A Quest for Sanity

Comments

Suverans2's picture
    "Anarchism won’t happen in our lifetimes despite what any organization tells us that[sic] but that doesn’t mean it’ll never happen or that such a goal isn’t worthy of pursing." ~ Nick Ford

If we define anarchism as the "no ruler doctrine", and we define ruler as "one that governs; one that makes or executes laws", I don't want anarchism for "everyone"; I don't want it for those who want a ruler; I do not want it for those who cannot, or will not, govern their own behavior according to the law of nature, so why can't it happen, in their lifetime, for those who do want it and who can, and will, govern their own behavior according to the natural law of man?

As an individual secessionist, I say that it has already happened for me. I do not consent to be ruled by any man, or "man-made" laws, I am therefore without ruler. But this should not be construed to mean that I am without rules. I am not lawless. My law is the law of nature, the natural law of man.

    "The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws." ~ Walt Whitman

This does not mean that you, or your master(s), will not use, or threaten to use, force to trespass upon my natural rights, it means that I will do all that is within my power to rationally resist such force.

    All things lawful are mine, but all things are not expedient: all things lawful are mine, but I will not [voluntarily consent[1] to] be brought under the power of any [man].

_________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

Samarami's picture

Anarchy will not only happen in MY lifetime, IT IS HERE. NOW.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf

Anarchy is not something that will be imposed upon others -- that's statism. I've come to use the term "governmentalism" instead in most cases, since "statism" is becoming trite and overused on these forums.

I strongly urge any who want to anarchy clearly to also read an essay by Delmar England, "Insanity As The Social Norm":

http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_insanityasthesocialnorm.htm

It's long (24 p M/S "Word" single spaced), could use some cleaning up in grammer, punctuation, syntax, etc. England's message is that far too many calling themselves "anarchists" are actually governmentalists deep down. They simply cannot imagine "society" not having to be refashioned into their brand of "anarchy" (with ME as the "leader", of course).

I am a sovereign state. I believe you can be sovereign also. But that's totally up to you. Not me.

Sam

Suverans2's picture

"...far too many calling themselves "anarchists" are actually governmentalists deep down. They simply cannot imagine "society" not having to be refashioned into their brand of "anarchy" (with ME as the "leader", of course)."

Amen!

"I believe you can be sovereign also. But that's totally up to you. Not me."

And, amen!

The perfect excuse for not doing it, is to say it can't be done.

Samarami's picture

...the root problem is in and of the mind and only this understanding will effect resolution. Alas, knowledge about the mind has been excluded as well by the false, mind-dominant, “sacred ideas” ie, mental inventions thought to be real. The failure to make a distinction between what is inside the mind and what is outside is often referred to as insanity. This is the past and current saturate condition.
Unpopular as this notion may be, this mental malady is what has established and sustained the past and present philosophical, epistemological, psychological, death-oriented, anti-individual environment. The evidence is abundant and clear: Beliefs direct actions. Actions cause effects. If the effects are not as consciously intended, it is indisputable that the actions (means) are not suited to the purpose. It is just as indisputable that the beliefs directing the selecting and application of means are false. Isn’t this proven a trillion times over? Is there anything complex and hard to understand about this? If so, what? If not, why the perpetual rejection of this proof if not a mental
malady?... (from "Insanity as the Social Norm" -- see above post for link)

Sam