Walking through town this morning in the rain I got to thinking about the "future." That imaginary thing that always becomes the present right when it arrives.
I was lamenting that I may never get to see a "voluntary world," where abiding by the NAP is the norm, and centralized, coercive nation states are not forcing everyone to subscribe to their "services," and to fight their pointless and bloody battles for power.
I looked at the cars driving by. At two older women in a ramen shop, getting ready for the lunch rush. I smiled. Anarchy is already here. The state is something more like a cancer on top of it and throughout it, than it is a system that is in place which must be replaced by it. Nothing needs replaced. It is already here. The cancer needs removed.
I think about my son. He might see a voluntary world. He, or his children, or their children. That is, if the whole thing isn't destroyed by then. If the centralized "monopolies on force" don't make this place uninhabitable. I don't think they will. Things may very well get ugly--and even extremely ugly--but I have to remain confident about the future, because I am confident about the world right now.
The smiling ladies in the ramen shop. The cars driving by. People going about their business. Not killing. Not murdering. Not raping and stealing from each other. EVEN WHEN THERE ARE NO POLICE AROUND! gasp!
The reason for this is culture and common sense.
How I envision myself in the anarchist future.
It is my hope that someday people will look back at the growing number of anarchists on the scene today, as we look back at individuals like Harriet Tubman and Lysander Spooner now. We are still the outliers, the anomaly, perhaps, but not nearly as much as we would like to think. This stuff is catching on. It's catching on because it is true. In the end nature always wins, and nature says we own ourselves.
Imagine the modern-day flaggots not being mindlessly enamored by a painted piece of Chinese cloth, but by the NAP.
Maybe not everyone will understand it on a profound level, but once "we" hit "critical mass," it won't matter. When ideas of violence as legitimate solutions to conflict are no longer the norm, they will be looked at with the same unthinking disdain by the masses as Adolf Hitler is today. The non-aggression principle will be the new normal.
Of course, I should perhaps give people in general more credit, and I hope the reason an individual accepts the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership is because they understand them.
My fellow individualists and anarchists. The time is now. Lies, by their very nature, always have an end. Nature, by its very nature, is forever and endlessly, beginning.
Peace!
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist residing in Niigata, Japan.
Absolutely on the nail. Anarchy is the natural state. That doesn't disappear when man exerts control. We can upset balance and create a fascimile of a controlled world in which natural order has no power, but the truth is that the natural state persists beneath the surface always working its way back to the top.
Take a sidewalk. I love sidewalks. I love to look at them as I walk down a street. Why? They remind me of the truth of reality. When I see that weed that found a crack in the concrete and manages to survive and even thrive being trampled on, choked with smog, having little soil and even being cut over and over, I am reminded that no matter how hard they try, the state can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER destroy the natural order of self-ownership. They can cover it up. They can deny it. They can restrict and attack it. But it will come back, again and again. One day, that weed will win. It will pollinate and it will seed other cracks. It will proliferate and, one day, the roots deep under the surface of the state will cause the state to crack and cumble away.
Excellent write up.
Also, thank you, I will likely be editing this comment into my own post.
Great comment, and thank you very much.
Good to know like minds are out there!
Good job!
Ignore the power!
Nice post. Now following and looking forward to seeing more of your stuff. Up-voted. Posted a couple of articles earlier that you may find interesting.
"Where we're going we won't need central banking!!"
https://steemit.com/steemit/@stephenkendal/where-we-re-going-we-won-t-need-central-banking
"A future without central banking be careful what you wish for because sometimes dreams do come true!!"
https://steemit.com/steemit/@stephenkendal/a-future-without-central-banking-be-careful-what-you-wish-for-because-sometimes-dreams-do-come-true
Cheers. Stephen
Agamemnon, Leonidas, Themistocles, Philip II, Alexander, and Julius Caesar shaped the western world. Some were good leaders and some were not so good.
Anarchy means without a leader.
Show me a world which has thrived and prospered without a leader?
Doesn't exists.
Even Chimps have leaders.
What you have today in the US is a elite minority group in charge. A group of Plutocrats which is demographically disproportionate to the demographics of the major populace and therefore doesn't have the best interests of the populace at heart. A parasitic group of sociopaths blood drunk on their power trying to divide and conquer this major populace which they fear and hence are driving forth chaos and anarchy.
They control Banking, Media, Hollywood, and Wall Street.
A tight strangle hold on all of us, not to mention the
majority of brain washed sheeple.
Horrible leadership which need to be put down.
I am anti-establishment (this establishment) and I want
a decentralized form of government, but I am not a
Anarchist. That would be foolish.
Anarchy means without a ruler. Leaders do not need to practice violence. Rulers, by very definition, must.
I would be interested to hear your conception of what a "decentralized form of government is."
I have nothing against governance itself.
As long as it is non-violent, I am all for it.
Anarchy does mean without a ruler or chief. Synonyms of Anarchy include lawlessness, disorder, chaos and turmoil. Not exactly what most people want. Sadam was indeed a ruler who did use violence, but without him now, it is far worse. Anyway you slice it, where there is a Administrator/Chief/Ruler there are rules/governance.
I don't believe in centralized/federalized governance. People who are alike in their beliefs should be allowed to form local governments on the county level where the state can't interfere. Likewise the the fed can't interfere in the states business. The constitution allowed for this. Live and let live. It's these Plutocrats who won't allow this with their NWO plans. Violence, if need be, is necessary to maintain this freedom.