I’m an Anarchist

Matthias Carroll 1/30/17

first 100

Anarchist. The term is quite polarizing- one often thinks of the proverbial Mayday rioter throwing a Molotov cocktail. In reality, anarchism is a political and moral philosophy whereby individuals engage in voluntary interactions solely by their own autonomy: in short, no rulers. In order to fully elucidate the principles and ideologies held commonly by anarchists I will have to define some terms and occasionally note illustrations as this synopsis unfolds. The keystone or culmination of our beliefs is the inexorable, intrinsic principle of self-ownership. This principle is self-evident and blank: regardless if the idea is yours or presented to you by another, we ultimately act voluntarily when executing an action. Though people may have compromising situations overhead or are under orders, the individual must rectify in their own conscience to complete the action or not. Especially in the latter case, where actors are responsible for the whims of non-acting others must there be increased moral scrutiny. Many are familiar with psychology tests whereby individuals feigning to be scientists instruct people to shock whom they perceive to be test subjects (the real subjects are themselves) and do so only to prove humans will follow orders to extremes if instructed by an apparent authority. Similarly, many atrocities of war have been committed by alacritous soldiers looking to build rapport with commanding officers. Subsequently, because humans own themselves, it logically follows that we own what we create. As Matthew Kramer once synopsized of John Locke, “When human labor mixed or joined itself with the world’s materials, it altered them by employing them for the satisfaction of needs and desires.” We are inhabitants of, but ultimately do not own the earth. Though I am for private property, that’s a discussion for another time, it remains apparent that by mixing the soil with our toil we refine our fields of production. Ah! But what of workers toiling another’s fields, you may wonder. This is our next topic of discussion- voluntary interactions or commitments between parties. ..... .

         Covenants or agreements between peoples have been taking place likely since humans were sentient. Over time these interactions have developed to circumvent language and geographical barriers, often by employing an intermediate commodity such as currency. One thing is apparent, through bartering; parties may arrive at mutually aggregable outcomes or one of advantage. There are no mutually disappointing outcomes, for either both parties are unimpressed and therefore equally agreeable, or one surmises an advantage. One historical atrocity that most readers (hopefully) will begin to ponder upon reading this is slavery. Was slavery a justified covenant under this pretext? No, an agreement between individuals involving unwilling participants violates the non-aggression principle. However, indentured servitude, often under dubious grounds does fall into this category. In Wealth, Poverty, and Politics Thomas Sowell argues that Chinese were treated worse in the new world than in British controlled Southeast Asia, “Despite being mostly young men in the prime of life, a majority of those [Chinese] sent to Cuba died under the brutal working conditions there before completing the eight years of their labor contracts.” Ostensibly covenants can and have been made that are unapologetically inhumane and amount to usury, but what of covenants enacted by governments subjecting generations of unknowing posterity? The United States Constitution is one such example, as much as I admire the framers and their liberating achievements..

         The goal, I believe, of the patriots who laid the foundation of this great republic was to ensure the inhabitants of this new nation a degree of liberties unrivaled by any nation prior. In so doing, they exposed generations to the corruption of aforementioned system, ranging from being born into an assumed debt which will result in captivity and possible death if unpaid (all for the crime of circumstance of birth), the possibility of being compelled to take up arms in a nations defense (or offence) despite conviction of conscious, and ultimately the sale of the freedoms paid for by the blood of patriots.

         This corruption was founded in flexible, perhaps unclear articles in the covenant to be exploited by politicians and lawyers. Section Nine of the Constitution dictates “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The right to fair trial, by a jury of one’s peers, has been established since the Roman days, yet under this pretense it allows foreign dissidents to be held indefinitely in Guantanamo bay and tolerates Barack Obama to kill Americans on foreign soil by drone.

Three manifestations of liberty

         Liberty is comprised of three distinct parts, all being dependent on the principle of self-ownership and autonomy. Property-which is the manifestation of the liberty of your past: the result of the work you once enacted. Freedom-which is the liberty of the present: the capacity to work or to be slothful, to bear fruit or to die. Lastly Life-which is the liberty of the future, without it one cannot exercise further freedoms or actions.

To Disarm is to Distrust

         Having established that politicians of many loyalties and creeds use the powers invested in them by the constitution to decree laws upon citizens which themselves are contrary to aforementioned covenant, it remains now to discuss the implementation of said laws. Most recognize these despots by their fruits, yet when it’s suggested the strong arm of these rulers-namely the police force and various agencies-used to implement these laws are themselves traitors, cries of defamation and slander ensue. This can be illustrated best by captian blank of the Spokane police department. Upon being questioned why the department needed a military-surplus MineResistantAmbustProtected tank he replied, “Well there are a lot of Constitutionalists around these parts.” The chief issue I have with his response is that he is supposed to be a constitutionalist; after all, he swore an oath to affirm and uphold the covenant made by our government to this people.

         Each of us is on a journey, though we know not where. To our left and right lie similar beings- too removed for contact, but not to critique and compare. We traverse the trail in style, in a house, or sometimes a car. We think not of our beginning; we haven’t gotten very far. Some race ahead, as the tortoise and the hare, some are burdened, to most it’s unfair. We eat fast, drive fast, live fast; we die all the same. Both parents are working, no time to waste on games. We do our best, to secure our vittles, the music rises, though not from our fiddles. Our earnings are valued! Our labors! Our toil! We’re contented with respite, and aluminum foil.


Subscribing to our mailing list to stay updated!

* indicates required