This is a working of blog post from an old account.
What is anarchy? This is a question that has been a subject of several debates. The Statist would generally reply that it is chaos. The Anarcho-Communist would reply that it is a state of being against hierarchies. Others will just say that anarchy is just just the position that nobody has the moral right to rule others human beings. I tend to agree with this last definition, as it is true to the etymological definition of the word. The question arises though, why is it the case that nobody has the right to rule over others? And what does divinity have to do with this topic?
To rule over something or somebody is claim superiority over the subject being ruled. If one is superior to the subject, there must be some means by which one became superior. Most often, rulership comes about by ownership. Ownership is defined as the exclusive right to control a given scarce resource. Murray N. Rothbard wrote in The Ethics of Liberty that there can only be three possible ownership schemes regarding humans. The first being that Everybody owns everyone else. The second scheme is one in which one group has ownership over another group. The final option is one in which nobody owns anyone else, but rather they are their own property.
The first option can easily be ruled out as it is practice an impossibility. If everyone owned everyone, then every person would need permission from every other individual to perform any action, and asking permission itself requires an action. Communistic ownership of people produces a world where he human race would go extinct from the very beginning. This leaves us with two options remaining. What about the view that Some people have ownership over other persons? If this system is true, then the question must be asked about how did they become the owners? Exactly what makes the ruling class more superior than the ruled class? Are they more evolved than everyone else? It is in answering this question that both Physics and religious philosophy comes in.
Science teaches us that we are all matter and have evolved from more simple life forms that ultimately developed from stardust , which in turn was developed in the big bang. The equation e=mc2 doesn't tell us that energy becomes matter or that matter becomes energy, it only ells us that matter is condensed energy. All energy that exists at present has always existed in one form or another since the big bang. The implication of this scientific fact is that everything and everyone existed 13.7 5 billion years ago when the cosmic creation event known as "the Big Bang" occurred. In other words, we are all manifestations of the the energy of the big bang. So on a physical level, we are all the same, nobody is more energy than another nor are they a different energy than another. We are all one.
This sentiment is expressed in religious philosophy as well. This especially true in the religion of Judaism, in some forms of Christianity, and the writings of Baruch Spinoza. The central affirmation of Judaism is found in Deuteronomy 6:4. "Hear o Israel, YHVH is our God, YHVH is one!" or "Hear O Israel, YHVH is our God, YHVH alone!." In Chassidic Judaism, this simple statement carries a variety of true meanings. The first is the basic, which affirms that YHVH alone is the God of Israel. The second meaning is that YHVH is both the God of the Jew and the God of the gentiles. The third meaning is that only God exists, that everything is just manifestations or modes of being of the one God that is YHVH. In this conception of the world, every human being then is Divine, and thus truely made "in the image of God." If everyone is equally in the image of God, then nobody is superior or inferior to another. Baruch Spinoza in his work "Ethics" lays out the same thing. He posited that here is only one Substance, and that everything else i just a modality of the one substance, and he argued that this substance is God.
So here, Science and religious philosophy convergence in teaching us that all of humankind, yea all of reality is united and of one essence. They all answer t he question about the superiority of some men over another.. There is no superiority, and thus no man is the owner of another. Anarchy is the full realization and respect of the divine nature of one's fellow man. This, I posit, is the full expression of Anarchism. To be an anarchist is to refuse to suppress the divine spark in yourself and in others. To truly be one, we must live in harmony.
Peace, Love, and Divine Anarchy!
An appeal to naturalistic phenomena, and in such a stretched out fashion, is hardly a solid argument for anything. I mean, you could argue against anarchy using similar reasoning. It is a natural state of affairs in wildlife ecosystems that the stronger prey on the week, so an exertion of power by some stronger members of a community over others is as natural a conclusion as the one that we are all equal because we are all made from the same constituents that have been around since the Big Bang. Moral and ethical philosophy arose, to a great extent, precisely to deal with this preying of the stronger upon the weaker, which is a natural state of affairs, trying to arrive at social standards that would fundamentally change the natural course to an unnatural one. (Which is not rigorously true because, after all, from a naturalistic point of view, anything that happens is by necessity consistent with nature, but you get my point.)
As for the religious argument, I don't believe it even deserves any comment...