Most people, and understandably so, find anarchist philosophy to not be something practical for society, because they've been led to believe that anarchy is the same thing as chaos, that if there was anarchy, then bad people would just do whatever violence they wanted to do, and no one would stop them; people have been led to believe that anarchy equates to no moral law in effect, and so immoral behavior would then run rampant and unchecked. And no one in their right mind wants there to be more violence and destruction in the world, so anarchism is dismissed, usually immediately, again because the people doing so have been led to believe that anarchy means chaos, no moral law, and no bad consequence for violence. Anarchy actually just means "No Rulers," the second definition of "destruction and chaos" is actually a false replacement definition that rulers have put on the word anarchy, in order to neutralize any resistance to their rule. Who is a ruler? A ruler is a person that abusively controls other people. And guess what happens when you make abusers the leaders of society? Well, ironically for those believe States prevent chaos, repeating patterns of chaos/war/terrorism/tyranny are what happens. This shouldn't be a surprise, the problem is most people don't believe the abuse is abuse, because they've been heavily indoctrinated to not see it (especially the foundational extortion/taxation) as abuse, but rather as a "service." In other words people have been deceived into seeing abuse as love, and this has been the root cause of humanity's problems, from the very beginning.
Abuse is the opposite of love, it's evil behavior. So, since extorting rulers are abusive, an anarchist is simply someone who is against abusive control. In other words, anarchy is an expression of the Non-Aggression Principle, the principle that states that the initiation of violence is always wrong. Self-defense force is not aggression/violence, as some also wrongly define that as; defensive force is the forcible and proportional response to violence that has already commenced, so pure anarchism is not against that.
When most people think about why we need governments, the #1 reason thought of and said to be why is protection, and that protection means fundamentally protection from abuse; the Bill of Rights are fundamentally about being protected from abuse. So then, why would we need to set up a system of abuse, to protect us from abuse? Why think we need evil to do good in the world? The mistake is not only thinking that we need evil to accomplish good, but that evil could ever accomplish good; in reality it ultimately can't, that's what makes evil evil, it's the opposite of good, and God's creation doesn't allow for the nonsense backwardness of evil and the sane good of the non-aggression principle really being one and the same. It really is this simple, but the propaganda/indoctrination/brainwashing is constantly working to confuse you about this so you'll accept evil as a means to accomplish the good, more specifically and fundamentally in this discussion, so you'll accept that extortion is the best means of ensuring protection.
In the current March 2022 issue of the print magazine America's 1st Freedom, the cover story article is on 10 truths about our rights, and the first truth stated is "We all have natural rights, which are granted by our Creator, not our government," and #2 is stated as "Our government exists to protect our natural rights." #1 is certainly true, but how can #2 be true if that "protection" is actually done by violating those rights, which are again fundamentally the natural right to not be abused? The intention of government may have been the protection of our natural right to not be abused, but if government is actually based on abuse (which it is), then the means are contrary to the intention; again you can't actually achieve good ends from evil means, that is a key ethical and metaphysical truth for humans, that although most might agree with when stated plainly like that, they don't usually see or agree that they are actually going against that fundamental ethical and metaphysical truth by overlooking the abuses of governments as a "necessary evil" in order to achieve "the greater good." That utilitarian tough-love viewpoint might seem smart and practical, but it's actually neither.
When people say that we need "The Rule of Law," that's true, but the devil is in the details concerning what "rule of" should be, and what that "law" is fundamentally. The fundamental moral Law is actually what Jesus said it is: to comprehensively love (Matthew 22:36-40 & Mark 12:28-32 & Luke10:25-28). And the opposite of loving action is actually abuse, so abuse is really what's against the true and fundamental Law for humans on Earth. And again, defensive force is not a form of violence/abuse, it's actually a form of love, defending people from abuse. So the right way to have "rule of law" is first to be clear that abuse (which can be in the form of aggression, deception/cheating or theft) is what Law-violation actually is, and then secondly, to be clear that using defensive force to stop that abuse is the proper loving response, in keeping with that Law. So the mistake, again due to deception and propaganda, is thinking that rulers, who fundamentally exist and operate because of extortion, which is a form of abuse, are necessary in order to carry out defensive force against abusers; humanity has been deceived into believing that we need abusers to stop abusers; we don't, and that's why anarchism, especially Christian Anarchism, makes a lot of sense and is not at all "crazy" as you've been led to believe it is. Institutions based on abuse should be condemned rejected completely; a of good-intentioned people hesitate in doing this because they right think that we should never condemn an individual person, mistakenly equating the abusive social-system structure with a person, the latter being redeemable while the former is not. Yes governments are made up of individual people, but they are people carrying out an abusive program/paradigm, and so rejecting that paradigm is not equivalent with rejecting/condemning individual people, which Jesus told us not to do when he said "Judge (i.e., condemn) not..."
Again the true Law that is the foundation for any sound moral rules, is simply The Non-Abuse Principle (the other side of The Greatest Commandments of Jesus); it's an extremely basic ethic, it's just promoting basic decency. If a "regular" person committed extortion against you, or tried to coerce you into taking their favorite drug, or tried to disarm you even though you haven't been violent, would you find all of that to be aggressive? Of course you would. And if you became shipwrecked on an uninhabited island with a bunch of other vacationers, wouldn't the rational thing to do be to share the land, water and seed on that island evenly among you, so that no one could dominate and abusively control any one else? Of course. But what if a politician commits extortion, drug & medical device-pushing, disarmament, and controls the necessities of survival that are actually your free birthright? Wouldn't it still be wrong? Here is where the statist departs from common sense and basic ethics, and enters the fairy-land of "social-contracts" and "representatives," an abuse-condoning illusory realm inhabited by indoctrinated idol-worshipers that never speak of the Non-Aggression Principle. Here is where The Golden Rule is discarded, supposedly for "the greater good." Here is where basic neighbor-to-neighbor ethics is discarded, because people irrationally think States aren't actually just people too (just people with a different job), and irrationally think those people are somehow automatically superior to everyone else, just because of that employment. Here is where the three main blunders (or deceptions) come into play:
1) The blunder/deception that "Some people are bad, so we need government to protect us from those bad people," as if those bad people couldn't be, and never have been, the government themselves, and
2) The blunder/deception that abuse (e.g., extortion, medical tyranny and disarmament) equals protection, and
3), The blunder/deception that we couldn't have safety, education or health services without extortion, ignoring the private sector and charitable organizations as if they don't exist and oftentimes do a better service than the government version, and ignoring that local police, firefighters, teachers and medical experts could basically just continue on with their jobs, continue on with offering their services to the community, just without their paychecks funded by extortion, and without having a "commander in chief" politician that they have sworn to obey no matter how deranged he or she is.
So the big "revelation" with exposing these 3 Blunders is simply that governments are just people too and we don't need people given the "authority" to abuse, to make the world a better place! Adding abuse to the world doesn't actually help! It's really that simple!
It is that simple ultimately, however because of how people have been programmed, it takes some discussion to get to that simple conclusion; it takes critical thinking and analysis; some debate and some questioning of unquestioned "truths," to reach that simple truth that really is true. Stevie Ray Vaughn asked in one of his songs "Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?" and the answer is that it was thwarted by immoral deception, immoral deception that you can start to free yourself from by thinking through those aforementioned blunders; also key is to keep in mind that what's going on is fundamentally a confusion over identity and ethics, namely rulers have people confused about who they are fundamentally, and what fundamental basic ethics are. Who are you fundamentally? What's fundamentally good and what's fundamentally evil? If you really knew the correct answers to those questions, anarchism wouldn't seem like a foolish philosophy to you, it would seem like common sense. Are you a human being, created by God, or are you the livestock of politicians that you happened to be born near? Why is something abusive when you do it (e.g., extortion, restricting someone's travel, disarming them, invading their privacy, pushing drugs and medical devices on them, etc.), but not abusive when politicians do the same thing? Knowing your core identity and knowing core ethics would actually bring down their house of cards, and so that's why they're constantly working on confusing you concerning your identity (e.g., with identity politics and nationalism), and confusing you concerning what's unethical (e.g., with daily fear-mongering and guilt-tripping). This is why they employ controlled opposition to say things like "Our leaders are out of control, no longer serving their own populations," so that you still subconsciously identify with the false identity as human livestock, and still subconsciously accept the false morality of the appeal to authority and "obedience to rulers/system = being a good person," and still subconsciously accept that the solution is simply petitioning politicians, assumed to be legitimate "leaders," to rule correctly (deep ethics reminder: abusing/ruling over people can't be made good because abuse is pure evil).
Keeping you confused on your true identity and confused about basic ethics is also in large part accomplished by simply having one major crisis follow another ("social-engineers" do actually exist), and have the crisis always support two main goals upon your subconscious: 1) "You are a citizen in the grand play as presented to you on your TV screen, not an autonomous human being created by God on the planet Earth with other humans like yourself who you should treat how you want to be treated," and 2) "The Non-Abuse Principle needs to be put aside to take care of the crisis, we gotta let these "authorities" take the reigns and do whatever they say."
"Here you will find, wedded to each other, the two essential elements of contemporary nihilism, the great diffused fear of contemporary man and his singularly terrorist [i.e., abusive] passion. Nihilism, terrorism, here is the heart of the disturbing reality which, in the past thirty years has broken through the last romantic languors [i.e., through dreamy, in a good way, notions of peace & love that people instinctually have]. Here is that scandalous and secret spot where the decomposition of the societies recently fighting for human liberty merges imperceptibly into the delirium which opposed them [i.e., those that fight for liberty actually end up supporting its opposite when they are just hit with yet another crisis and the need to "do something" about it, and that something of course invariably being something abusive, hence the nihilism, the abandonment of the Non-Abuse Principle, for supposedly "practical" and "necessary" reasons]. Nihilism, which engenders the spirit of catastrophe [i.e., the moral relativism and moral decay fostered through mass-media/entertainment supports acceptance of yet another manifestation of abuse as "crisis solution" from the terrorist-rulers posing as caretakers], is a vast reaction of infantile type. You know how easily children or the weak or sickly or nervous, are discouraged. They analyze neither their action nor their thinking. The original impulse is global, enthusiastic and blind. Something gets in the way [of society actually progressing toward liberty] and the whole wave collapses upon itself [and that's why social-engineers have one crisis follow another, forever creating "order out of chaos" as their motto goes, that order being their abusive control and exploitation of the masses]." - Emmanuel Mounier, Be Not Afraid (1946)
Those are the deeper core elements at play, but I'll return to those main 3 Blunders to hopefully help make this all more simple and clear to you, because again, it really is fundamentally simple, and because most people seem to have their minds tear them away from actually hearing what the real crucial truth and solutions are. Why is that? Why can't most people focus on the key truths that would be most productive to focus on? People have developed theories, like "System Justification Theory," or "The Ostrich Effect," and although they contain some valuable insights for sure, the theories themselves actually circle around the key points that need to be focused on; it's as if people are influenced to talk about everything except what's most important; you can call that Demonic Influence Theory if you'd like, as I haven't found another label for that allergic-to-the-actual-crucial-truth-and-solution human psychology/behavior that is definitely affecting most people, the Three Blunders being ignored or just irrationally discredited (falsely equating them with other ideas, etc.) being a perfect case-in-point.
Many spiritual people look at problems caused by governments and theorize on cosmic meanings for it, always trying to see some bright side to something that is completely dark, and never considering that the reason the tyranny/oppression/state-sponsored terrorism is happening in the world yet another time is simply because people are paying taxes under coercion, simply a matter of society being established on abuse, and so most people are empowering abusers, who then, as should be expected, like clockwork, abuse even more. That true answer is never considered, and instead they'll go on about astrological shifts or what have you.
Again, Blunder #1 is dealing with the most common objection to anarchism, that it is a utopia vision that denies the existence of bad people; that's completely false; it's actually because there are bad people, and because they can (and often throughout history do!) occupy positions of power where they can (and do!) do even more destruction (a military can do far more damage than a gang, look into the numbers with democide, the most violence throughout history has come from States), that it makes no sense at all to set up those positions of power in the first place. Those that support a ruling class are the ones actually living more in a fairy-tale wherein it's actually fair to be ruled over and abused because you can vote every now and then, and maybe they'll count all the votes, and maybe the person you vote for will win, and then maybe that politician will keep their word and do exactly as they promised, and maybe all the unelected people in government will likewise be saints and not abuse their power... that's a lot of maybes, and even if all those things happen, there is the very real problem of founding a society on extortion (trying to make good come from Evil, which God does not actually allow in His creation), and the very real problem of an ever-growing State that gets more and more powerful and abusive as they continue to funnel in money from everyone every single day automatically. The claim that anarchists are the ones disconnected from reality, and believers in politics are the "realists," doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Once you actually question common platitude objections like "We're not a pack of wolves," or "We can't return to the law of the jungle," or "We can't have everyone being the legislator, judge and jury," or "It would be gangs taking over" or "It would be mob rule," etc., once you can consider for a moment that good men can actually form communities wherein they don't abuse each other, and actually help each other, then you can begin to see that anarchism is not actually more naïve than statism is.
This leads to Blunder #2, when you can get a moment of clarity wherein you see that the command of Jesus to love our neighbor didn't have any exceptions added, not because Jesus was naïve, but because Jesus was our Master Teacher and really did know best. Because of massive indoctrination, starting from childhood, and remaining continuous from then, people are led to believe that they're being smart and reasonable by accepting human rulers, accepting abuse (the complete opposite of love), when they're actually being neither smart or reasonable, they're actually being deceived into being naïve idol-worshipers that ignore current events, all of history, and basic logic and ethics.
The idea that we have to allow some people to commit aggression towards everyone, all the time, in order to prevent some people from being aggressive some times, is an idea that is almost never pin-pointed and questioned, it's just accepted as a given, again because of massive indoctrination. If you were to pin-point this auto-accepted idea, and then actually question and analyze it however, going against the programming/indoctrination, you'd probably also come to the conclusion that "We don't actually need to allow constant abuse in order to defend against abuse, and giving people this immense power is extremely dangerous, allowing for even greater abuse than anyone could do without that extortion-system and monopoly on violence in place."
The ridiculousness of much of political activism (which I've done plenty of in the past) is that it's usually basically just asking officials to stop what they're doing, stop being abusive in various ways; so big picture zoom-out in this: some people fund the pay-checks of other people who have these positions as rulers, and then lo and behold, they don't just twiddle their thumbs but get to doing their job, i.e., ruling over other people, and we oftentimes, as should be expected, don't like the results, so we then petition them to stop. [insert forehead-slap here] Wouldn't it be better not to set up this dynamic in the first place? Wouldn't it be better not to accept that some people have the right to extort money from and rule over and abuse other people? Of course it would be better! Again it really is that simple, but all kinds of "experts" will disagree, and people submit to their "authority," and so the machine keeps churning, society keeps facing the same problems decade after decade, the same patterns of tyranny keep repeating, and things actually get worse overall with advanced technology/weapons/toxins/propaganda at the disposable of the rulers and their supporting institutions.
If you've wondered why the world is so messed up, why there is so much injustice and corruption and unnecessary suffering in the world, it's because basic decency (and basic logic) has been disregarded, and even worse, that basic decency has been labeled "extreme" and "dangerous." If your immediate reaction to this is something like "I don't know... I still think we need some military and police to keep us safe," like most people say, that right there again is an absence of basic ethics and reasoning (it's basically Blunder #3), specifically by having conflated abuse with safety, even though those are contradictory terms, even though abuse always undermines safety (if you're being abused, you're not safe.)
A big part of why people accept abuse, why they actually become moral nihilists to large degree, is probably also due to the false apostle Paul's doctrines of "human depravity" & "inherited sin" combined with his other nonsense notion that "governments and slave-masters are ordained by God," leading people to subconsciously think that people are inherently wicked, and so some abusive control by these "divine" human authorities is necessary and good. Are you holding that belief in your subconscious? Do you deep-down think we need abusive rulers because humans are evil at their core? (Re-read the above quote by Emmanuel Mounier as it's very relevant here). If so, you then need to de-program yourself from that false doctrine disseminated by a false apostle and pushed everyday by a church establishment that is not true to the teachings of Jesus, if anarchism 101 is ever going to be seen by you as the common sense that it really is. If you think we need abusive rulers for security, you ignore that there is no security in constant and ever-expanding abuse! Slaves aren't safe!
The police-state and medical tyranny grows, all because people have been largely brainwashed to never think the thought-crime that we can actually have health and security without abuse. It's sad, and tragic. We don't need politicians making medical decisions for us and our children to make good health choices, and we don't need a ruling class to have more security; we aren't better off accepting a system of abuse that gets more and more powerful, secretive, deceptive and destructive century after century. If you still doubt that, and wonder what a world without abusive social-systems/human-farms bordering one another would look like, it's really not hard to imagine, and this is undoing Blunder #3, de-programming/un-indoctrinating yourself from that blunder, actually imagining the alternative to living in an abusive social-system.
What would a post Blunder # 3 world look like? It would look like local teachers and experts in health & wellness offering their services to their local communities, without State involvement; it would look like gun-ownership being commonplace, as well as independent (not under the command of some politician, like the military is) local militias trained and ready to get together to defend against any aggressive groups in their region. Not rocket-science. If you pay taxes so that you can call 911 and someone will probably show up (and if it involves an ambulance, expect to be charged thousands of dollars despite your taxes), why is it so hard to imagine calling a local 24-hour health or security service instead? Or even better, calling your local militia members or community health experts, who don't charge you any monthly fee, but simply expect help in return if they ever need it and you are able to give it? Is that really so far-fetched? No, it's actually what goes on regularly in more natural communities that still exist, where people haven't yet all been corralled into city-control-grids through economic coercion (and this is why recognizing homesteading land & water as a birthright is key, because without that we'll always be living in some kind of abusive system that undermines the ideal potential of natural communities from ever manifesting on Earth).
"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to your neighbor to steal from you." - Ron Paul
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry.” - Thomas Jefferson
Is it really for the greater good to have the foundation of society be abusive, instead of using abuse to build up these tax-charging, privacy-invading, propaganda-spewing, war-making, nuclear-bomb building, water-fluoridating, chemtrail-spreading, bio-weapon manufacturing, wireless radiation and GMO proliferating institutions of illegitimate power that attract satanists, narcissists and pedophiles? Is it really the right and safest thing to allow extortion to go on every day to fund them, so we can be "secure" under their rule? Beyond the abuses we can observe, the truth is we have no idea what our tax dollars are used for in large part, all the secret programs, operations, technology, etc., oftentimes making our lives and the world worse, oftentimes decreasing our health and well-being in ways we don't even know about; we oftentimes face the consequences of their secret activities but never know the origin, our own money being used against us, like a parasite that grows stronger the more blood it takes from its host. Why support the conditions for a dystopia? Why support toxins & tyranny? Why give some people the unnatural power to do that, to do things that are considered abusive for "regular" people to do (aka a monopoly on violence)? Why think that people stealing money from us will then stop being bad after that theft, and use the money only for good? Would you trust a robber to take care of you?
Saying that "taxation is not theft because some services are provided for by that taxation" and/or "you use services that taxation pays for so you shouldn't speak against taxation," again forgets basic neighbor-to-neighbor ethics: if your neighbor fixed up your driveway for you, but you never asked him to and never agreed to pay him to do so, would it be right for you to pay him simply because you continue to use your driveway? No, because you never agreed to the exchange, you never gave consent, and that matters! It's amazing how statists side-step consent as if it's irrelevant! Or they say consent was "implied" by you simply using your driveway, or simply using services (services that can be very poor by the way) that were payed for with a fraction of the money stolen from you! Statists claim that what you wouldn't accept your neighbor or a stranger to do, you should accept if that person simply says "I work for the government." Wow, what magic words those are! It's like the word "emergency," that whenever uttered by officials, supposedly gives them "emergency powers" to abuse people! Again magical words! And yet it is the anarchists who are living in a fairy-land? To think abuse/stealing is sometimes okay (i.e., to violate the command of Jesus is sometimes okay), if the person doing the abuse/stealing simply has a certain the job, doesn't actually make ethical sense, it's not actually legitimate, despite all the people that say so matter-of-factly that it is legitimate. Why ignore that abuse is always an evil, and that unnatural power tends to corrupt people? Why ignore all of political history, and just hope for the best (and plan on regular protests and demonstrations, and voting, to "remedy" the inevitable abuse of power that will arise)? There's really no logic to it, there's really no "common sense" to ignoring crucial truth about ethics and history, ethics and history that are of course absent from State "education" of the public, i.e., indoctrination, coming from those profiting from an abusive system that starts from an unethical foundation.
The "common sense" pushed by the powers-that-be goes against our own conscience and reasoning, forgetting how neighbors in a neighborhood should treat each other, forgetting how two strangers on the road should treat each other. Letting the mainstream narrative do the ethical thinking for us, telling us the ethics changes "in a society," or "in civilization," and/or "in an emergency," telling us that abuse is okay when they do it, but not okay when we do it... this is in fact deception trying to convince us that they are doing us a favor by abusing us! All of the distractions and "emergencies" (many of which agencies of the State create themselves), that are pushed hard every day by the mass-media, additionally support this narrative of being "helped" by the government, and hinder people really thinking for themselves, living in survival-mode most of the time while simultaneously being lied to by talking-heads and controlled opposition over and over again. It's the strategy of an abuser: keep them emotionally traumatized so you can more easily deceive and control them; it's the worst of human behavior that has been put on a pedestal as "civilization," as if it was actually something great. Anarchism 101 becomes more accessible when you stop watching mass-media, stop worrying about conforming to mainstream society, avoiding toxic distractions, avoiding "higher education" and propaganda outlets like mainstream news/movies/TV/Netflix/TED talks/popular social-media commentators (many of which are controlled opposition, never telling you the crucial liberating truths). Be sure to set aside free time in your life to just read, think, and write independently; I imagine most people would probably come to the same conclusions if these changes occurred in their lives, rather than remaining too busy being entertained/brainwashed, self-medicating/drugging (as I used to, a lot) and/or working to pay for things they don't really need, on top of us all having to pay taxes unjustly and, perhaps most importantly (yet also most ignored), unjustly having to pay for our free birthrights of homesteading land, water & seed, pre-existing in Nature and necessary for survival and freedom.
Some argue for States by saying something like "If people are being unjustly deprived of the basic necessities of life, then it would be justifiable force for the starving to take what they need from those who have too much of those survival necessities," and that's not actually wrong because that would be justified defensive force against aggression committed against them, but the problem is in seeing States/extortionists as the only way to solve that imbalance, when the real answer is recognizing those survival natural resources, namely homesteading land, water & seed, as *a cost/tax-free birthright* of everyone on Earth; the real answer, that people keep ignoring, is *voluntary communities of sovereign veganic/nonviolent homesteads*. (Those that want to continue to live in control-grids with a ruling class can do so, but not force others to join them.) Freeing people to live more naturally and cooperatively is a truly reliable "social safety net," the idea that without the State we would be abandonding the poor and hungry is a false dilemma because it ignores the real solution, recognizing land, water & seed as a birthright of all humans, a birthright that is the best poverty solution possible. Fruit & nut trees keep on producing fruit & nuts during an economic crisis! Most people's #1 expense is having to pay rent just for a place to sleep on the Earth at night (let alone a space to grow food), and if you think that's fair because "we have to work to survive," you're ignoring that homesteading involves work too and you're ignoring the issue of the land water & seed being pre-existing in Nature and necessary for survival, and so therefore restricting access to it is unjust and exploitative; again, one would still have to work their garden and orchard, and most would be glad to be free from other work to do so! God said we are here to be gardeners (Genesis 2:15), not money-slaves to governments and corporations.
Related to this issue is the pro-State slogan that says "If you don't like it leave," assuming that the State is really the rightful owner of the Earth (they're not, the Creator is), and that there is some non-State-human-farm out there when in fact the whole world is one State bordering another; to think it is ethically legitimate to tell someone to endure the hardship and great expense (assuming they can afford that expense, most can't) of leaving their home and trying to find another place to live just because they don't want to be your slave, is not ethically sound; again the Earth is for all humans; land, water, & seed are a birthright, so if anyone is acting as a controller of your birthright, then they are being abusive, and so they are the one who is wrong; it's really that black & white, the ethics is really that clear.
Returning to "but how would that work?" again, education can be provided by teachers who simply aren't employed by an institution that utilizes extortion of the population, and likewise defensive security can be provided by firearms and voluntary local defense networks, aka Militias or "Mutual Assistance Groups" (or other private defense services, all better than standing armies that can be used domestically by officials for tyrannical purposes), health security can be provided by local experts in that field (or becoming an expert yourself), and food security can be provided by our own gardens & orchards in a community of others with their own gardens & orchards, ideally forming a gift-economy community of independent sovereign veganic homesteads that share and help each other. We need freedom for community homestead security; instead we got slavery for "homeland security," i.e., State security; they've given us their substitute that serves them and disempowers us, like advertisers that play on our natural desires and make us think their product will provide happiness for us; it's a counterfeit of the the real and good thing that God wants us to have. Property tax alone undermines free & natural living on this planet; even if you buy your home, you're still having to pay rent to the State in the form of property tax, which shows you never really owned your home but have rather then been renting it from the State, demonstrated by the seizure of your home and your forceful eviction from it if you stop paying them that tax; that control of private property is actually a form of Communism, just as medical mandates are as well.
But "We need the military."
If all of the above reasoning and ethics is basically just thrown out the window with a thought like "We need to have a military to protect us from other governments," realize that that's saying "We need government, to protect us from government"... that's the same as saying "My abuser protects me from other worse abusers." Think about that. Is that the right foundation for society? Why not support thousands of voluntary extortion-free militias instead, so there really would be (almost) "a gun behind every blade of grass" to dissuade possible invading forces who want us to submit to their abusive social-system/human-farm? Also one must face the reality that when militaries are under the control of politicians, those politicians can and do send men off to die for mistaken reasons, they can and do give commands that make no military sense whatsoever, and they can even be operating on nothing more than a personal grudges they may have with another politician, or simply out of greed for wealth and resources for themselves and their corporate partners, and also they can and do turn militaries against the their "own" people. Military being used against the very tax-payers that fund the military's existence is a real possibility, and that can come about vis infiltration in a government (or a coup) that then misuses or transforms the military from the top down to get more agreeable generals, et al. in place, say by pushing "gender equality" measures that are really just a smoke-screen for changing the military to more socialist-minded soldiers (and unquestioning military robots/drones), in the interest of a dictator-type government to be activated post-transformation. And when things like this happen, the warriors of the nation having been for the most part all co-opted/hijacked or replaced by the State, there are no strong militias in place to actually protect the people anymore; then people will finally realize, too late, that founding societal protection on extortion (a form of abuse) and blind obedience to a "commander-in-chief's" hierarchy, really was not the better option; again when you can see the simple and deep ethics at play, the simple fact that supporting large-scale abuse is not the right prescription for large-scale safety, then you can see the objective reality that God keeps trying to show us by the moral fabric of His Creation.
The Key God-given Right & Law
Many conservatives/patriots have an immediate knee-jerk reaction to the terms anarchism or anarchy and see it as Commies/socialists/Marxists trying to tear down all that's good in the place called the USA, and this is mistaken and unfortunate, true anarchism is totally opposed to Communism, and it isn't about removing any good traditions and values already in place. Philosophical Anarchism recognizes the good elements in USA tradition, the Deceleration of Independence and Bill of Rights in particular, and actually wants to elevate and expand on the pro-freedom anti-tyranny principles described therein, not tear them down as Marxists want to do (to be replaced by a Communist totalitarian society, which has been advancing in the so-called Land of the Free). The Bill of Rights are a list of rights, first of all given by God, not by politicians, and secondly the rights listed are all speaking to aspects of the most fundamental God-given right, the right to not be abused; aggression and theft are acts of abuse, and tyranny and taxation are acts of aggression and theft. A true Land of the Free, a nation of truly independent people, who are free of all abuse (including the abuse of extortion, and the abuse of survival birthrights being controlled), would consist of sovereign individuals (i.e., people not ruled over by anyone), who all have their birthright to sovereign homesteads, which are absolutely necessary in order to be a free human being on the planet Earth.
If the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights was actually taken seriously and not held back because of a mistaken statist view on the supposed necessity of human rulers, then we'd recognize each other as sovereign individuals created by God, the only true Authority worthy of worship and obedience. The answer, as Leo Tolstoy forcefully promoted in his book The Kingdom of God is Within You, a kind of Christian Anarchism, is a more correct "spirit of 1776," it's the spirit of man's desire to be free from slavery while choosing to follow the perfect moral law Jesus pointed us to, which is simply a law against all abuse, in all scenarios, for all time, no exceptions. Thomas Jefferson too was going in the right direction when he said "resistance to tyrants is obedience to God," and "I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related articles:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
Related books:
- In Search of Jesus the Anarchist by Paul Dordal
- The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy
- That Holy Anarchist: Reflections on Christianity & Anarchism by Mark Van Steenwyk
- Tolstoy's Writings on Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence (Signet Books, 1967)
- Living on Hope While Living in Babylon: The Christian Anarchists of the 20th Century by Tripp York
Related talks:
“It’s just extremely implausible that merely the property of being a state is explanatory for why it’s permissible to coerce people.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playlist of talks on Christian Anarchism:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzRXyF7K41sNau-jhiiRZye3M4G5a51Sb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some related tweets that were ignored or shadow-banned:
So there's this school of thought that's existed for hundreds of years, it's called anarchism; it's about not basing society on extortion/aggression, not creating a ruling class that does immoral things in the name of safety or the greater good. Most people call it stupid & evil.
So $191 billion tax-dollars were used to weaponize viruses against humanity, and y'all still think anarchism is more dangerous? Oh and don't forget historical democide.
It's never-ending examples of doing things in a harmful backwards way because slavery always produces harmful and backwards results, it never can actually produce good no matter how often it says it will; this the anarchism and karmic reality people need to understand but ignore.
Saying anarchism doesn't solve all problems, and so should be discarded, is the Perfect Solution Fallacy, the logical fallacy that says all difficulties must be solved by a proposal for it to be a solution. Anarchism solves the problem of the automatic & systemic abuse by States.
Are you against slavery and violence? Then you should be against statism & carnism, and for anarchism & veganism. It's really that simple.
#Anarchism, without land equality, isn't a good replacement for social-$ystems (which we have become dependent on for survival). #Anarchy
Human authority loses legitimacy the moment it becomes abusive. Extortion is a form of abuse. Controlling the bodies, businesses and travel of nonviolent people, are forms of abuse. The so-called social contract is really just a smokescreen for an abusive relationship. #Anarchism101
The hypocrisy is never ending because it's an institution based on immorality (namely aggression e.g., extortion/taxation) acting as society's moral authority. If most people understood that, we could have global transformation for the better; but they don't, so we don't. #ChristianAnarchism
To make an institution that only exists because of aggression (e.g., extortion/taxation) the moral authority for humanity ignores history and the fact that God didn't create a world in which good can be secured via evil.
Why is ->unalienable<- rights hard to understand? Why are more people not pointing out that if you're not *actually* violating someone else's rights than you get to keep yours, and preemptive attack "to try and save lives" is not legit? Basic/foundational ethics is critical for effective resistance.
Again with the "we." If you understood why it's irrational to say that you'd also know why all these irrational police actions take place: slavery is irrational, slave-masters aren't aligned with logic & goodness. Anarchism101 to be ignored cuz "it's not that simple." Yes, it is.
When the means of accomplishing a good end are evil, e.g., aggression/extortion, the end will invariably be evil too; you'd think humans would have noticed this pattern repeating for thousands of years, but no, idol-worship over ethics, again & again. Philosophical Anarchism 101.
You set up positions of power so some people can rule over other people, and the former will get the idea that the latter are their livestock, and the more that idea becomes reality, the more they like it. Anarchist philosophy 101. #EndMedicalMandates #IrelandHasFallen
How about the "personal boundary" of other people not getting to coerce you to take whatever drugs they want to inject you with? The fact that there's any debate over this is sad and ridiculous; being a slave isn't safe, even if you're a healthy slave. Basics for Humanity 101.
They were always the latter and never really the former; a servant doesn't carry out extortion and aggression against the person they're serving, that's an insoluble contradiction, covered over by indoctrination. #Anarchism 101
So if you won't accept injections filled with whatever they want, they'll contaminate the whole water supply with IQ-lowering fluoride... also for "safety" of course. At what point would anarchism not be "crazy" to the masses? That requires critical thinking... so fluoridate H2O.
Because what you say here is indeed possible, among other countless examples of destructive use of unnatural power, anarchism is actually the safer way, but that crucial truth and solution is constantly brushed aside, so the pattern and downward spiral continues. Statism is dumb.
Wrongly conflating anarchism with senseless violence & destruction is a discrediting tactic used for centuries; true anarchists don't believe having rulers is best for society, because ruling over others is itself violence, true anarchists are more anti-violence than any statist.
How is setting up society on a foundation of extortion, creating positions of mostly unaccountable power, a better idea than anarchism? Every statist response I've ever heard is nonsense; folks need "individual sovereignty" in their daily vocabulary to end the karma of #slavery.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. Anarchism is better than statism, tyranny is not safety.
A servant doesn't carry out extortion and aggression against the person they're serving, that's an insoluble contradiction, covered over by indoctrination. #anarchism 101
The fundamental blunder is believing the smart idea is to set up a small group of humans (called "representatives") to rule over everyone else (supposedly kept angelic by a principled guiding document & institutional "checks & balances"), because anarchism is surely a worse idea.
There's a crucial "Aha" moment for anyone working for #SocialJustice, when they realize all the things they're protesting come from Establishment Institutions, & those Institutions were established by a non-voluntary coercive system. "So, origins matter. #Anarchism is necessary."
You can't establish greater peace & justice through a form of violence; extortion is a form of violence; taxation is a form of extortion. This is why anarchism makes sense, but societal conditioning against it is so thick that cognitive dissonance can beat logic.
Wisdom "separating the wheat from the chaff" -> "And if you only greet those you already know, what do you do more than others? Don't even the tax collectors do that?" -Yeshua the Messiah (aka #Jesus Christ), Matthew 5:47
Jesus called tax collectors immoral and said those that have to pay taxes are not free. (Read Matthew 5:47 & 17:26) #BibleStudy #Anarchism
Media keeps portraying #anarchism as irrational & violent; a never-ending smear-campaign against rational & nonviolent anarchist philosophy.
Veganarchism: synonyms: nonviolence, non-exploitation. antonyms: carnism, statism.
Anarchism and Veganism, the "extreme" notions that people and animals aren't the property of other people. Check your beliefs.
Anarchism & Veganism, the "extreme" notions that other sentient life isn't your property, i.e. slavery is an evil.
Veganism & Anarchism are complimentary; both are fundamentally against aggression & slavery (done by humans to animals, & humans to humans).
Reformism is wrong medicine used for a misdiagnosis of the disease. Anarchism is the right medicine used for the true disease.
If you want to stop future abuses of power like the killing of Eric Garner then stop being a fool supporting State power, support anarchism.
The destructiveness of racism/ignorance is intensified via artificial centralization of power into the hands of the few. We need #anarchism.
The solution I'm referring to is sustainable egalitarian anarchism: gift-economy communities of sovereign veganic homesteads.
Why supporting social-systems, instead of #anarchism, is what's truly wishful thinking, irrational, and unrealistic: colindonoghue.wordpress.com
"Tolstoy believed the state to be an intrinsically violent institution, and concluded the Gospel implies anarchism."
Are you saying the state is overall good or bad? If the former, how do your ensure a benevolent state and override the reality of "power corrupts"? If the latter, why not clearly endorse egalitarian anarchism wherein everyone has land & water?
“The reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to lose from change have all the power. And the people who stand to gain from change have none of the power.” - Machiavelli Solution: Humans claiming their birthright to Sovereign Veganic Homesteads. #anarchism
"Occupy Your Garden" actually encapsulates the solution to all the major political, economic & environmental problems in the world, in just 3 words. Of course the idea needs to be unpacked & I do in this agrarian #anarchism essay: https://colindonoghue.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-root-injustice-a-real-way-forward-to-a-sustainable-society/
About 370 years ago a man named Gerrard Winstanley made pamphlets that struck at the root of social injustice, including the spiritual dimension of it. Unsurprisingly in this world dominated by delusion, he's been mostly ignored. #LandRights #RadicalHistory #Anarchism #Homesteads
