Lately I have been growing weary and tired. When I first learned about Ron Paul in 2008, I jumped on board immediately. I was pumped and full of energy. Previously I had been a Republican that believed in economic freedom. I never understood the desire from a Republican standpoint to want to control what other people do. I was completely oblivious to what being a libertarian meant. Fast forward nearly 7 years later and I have grown from being a Republican to becoming a philosophical anarchist stuck in a world of being under duress for nearly 2 years now. When I first learned what being an anarchist meant it made sense to me. It was centered on one rule, the Non-Aggression Principle. It made sense to me because I have never had any desire for others to be forced to live the way that I have chosen to live, and I had no desire to be told how to live my life as well. It only mattered to me that others wanted to force their beliefs on me, and that’s what I signed up to fight against. This idea seems pretty simple doesn't it? One would think so.
I often find myself in discussions with people who don’t understand these principles, and that’s okay. I can handle them, and the circular logic that comes along with it. I can handle the debates about “who will build the roads,” “but we have to have rules,” etc… I prefer them to be one on one and in person, because it is far easier to articulate those thoughts in person then through the keyboard. It is also far easier to critique those words through a keyboard. Much like the way people will critique these keystrokes after I post them.
On the flip side though I also find myself in discussions with other anarchists about what an anarchist can and cannot be. How ridiculous does that sound? The most common of which I come across is whether or not someone can be a Christian anarchist or not. The irony of which is an anarchist telling someone else what they can and cannot be. I’m not going to argue the specifics about that argument here because it has been discussed and covered ad nauseam. However, if you want to explore this particular issue a little farther there is some great literature available to you from James Redford’s paper called “Jesus is an Anarchist” and a video put out by Larken Rose called “Can a Christian Be an Anarchist?”.
My issue stems from beyond this one particular debate. It’s all the debates that coincide with this one. Anarchy should be simple. I used to think that it was simple, but now I’m not so sure. There is no unity in this belief anymore. (If there ever was) One thing that I have noticed about anarchists is that they have too many effing rules. It’s just a bunch of bickering over semantics and minutia of something so beautiful like freedom. Anarchists will straight up beat the enjoyment of being free right out of you. As a Christian anarchist I have one rule, and that's don't aggress on me and I won't aggress on you. It shouldn't even matter that I’m a Christian, or that someone is an atheist, Muslim, Jew, or whatever. They can't just keep focus on the actual enemy which is the state which also has Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc... Nope, you'd rather go after people who are philosophically aligned with you over their faith about a God you don't even believe in or have an absence of a faith. Morality is sound in anarchy. The rest is just bullshit semantics.
I'm starting to think that apathy is the only true freedom. Just going through your life day to day, enjoying the ones around you, your family, enjoying your hobbies, or whatever it is that fills your life with happiness. As they say, “ignorance is bliss.” Unfortunately I’m no longer ignorant. I’m awake to this understanding. There is no going back for me. If I could go back and change things would I? I honestly don’t think that it would matter to tell you the truth. I think that no matter what, something would have woken me up to the truth.
The reality is that anarchists are egotistical, arrogant, and stubborn people. Arguing with each other over semantics is just stupid. It accomplishes nothing in the grand scheme of things when trying to fight against the bigger problem. What ever happened to the argument that “I don’t care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me?” Doesn't that same logic exist for people that may or may not have a faith? Who’s using circular logic now? If you are somehow able to accomplish the goals of a completely stateless society, are you really going to care if someone has a faith or not? Are you going to put up borders to keep those people out of your stateless society? The idea that excluding someone from a philosophy that includes everyone based on voluntary association with the absence of force or coercion is a ridiculous notion. Are you free to not associate with those that you choose not to within that society? Yes, because that is the beauty of freedom, but for me, that seems like it would be a very sad existence. I have friends and family that are of all faiths or none. I love them all, and I wouldn't trade any of them away for anything, because treating someone like an individual based on their non-aggressive or non-coercive actions is far more freeing then excluding them.
Turn on. Tune in. Rebel!
We are an open source radio station. We do not censor. We welcome debate. We encourage disagreement. We want to hear your voice. We want to be your soapbox.