Why I'm An Anarchist

Anarchy

People always ask me my political views, and my political party. While I do have ideas of what should and shouldn't exist, I don't conform to these traditional roles.

I want you to ask yourself, what gives someone the right to rule over another. Just because someone is voted into office, we're all different, so what gives them dominion.

It's these questions we need to ask ourselves when we lay the fundamentals to our land— or not.

Our country in itself is known to have the goal for freedom and justice. We may vote those into power, even though the electoral college disables true democracy in this sense, but those in power get the ultimate say after that. This becomes a problem when all branches of the government who are made to create balance become heavily concentrated with persons of similar ideologies. These branches also giving shade for scandals to take place, hidden from the public eye.

Take a gander at our government. It was founded on the basis of Christianity. Even other countries' their moral codes are founded by archaic religions. Meaning no matter what a government calls itself, they all are at their cores; theocracies.

No matter your religious beliefs, we can all agree that nobody on this Earth is divine and as humans, we're given free will so to enforce moral behaviors through the threat of force is essentially playing God and limiting those within a land by forcing them to act within lines.

Personally though, seeing empirical evidence and the human ways of the deities described by holy texts, I feel as though religion is a way to hide from the truth in the finality of death and to enforce moral behaviors, again by force. I am a strong believer in the natural world, we are here by a slim chance of chemistry. I also believe in objective relativism; no absolute truth; right and wrong do not exist.

When I tell people I'm an anarchist. They often react with fear. The word anarchy has evolved today to imply an estate in ruin, where there is crime and absence of safety.

But this is purely a figment of stereotyping.

Everyone would finally be able to make decisions for themselves without someone about them with delusions of grandeur dictating whether or not they can.

People are mostly fearful of a society where there is no rule because people are now free to attack.

But the outlawing of these actions are simply guided by our sheltered humanistic fearful emotions. Emotions are a problem of their own. They need to be seen for what they really are. The simple chemical reactions. Our love is just another one of these, made to make us reproduce and protect our kin as well as the survival of their genes.

If someone can not defend themselves, what is their role in nature? Nature works to select the strongest of a species, those who can withstand the most extreme conditions.

We are born to survive, regardless of the impact on others. We are born to hunt and make sure we survive long enough for our genes to live on.

Revenge and justice would also finally be heralded for their true roles. The criminal justice system was founded to punish citizens who violate the laws or offend another. But these people who seek justice from this system, which is dysfunctional enough are not receiving true justice.

People fear, that without a moral code to follow, we'll become nothing short of savages. But that's not true. We still have a our advanced minds and thinking, even if we live independently. The moral code that we follow also has its own "barbaric" ways. Guantanamo bay and an all loving God, sending his own children to burn if they disobey his odd rules. Think about that, a temporary duration, decides your ultimate fate for eternity.

Even social animals, their strategies of staying together is for their own self indulgence. Sheep hide in a herd, lowering our probability of their own death should predators arrive, and all tribal animals use this non solitary strategy of living to thrive off of the resources gathered. Even if say we do less work.

Which is precisely the problem with communism and any social order at all. It looks nice in retrospect, but when it really boils down to it, equality among everyone and their benefits allows for non representation of the merit of those intelligent enough to get ahead and succeed. Just like the no child left behind act and the common core, children are all held to the same standards, whether above or below, and are expected to go at the same pace in learning. You can hear how stupid sounded, since everyone is different and has different attributes. Now apply that to money and how people succeed in the work force.

With anarcho-capitalism, the approach would be very Laissez-faire but the economy would still be regulated. For example, if a company were polluting the globe, the people could take their own and the planet's lives into their own hands and dismantle the company themselves, without an establishment standing in their way that isn't doing nothing about the situation either.

I think we need to question the fundamentals that are set by our government. What is right and wrong? Why is any action inherently right or inherently wrong and who are they to decide it as fellow humans, with no metaphysical superiority. For these reasons, to enforce the universal order; the absence of any order, anarchy is the best way to go. The economy also shouldn't be restrained. We need to revert back to the ways of the environment that made all species on this planet the resilient beings they are today. Not the coddled ways of humans that preserve those unable to adapt and live through the challenges thrown at them.