Anarchy

[BadBeast]

I have come to realise that Anarchy, means many different things to different people. Lots of people see it as a political movement, and while this is a valid viewpoint, it does seem to dominate peoples perceptions. Politically, Anarchy tends to be about destruction of Governmental systems. The throwing down of an oppressive regieme. This is not really what the spirit of Anarchy is about. If you approach it from this viewpoint, the chances are you are missing the whole point.
Anarchy is not about misrule, or politcal revolution. Not about tearing down a hated government.
It's not about breaking the rules, or setting up a fairer or more tolerant society. It's not about socialism, or communism, capitalism, or fascism. It's not about anything with an "ism" on the end. It's not about casting down social evils, or despots, not about violence, or rioting, or not following leaders.
Etymologically, Anarchy means the rule of one. Contrary to popular belief, it is not anti-government. It is very much about government. Government at it's most basic, and relevant level.
Self government. Not self government as a country, or a bordered land. But self govenment as an independent, self regulating organism. YOU. It's about taking control of how you govern yourself. It's about thinking for yourself. It's about taking responsibility for your actions. About having a set of rules of your own, rules that allow you to co-exist in relative harmony with those around you. Rules that are not impossibly idealistic. That way only leads to disappointment, and bitterness. Rules that are not so rigid, and inflexible that they become a burden to you. Rules that are unwritten. Obvious.
And livable by. It's not about giving anyone else these rules, it's about accepting that these people are as capable as you are of having there own rules too. Now, all this might seem like common sense, and easy to do. And it is. The hard part, is accepting that whatever rules you adopt for yourself to live by, have consequences.

State Governmental systems assume to remove the responsibility for your actions, from your personal life, via judiciary or legislative models. In societies like we have today, this is not practical, workable, or efficient. People break Laws with impunity. The consequences of our actions are soaked up by the system, and rarely come home to roost. The idea of "Justice" has been hi-jacked, and turned on it's head by Judiciary systems. More Laws are made, more legislation is implemented, and the system, though unworkable, is all a Government can offer in the way of "protection"  for the populace.

Anarchy is about assuming whatever responsibility you can, back from wherever it is currently hiding, (and it's not as far away as you might think) about thinking hard about the Laws our Leaders give us to regulate us, and then dismissing those that directly stop you from having control of your own life, in the most workable way you can. Even in the most oppressive regieme, there is still room for the individual to say "NO". Fear keeps those voices down, but can never stop them. It doesn't have to be very loud. The only person who needs to hear it is YOU. It is this word that starts it all. Small acts of defiance. Acts that have consequences only for you. Not revolution against the forces of governments, revolution against what you allow yourself to be deluded by. Blakes "Mind forged manacles"

Crowley understood, and his oft quoted, but much misunderstood ''Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the Law'' pretty much nails it. It is about taking control of our own lives, on a fundamental level. Finding our ''True Will'', piece by piece, and holding to it. Understanding how it affects everything around us, everything we do.  When we start to do this, we see how tenuous a grip those who would oppress us with false Laws really have on us. The comfortable illusion of an ''Ordered Society'' is just that. An illusion. And if you are happy with that, then you are saying, in effect, ''I am happy to live on my knees, I accept that I need to be governed by others". But deep down, you know it is a lie. You just don't want to be the only one to rise up. This is the struggle. You HAVE to be the only one to rise up. You HAVE to do this for yourself, otherwise nothing will ever change.
The original Sin of proud Lucifer, was to say, ''No, I will not serve''. And for this, he was not ''cast out out of Heaven'', but given the Earth. That was the consequence of his disobedience. Not so bad when you look at it like that, is it?     

[East Coast Hustle]

great. Tell it to the Anarchists.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.

[Disco Pickle]

Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.

i really did lol though

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.

I don't think most self titled anarchists are even close to libertarianism.... that would require at least some kind of cohesive thought process.

[The Wizard]

The OP is about what I believe. It's a Utopian concept so there's no way it will function in the here and now, but I like to use Anarchism as an ideal to compare against.

[the last yatto]

I viewed anarchy as lack of outside authority. Still can be an inner voice that gets ignored. Tho accepting divine authority is what... a paradox? then again its different to accept a cloud deity then some dude in a white robe

[BadBeast]

great. Tell it to the Anarchists.

Point taken. Although, to be fair . . . . . nope, got nothin'. Spot on.    (I'll get my coat . . )

[East Coast Hustle]

don't get the wrong idea, I liked the rant, but if it ever sneaks out onto the street there's probably a barstool lurking in a dark alley waiting for it.

[Kai]

It's all fine and good to convince people to take control of their lives, to defy the rules that don't suit them.

HOWEVER,

most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist, as if they could simply say "I am free of your bonds" and the universe would be at their command. And those who ignore power suffer miserable misfortune. Those who ignore power and claim to have it all on their own are the most powerless. Better to seem to be a statist, than to say "I am an anarchist" and eliminate all power you might have. The only way to take power is to learn how to manipulate others, avoid being manipulated, seize the prize and eliminate your enemies. Control means controlling others, and not just yourself. For how much control do you really have, if other people fuck up your plans?

There is always a state. This one isn't so bad, relatively.

[Doktor Howl]

most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,

I do that.   

[The Wizard]

I've always considered power to be an illusion, with the exception of violence. If you define power as the ability to force someone to do something, then the only power someone has over you is what you give them. If they hold something over you that you care about, then you're giving them power. But if you don't care or accept the loss of whatever they are threatening, then they cannot do anything to compel you.

The only exception to this is the power of violence, which can only force someone to die. So, if you have a person who doesn't care about friends, family, reputation, etc. and is willing to lose his life, then he cannot be forced to do anything he doesn't want to. All you can do is kill him.

Of course, most people have things they value (such as family, friends, etc.), so they have levers which others can use against them. But the idea is that the only power someone can hold over you is that which you give them.

[Doktor Howl]

I've always considered power to be an illusion, with the exception of violence.

Political power is by definition violence.

[The Wizard]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

The threat of violence is always there.