choose without inteference of anyone else, and as human progress as a civilizaiton, nonsense such as murderes and rapists will simply not exist. If a senseless murderer or a rapist does exist, it will be the job of the free society members to thoroughly teach the person and persuede them to believe, through reason and logic, that rape is not right. Punishment, as devised currently, only makes people worse. A rapist sent to jail comes out, not only still a rapist but now he's a rapist who's been confined in a violent environment which most likely concludes he's a more dangerous, violent rapist.

This Essay is not completed; it will completed in a couple of days.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws