Outlaw Thoughts. The Anarchy doctrine, a fool’s errand.
Podcast episode 042821
Published on April 28th, 2021
You really can’t have a discussion about a political ideology without having the fundamental understanding of government, and the political influence when you want to talk about Anarchy. Each day, as we tune into our local news broadcasts, we are overwhelmed by the constant barrage of “Ass Clowns” whining about the necessity for Anarchy. My frustration with these uneducated baboons is that they throw around the term, without really understanding the original ideology. So, as we delve into the world of political manipulation and management, we need to establish some basic understanding. So, if you’re like me and haven’t been keeping up with all the political rhetoric, many of my fellow Americans we struggle to wrap our minds around the differences between left, and right wing thinking, liberal versus conservative, moderate versus extremism.
So, we’ll start with the right, or conservative side of the world that maintains the 1950s family values, the stalwart of those old Catholic religion derived perceptions of what life should be like. They typically support big government, and are generally accepting that the government dictates policy, in-lieu of the individual citizen. These folks are typically the wealthy business owners who believe in the “status quo” of the late 50s should remain here in the US. In politics, they are typically sided with the Republican Party, or what many identify as the “old guard”. Within the Republican, or more right thinking, there is a continuum of extremes. So, you can be “extreme right”, as some would include “white supremacists” here, as that archaic thinking was the accepted as “normal” back in the 19th and early 20th century.
The other side of this coin is the left, or liberal ideology. The liberal side of the coin focuses more on the individual citizen and looks at rights of the individual versus being dictated to by a centralized government. Now, while this may sound good, however the further left you go, the more they feel as if others must pay for these demanded services. In the same way the Republican Party has a continuum of conservatism, so too does the Democratic Party which is considered by most to be the left.
Both sides produce “wings” which include the extremists of the individual ideologies. These wings typically deviate from the main party in their level of extremity of their views. So, in these extreme views falls a particular level of anarchy. Each of the individual groups I identified above are divided into two major functions:
- Developing ways to enforce their agenda.
- Finding ways to destroy the other side’s views by swinging voters to their side, in some cases by force.
Greetings to all our friends and neighbors, my family, fellow Alaskans, and my fellow Americans. Welcome to the Alaska Outlaw podcast, I am the Alaskan Outlaw and I’d like to voice my opinion about something I am seeing more and more everyday, on the news, and the streets of our towns across this country. I do want to take just a second and remind you, if you haven’t already, when you subscribe to our monthly newsletter, we’re having a weekly drawing for our new bumper sticker. We also want to take a minute to give a shout-out to Alaska Phoenix, who produce a message of spiritual freedom and understanding. Be sure to drop by the site at http://AkPhoenix.com and check out the message there. We bet you’ll be glad you did. All right, in this weeks show I want to talk about many within our communities spouting their rhetoric about Anarchy. Like some kind of “escape” or “reset” button to the democratic republic that we’ve been working on for over two centuries now. However, my frustration lies in the fact that many demand anarchy, but really don’t know what it means. They really don’t understand the long-term societal impact that it would have on the United States.
So, with all that said, we arrive at the ideology definition of Anarchy. We hear the term all the time in the news and social media, but what exactly does it mean? Well, in typical Alaska Outlaw fashion, let’s go to the internet for our definition. I’ll use Merriam-Webster’s dictionary to find the actual definition, then we’ll search through Wikipedia for the evolution of the use of the ideology, as well as what it means in society today.
Real definition of the word “Anarchy” as per the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
- 1 a: absence of government
- b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
- c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
- 2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the war zone
- b: absence of order : DISORDER not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker
As an ideology, as per Wikileaks,
Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy. Anarchy was first used in 1539, meaning "an absence of government". Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted anarchy and anarchist in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer to anarchism, a new political philosophy and social movement which advocates stateless societies based on free and voluntary associations. Anarchists seek a system based on the abolishment of all unjustified, coercitive hierarchy and the creation of system of direct democracy and worker cooperatives.
In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions. It can also designate a nation or any inhabited place that has no system of government or central rule. Anarchy is primarily advocated by individual anarchists who propose replacing government with voluntary institutions. These true institutions or associations generally are modeled on nature since they can represent concepts such as community and economic self-reliance, interdependence, or individualism. Although anarchy is often negatively used as a synonym of chaos or societal collapse, this is not the meaning that anarchists attribute to anarchy, a society without hierarchies. Proudhon wrote that anarchy is "Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order".
Throughout the political history of the United States of America, there have been many different applications of the word, and the ideology. Modern support of this ideology isn’t really about the real definition, but more of a rebuttal of the current authority. The ideology has been subdivided into several smaller factions:
- Violence induced overthrow
- anarcho-pacifism (civil disobedience)”
Reported mission of Anarchists
So the idea that is promoted with most anarchists in the United States is not really on an ideological perspective, but more from the perspective of just overturning the government, and authority thereof. However, a substantial number of modern-day, self-declared, anarchists are simply involved for the criminal opportunities that may present themselves during, especially volition, events.
Therein lies my disgust and disagreement with many of the “bozos” chanting “anarchy now” in the streets of towns across the country. The anarchists of modern-day have no understanding of what life would be like without a level of law and order.
Perceived objectives of Anarchists
As a political philosophy, anarchism advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While opposition to the state is central, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition, hence why, in spite of their names, anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism are either not recognized as anarchist schools of thought and as part of the anarchist movement, or are seen by anarchists and scholars as fraudulent and an oxymoron. Anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including yet not limited to the state system.
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of individualist and social anarchism, or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing or far-left movement and much of anarchist economics and anarchist law reflect anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian interpretations of left-wing and socialist politics such communism, mutualism and syndicalism, among other libertarian socialist and socialist economics such as collectivist anarchism, free-market anarchism, green anarchism and participatory economics. Within anarchism, some individualist anarchists are communists while some anarcho-communists are egoists or individualists. Where individualist forms of anarchism emphasize personal autonomy and the rational nature of human beings, social anarchism sees "individual freedom as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid". In European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements, Carl Landauer summarized the difference between communist and individualist anarchists by stating that "the communist anarchists also do not acknowledge any right to society to force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic individualists in their belief that men, if freed from coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a communistic type, while the other wing believes that the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation".
As a social movement, anarchism has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon while social anarchism has been the dominant form of anarchism, emerging in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism after anarcho-communism replaced collectivist anarchism as the dominant tendency. Nonetheless, individualist anarchism did influence the bigger currents and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations. Some anarchists are pacifists who support self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism) while others have supported the use of militant measures, including revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.
Since the 1890s, the term libertarianism has been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the mid-20th century development of right-libertarianism in the United States, where classical liberals began to describe themselves as libertarians. It has since become necessary to distinguish their classical liberal individualist and free-market capitalist philosophy from anarchism. The former is often referred to as right-libertarianism whereas the latter is described by the terms left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism and socialist libertarianism. Right-libertarians are divided into anarcho-capitalists, minarchists and voluntaryists. Outside the English-speaking world, libertarianism generally retains its association with anarchism, anti-capitalism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated anarchy in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force". For Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious ("legitimation", etymologically fancifully from legem timere, i.e. "fearing the law"). For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls a republic. Kant identified four kinds of government:
- Law and freedom without force (anarchy)
- Law and force without freedom (despotism)
- Force without freedom and law (barbarism)
- Force with freedom and law (republic)
International necessity for change
While I won’t disagree with a necessity for social change, I have to say that the changes need to be agreed to, compromised on, and legislated on, and put into practice, the official way. There needs to be negotiations, so that everyone expresses their opinion, and all parties have their voices heard. We call that process lawmaking, and voting. While many try to convince the public that the elected officials are not listening, the facts remain. To descend into the vile abyss of ignoring other’s freedom and constitutional rights, one crosses the line of righteousness, to the become the very premise that they are arguing against. To argue for anarchy is to invite death and destruction at many levels. However, the process needs to ensure that all sides get to weigh in equally on it, with equal weight to their opinions.
However, from a political stand-point, Anarchists are no different than the system they detest. In modern times it seems that they have sided with the liberal (far left), wanting everything their own way, without the ability to compromise. They demand that society meets their requirements regardless of what the remainder of their community needs. This is the mindset that fosters a relationship with the criminal elements, or opportunistic criminals. This is where the lines become blurred in the quest for right and wrong. However, as mentioned earlier, I personally believe that most anarchist don’t comprehend the ultimate outcome to the destruction of a government.
The following is the sole opinion of the host, and not the network or any of the supporting platforms. I think that the goofballs that are out on the streets screaming about their freedoms, and their rights, are about as far away from the ideology of anarchy.
But, for discussions sake, let’s think about what the removal of law and order would do to a community. When “might becomes right”, and those with the resources (typically firepower) would be left to run the communities. I think that many of these jokers spouting this crap would benefit greatly from a couple of years in Central America. Where the local drug lords are the law.