What's an Australian bloke writing and posting memes about a Yank with a German-sounding name for? The short to medium answer is that during my journey to Anarchy I read a lot of stuff (a hell of a lot), and one of the names I kept coming across was one H.L Mencken. Every quote seemed to resonate with me. "This bloke was a fair dinkum prophet," I would say to myself. He seemed to give absolutely zero fucks, something that I felt was needed in this nanny-state, politically correct world of ours. Eventually I would start a page devoted to posting quotes, articles and memes from the man. Quotes like the one below are a rallying cry for anarchists and libertarians of every stripe, and I hope to keep bringing them to you. This particular one says to me, "If I have to vote for someone to rule over me, then how can I possibly be free?"
“Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law.
One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.
"Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35”
While I am aware of the fallibility of pretty much every political model, I find anarchy to be a very optimistic dream. The thing is, the world is full of arseholes. Many models could possibly work, if not for this. How does anarchy ensure that we cater for and protect the vulnerable? The disabled, the elderly, etc... In my experience, people are mostly selfish (big generalisation I know, but it's already been a challenging day, so please just let me have that one). And there will always be those who strive to be a tyrant, and will use any means, which many many people will fall for because they would rather forgo freedom than take personal responsibility and be a grown up. All the personal vices people have now would still exist within anarchism or any political structure. That is why I'm not a devotee of any model, but would like to see the best from all, which another optimistic dream. There would still have to be safeguards. It is human nature that creates this necessity. What would you do to address my concerns, if tomorrow, you could achieve your ideal of global anarchy?
Thanks for taking the time to reply. While I've seen these questions answered many times I have never actually done so myself, but I lack the time the answer deserves right now. Until such time as I can formulate a response befitting the topic, I'll leave you with a quote by Gustave de Molinari which sums up part of my thinking on the subject.
"Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won't kill, injure, kidnap, defraud or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will"
:)
Yes. I see the logic there. I'm looking forward to discussing this further.
Congratulations @truthandanarchy! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!
By safeguards I mean something akin to Common Law.
Response here - https://steemit.com/anarchy/@truthandanarchy/a-response-to-diginaut-re-anarchy-and-some-thoughts-on-hf19 :)