Yes I'm Still Alive; OR; It's Easy To Be An Anarchist Online
(Originally posted on MySpace)
Yes, I am still alive. Sorry folks (you know who you are, lol). But I am not online much anymore, for lots of reasons, the main one being that the only internet service I get now is on my Sidekick. Yes, I am posting this blog from my cell phone. Ain't technology grand (I just hope the spell check works). Anyway, what has brought me out of hibernation?
The main thing is that I am in a good bit of pain and can't sleep. Happens more and more frequently nowdays. Pretty soon they will be fusing my spine in a few places and maybe that will help some. Maybe.
But another thing that has me up are some conversations I have had recently. See, it is pretty easy to be an Anarchist online, but in the real world most people don't understand the concept at all. You constantly get questions like, "Do you discipline your children?"; "Do you live in society?"; "Do you deserve too have rights?"; "If your house was on fire, would you call the fire department?". And the silly questions just go on and on like that. Some of them are an attempt to create a strawman, most come from a total misunderstanding of what Anarchism really is.
The best way to deal with most of them is to ask the questioner what they think Anarchy is. Then you can tell them what it isn't.
And who can blame people for not understanding it when it comes in so many shades of black. Lots of the confusion comes from the Anarchists themselves. Lots of people consider themselves anarchists who have no better grasp of the concept than the questioners. From the small government "libertarians" who buy into the concept that some day they can shrink the government into nothingness, to the Marxists that claim to see a difference between government and a central "planning commitee", the confusion of what and who they are radiates and pollutes the crystal clear pool of Anarchism.
First and foremost, Anarchism isn't political. It is about social relationships, not about our relationships to governments. If you want to take anarchism into the political arena you have already missed the boat, and the point. Yes, we deny the right of any government to infringe on our freedom and our rights. Those rights don't come from any government, we are born with them and develop them as we age and get (hopefully) a little wiser. Life is a learning process and as we learn we create a new reality for ourselves. I know my reality changes and has changed a lot since my chikdhood. And it continues to change on a daily basis.
Another problem is the semantics of the conversation. Brainpolice has a great piece on this problem. When I say "free market", what I think of and what many others think of couldn't be further apart. I think of individuals trading amongst themselves, free from any third party interference. Some (maybe most) people think of businesses being free from government regulation. They see no problem with investors in a corportation, who have no interaction with the consumer, being a part of a free market. But investors are still third party interference in a transaction between the consumer and the producer. They have a say, no matter how small, in the way the producer handles business. And of course the semantics of "free market" are just an ice chip from the glacier of misunderstanding.
Some people think that a meeting of anarchists, based on a set time or schedule, is an oxymoron. But any voluntary structures are not contradictory to anarchism. It is those mandatory or compulsory structures that we oppose. Those hiearchial structures maintained by the use or threatened use of force against those unwilling or unable to conform. In the US this will often bring up the question of rights, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence and the constitution. I don't know if George Bush ever really said of the constitution (as has been attributed to him), "Its just a goddamn piece of paper!", but if he did say it, he had a point. It isn't a magical mandella that protects us from evil. It doesn't even protect us from government overstepping its bounds as seems to have been the idea behind it. When it was written, it was a known fact that it wasn't written for everyone. It was never intended as a means of attaching people to a certain government and certainly not against their will. Jefferson fully expected it to be totally done away with within a generation and a new "contract" negotiated within that time. The reason they made it so difficult to amend or change was to keep anyone from usurping power from the people it was intended to shield. But I dare you to find the part of the constitution that says it can't be done away with entirely. The founders were building the framework for a republic, not a nation. They weren't (for the most part) nationalists, but republicans. And not in the modern sense of the word either. Sorry righties.
They knew that rights didn't come from the government, but that certain privledges could be granted to a government body by the people. They argued about a bill of right for years before they actually added it to the constitution and they made sure to add that the list of rights they made were not the only ones enjoyed by the people first, and the states next. The original idea was to decentralize as much power as possible, which is why the balance of power was supposed to start with the people, then proceed to the areas these people made up (the states), and finally, at the bottom of the list was the federal government. Of course this was all done away with the first Republican tyrant. And sorry again righties, but this time I do mean it in the modern sense of the term. That is why I chuckle everytime I hear a Republican rant about states rights. But, all of this is kind of off topic. I do however want to make two more observations on this before I move on.
One; The declaration of independence was widely denounced as an Anarchist manifesto upon its introduction. It was after all abolishing the legit government of the time and no new government in place to replace it. Jefferson had the charge of anarchist plague him his entire life and political career because of it.
Two; Rights are not granted in the constitution. They are inherent in the shear act of existence. There are certain privledges granted by the constitution, along with certain prohibitions. Neither of those things equal a right though. And, more importantly, the document was only intended for those who wished to be bound by it and who voted to ratify it. I am fairly confident none of those people are still around (although I have heard tales of a zombie Washington and a vampire Franklin). I have never personally voted to ratify it, never even been asked to vote on it at all. If, as many claim, we have a government of, for and by the people, you would think that "the people", myself included, would be asked to vote on this document as a framework for our voluntary union. But of course, participation isn't voluntary. It is compulsary. This again, compulsary participation is the enemy of the Anarchist, but more importantly, it is the enemy of freedom.
So from the AnCap who holds onto the idea of a "nation" to the AnCom that wants forced participation in communism to the individualist who believes in the use of the ballot to enact their will on others to the brick thrower who doesn't respect the fruit of anothers labor, Anarchism is bastardized and miscategorized and misrepresented. No wonder people are confused.
Now to answer a few of those silly questions. Yes, I discipline my children, even though some who have met them would disagree. Yes I live in society. My unwritten obligation to the society I live in is to not violate those natural rights of my fellow man (next time I will touch on this area more). No laws can guarantee that anyone will do that. In the US we have more people in or who have been in prison than most other countries. The numbers are closer to what we see in dictatorships than what we would think to see in a "free" society. Many of these are in or have been in prison, not for violating anyone elses rights, but for actions deemed detremental to the "state". Yes, I deserve rights and so does every other human on earth. But if you think these come from a piece of paper then you must believe they can be taken away by the holder of that paper and are so fragile that they can be taken away by a single match. And speaking of matches, would I call the fire department if my house was on fire? Probably not. Not because of some moral question, but because I want a new house, lol.
Reading back over this, I can see spellcheck doesn't work. Hope you can decipher it anyway.
Yes, I am still alive. Sorry folks (you know who you are, lol). But I am not online much anymore, for lots of reasons, the main one being that the only internet service I get now is on my Sidekick. Yes, I am posting this blog from my cell phone. Ain't technology grand (I just hope the spell check works). Anyway, what has brought me out of hibernation?
The main thing is that I am in a good bit of pain and can't sleep. Happens more and more frequently nowdays. Pretty soon they will be fusing my spine in a few places and maybe that will help some. Maybe.
But another thing that has me up are some conversations I have had recently. See, it is pretty easy to be an Anarchist online, but in the real world most people don't understand the concept at all. You constantly get questions like, "Do you discipline your children?"; "Do you live in society?"; "Do you deserve too have rights?"; "If your house was on fire, would you call the fire department?". And the silly questions just go on and on like that. Some of them are an attempt to create a strawman, most come from a total misunderstanding of what Anarchism really is.
The best way to deal with most of them is to ask the questioner what they think Anarchy is. Then you can tell them what it isn't.
And who can blame people for not understanding it when it comes in so many shades of black. Lots of the confusion comes from the Anarchists themselves. Lots of people consider themselves anarchists who have no better grasp of the concept than the questioners. From the small government "libertarians" who buy into the concept that some day they can shrink the government into nothingness, to the Marxists that claim to see a difference between government and a central "planning commitee", the confusion of what and who they are radiates and pollutes the crystal clear pool of Anarchism.
First and foremost, Anarchism isn't political. It is about social relationships, not about our relationships to governments. If you want to take anarchism into the political arena you have already missed the boat, and the point. Yes, we deny the right of any government to infringe on our freedom and our rights. Those rights don't come from any government, we are born with them and develop them as we age and get (hopefully) a little wiser. Life is a learning process and as we learn we create a new reality for ourselves. I know my reality changes and has changed a lot since my chikdhood. And it continues to change on a daily basis.
Another problem is the semantics of the conversation. Brainpolice has a great piece on this problem. When I say "free market", what I think of and what many others think of couldn't be further apart. I think of individuals trading amongst themselves, free from any third party interference. Some (maybe most) people think of businesses being free from government regulation. They see no problem with investors in a corportation, who have no interaction with the consumer, being a part of a free market. But investors are still third party interference in a transaction between the consumer and the producer. They have a say, no matter how small, in the way the producer handles business. And of course the semantics of "free market" are just an ice chip from the glacier of misunderstanding.
Some people think that a meeting of anarchists, based on a set time or schedule, is an oxymoron. But any voluntary structures are not contradictory to anarchism. It is those mandatory or compulsory structures that we oppose. Those hiearchial structures maintained by the use or threatened use of force against those unwilling or unable to conform. In the US this will often bring up the question of rights, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence and the constitution. I don't know if George Bush ever really said of the constitution (as has been attributed to him), "Its just a goddamn piece of paper!", but if he did say it, he had a point. It isn't a magical mandella that protects us from evil. It doesn't even protect us from government overstepping its bounds as seems to have been the idea behind it. When it was written, it was a known fact that it wasn't written for everyone. It was never intended as a means of attaching people to a certain government and certainly not against their will. Jefferson fully expected it to be totally done away with within a generation and a new "contract" negotiated within that time. The reason they made it so difficult to amend or change was to keep anyone from usurping power from the people it was intended to shield. But I dare you to find the part of the constitution that says it can't be done away with entirely. The founders were building the framework for a republic, not a nation. They weren't (for the most part) nationalists, but republicans. And not in the modern sense of the word either. Sorry righties.
They knew that rights didn't come from the government, but that certain privledges could be granted to a government body by the people. They argued about a bill of right for years before they actually added it to the constitution and they made sure to add that the list of rights they made were not the only ones enjoyed by the people first, and the states next. The original idea was to decentralize as much power as possible, which is why the balance of power was supposed to start with the people, then proceed to the areas these people made up (the states), and finally, at the bottom of the list was the federal government. Of course this was all done away with the first Republican tyrant. And sorry again righties, but this time I do mean it in the modern sense of the term. That is why I chuckle everytime I hear a Republican rant about states rights. But, all of this is kind of off topic. I do however want to make two more observations on this before I move on.
One; The declaration of independence was widely denounced as an Anarchist manifesto upon its introduction. It was after all abolishing the legit government of the time and no new government in place to replace it. Jefferson had the charge of anarchist plague him his entire life and political career because of it.
Two; Rights are not granted in the constitution. They are inherent in the shear act of existence. There are certain privledges granted by the constitution, along with certain prohibitions. Neither of those things equal a right though. And, more importantly, the document was only intended for those who wished to be bound by it and who voted to ratify it. I am fairly confident none of those people are still around (although I have heard tales of a zombie Washington and a vampire Franklin). I have never personally voted to ratify it, never even been asked to vote on it at all. If, as many claim, we have a government of, for and by the people, you would think that "the people", myself included, would be asked to vote on this document as a framework for our voluntary union. But of course, participation isn't voluntary. It is compulsary. This again, compulsary participation is the enemy of the Anarchist, but more importantly, it is the enemy of freedom.
So from the AnCap who holds onto the idea of a "nation" to the AnCom that wants forced participation in communism to the individualist who believes in the use of the ballot to enact their will on others to the brick thrower who doesn't respect the fruit of anothers labor, Anarchism is bastardized and miscategorized and misrepresented. No wonder people are confused.
Now to answer a few of those silly questions. Yes, I discipline my children, even though some who have met them would disagree. Yes I live in society. My unwritten obligation to the society I live in is to not violate those natural rights of my fellow man (next time I will touch on this area more). No laws can guarantee that anyone will do that. In the US we have more people in or who have been in prison than most other countries. The numbers are closer to what we see in dictatorships than what we would think to see in a "free" society. Many of these are in or have been in prison, not for violating anyone elses rights, but for actions deemed detremental to the "state". Yes, I deserve rights and so does every other human on earth. But if you think these come from a piece of paper then you must believe they can be taken away by the holder of that paper and are so fragile that they can be taken away by a single match. And speaking of matches, would I call the fire department if my house was on fire? Probably not. Not because of some moral question, but because I want a new house, lol.
Reading back over this, I can see spellcheck doesn't work. Hope you can decipher it anyway.
posted by Unknown at
8:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home