It really depends on the context of the conversation. Sometime grumbling about consumer prices is a totally different approach than someone who is dusgrntled with the police state.

Where does God fit into anarchy?

I always make a quick tangent to acknowledge the bigger bully problem regarding national defense and concede that given the state of human beings today minarchism is more pragmatic then straight up Anarchism

Anarchy is dangerous freedom. People don't want to take responsibility for themselves and are therefore afraid of true freedom.

Anarchy is commonly used as a synonym for chaos; and chaos is used as a means for tyrants to take power. I always remind people that anarchy is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rules. It is the theoretical ideal form of government and not unlike what heaven is conceived as (I get the analogy between God and king but in heaven is there really a need for a justice system?)

This particular note was inspired by a chat with a friend in Yurp who I love but who has sadly been lead to believe we have a dictatorship in the US and they said they feel safer when traveling "in a police state" (lol) because it's "quieter and has less crime, and so I feel better, even though I know its people are suffering" and then said we have no one getting in trouble for shoplifting and something something Orange Man. I responded by saying first of all, fuck all the presidents, and that B) that shoplifting they hear about in US is likely in California, where a retard governs. And then I said that people would be more free and at peace if they ignored all the tyranny and chose to live in a way that they define for themselves.

💯 While this is true and I say it all the time, it isn't an answer to my question (near the bottom)

Minarchism = When you just want a little bit of tyranny

I don't know how to explain that. I just personally make time for Him every day. Not everyone will. That's their choice.

That's a loosing battle. Yurpians tens to be so cucked for "the state" and there isn't anything that we can say since we are obviously inferior to them. 🙄

It's either that or we learn Chinese and how to work in sweatshops. Small, private defense forces are what we had in the 18th century and we are not going back.

I think it’s my one critique of anarchy. I’d argue it won’t work without God.

In a nutshell same as you... and I always say it isnt the chaos they should associate with anarchy it should be self control, balance and respect that matters to achieve it and make it work. Whoever (not many people though) I spoke to about Anarchy they all perceive it as total chaos and destruction, Rampaging and breaking stuff... 🙆🏻‍♀️

Incidentally This is why I make that point in conversation, they're likely already thinking that they're talking to an idealist who refuses to recognize real world problems. So recognizing that there IS a legitimate defense issue in a modern world with huge nation states if small groups were to suddenly just say " our individuals and local communities will provide for their own defense. Good luck!" Helps convince them that they're not just talking to a crazy person. It is not an easy problem to solve. And frankly, I'm pretty confident I prefer the American tyrants to the Chinese or Russian ones.

Anarchy is the same as communism, an idealist utopia where everyone gets along and handles things on their own and no one group takes advantage of it. Both require the abolition of government. Laws without rulers by the people, but humans suck and take advantage of any system reliant upon good human nature. so both are just silly ideological utopias that will never happen.

This person is my friend and I would love it if they understood and could feel free like I do. Sadly, most of the rest of Yurp is probably too late to be saved.

I was making a joke

either way ☺️

Anarchy isn't a goverance structure so, by definition isn't utopian. Anarchy is a relationship between individuals. The abolition of government is local not as if there some global pact of "no government we swear!" Every country is in a state of anarchy with each other. This is so poorly explored that I cant believe you actually think anarchy is "laws without rulers" as if that makes any sense whatsoever. We all already live in anarchy, governments are just warlords mascarading as a charitible organizations.

Ignore my previous reply, Jack. I thought you were talking to me.

All good, I getchu.

"Rules without rulers" , same thing as laws without rulers. Don't need a ruler for there to be laws. Even family's have their own laws and the punishment for breaking them may be decided amongst the family or by the "leader" of the family. Anarchy is impossible because someone ultimately will make decisions on behave of others, hence not true anarchy. And ultimately people will give someone else power to provide things for them that they can't provide for themselves. "Abolition of government is local" yet every state is also in a form of anarchy. Then you're just deciding on who gets to make the rules and its not actually anarchy. There are rulers, from the family to the state, there always will be. And people will always rely on more than just local communities for things, because we dont live in the caveman days.

Calling a government communist government is like calling a government an anarchist government lol both are oxymoron

The Creator knows how life works best…. Love your neighbor as yourself (aka don’t do onto your neighbor, just as you prefer they not do onto you) Thou shall not murder Thou shall not steal Thou shall have no other gods before Me …AND He made is in His image; we have been given ourselves. We have free will & responsibility for our own actions. Anarchy is the acknowledgement of self-ownership.

It seems there’s a slight misunderstanding. Anarchy is the acknowledgement of each humans’ natural right of self-ownership. You are not the rightful property of another. Since you own yourself, you own your time, labor, and fruit of your labor. You’re free to organize, make Agreements, trade, and cooperate with others, so long as you don’t act as other humans are your property (infringing on their equal right of self-ownership). Parents do not *own* their kids; they are stewards of those humans. As caretakers, they are responsible for preserving the child until that child has full mental ability to direct themselves with full mental understanding.

What is this definition based on? Per this definition, anarchy has nothing to do with governments, as governments only "steward" populations towards whatever means, they do not "own" their populations. There is nothing preventing someone from acting on their own means to flee such jurisdictions, for better or worse. You are free to ignore the rules set by the steward governments, but you also accept the consequences of doing such, just as a kid is free to ignore their parents, and accepts the consequences of doing such. So essentially, per this definition, yeah everyone lives in anarchy, so what? We also technically live in communism. Because I control my means of production, I am a worker and I can control what I want to produce. Myself and my community are not able to produce enough to realistically compete with the living conditions of the societal structure we live in, nor could we create a defense at scale to protect our community from said society if we did. Sure we could share some things among a community, as long as we still participated in the state we live in. Also, im not pro communism, I just think people have a misconception of what it looks like due to claims of communism by states abusing their workers. We've never seen real communism, as it is effectively impossible at large scare. So I guess governments could claim to be pro anarchy/(individual freedom) or pro communism, but both are oxymoron as they both exist seperate from the state. So yeah, same thing.

Thank you for the push back! First, I’d like to clarify, the definition of anarchy is no rulers (just as others mentioned earlier). It is based upon the understanding of self-ownership. As for the stewardship/ guardian role: If a self-owning human is currently unable to articulate their will, in an informed manner, no one has the right to make life-altering changes to that person (essentially assuming that persons will.) At best, someone may work only toward the natural preservation of another until they do have the ability to fully express their will. Parents gain ownership of the steward/guardian role by homesteading it. They are the first to care for the child …especially the mother. Governments cannot be stewards for two reasons from this basis. First, no one can claim to be “stewards” of already mature humans who are indeed capable of fully expressing their will. Second, just as one cannot gain ownership of an object by mere decree or calling “dibs,” no person nor group called government, can declare itself rightful stewards. Therefore, the family guardians role should not infringe on anyone’s right of self-ownership; there are no rulers. Government cannot be a steward by definition and has no right to be a ruler over another, just as no one does.

No one has the right to infringe on another's right of self ownership, okay, so what happens when someone does infringe on another's right to self ownership?

This is merely the framework to determine what is moral and what is not. An infringement on self ownership is therefore known to be immoral. Anarchists do not believe in a utopia, but simply oppose such immorality consistently. This means we understand it’s wrong to infringe on individual rights whether such be done by private thugs or by “government.” Government is simply the largest and most severe aggressor on the planet, which inherently *guarantees* infringements of individual rights. They currently get away with it merely because too many people assume this group has the right to commit wrongs. Now to answer your question very directly… You are not obligated to allow yourself to be victimized, so you have a right to self defense. Since you have a right to defend yourself, others have the right to defend you as well. Further, you also may have the right to justice/restitution. There is no guarantee one won’t be wronged or that justice will be served, but this is the exact same scenario as today with the existence of a ruling class. The difference is that the ruling class quite literally only *guarantees* you *will* be victimized. Government does control you, exploit you, decide how much of what you earn you are ‘allowed’ to keep, and lord over you by threats of violence. Try trading with another individual, owning a vehicle with dark tinted windows, cutting someone’s hair, selling food or beverages, building a deck, earning an income, owning land, going fishing, leaving the ‘country,’ etc.

Those who dont considered power will always be taken advantage of by those that do.. Just the way nature works. While i can defend myself from other individuals, it is near impossible to defend oneself from a large group. Not trying to say the government we have today doesnt overstep its role, but there will always be some group assuming that role, we just have to make sure they dont abuse it, we've failed at doing that.

Thanks for discussing, I honestly dont know much. Just a screenshot of my thoughts at one particular time.

For sure. It’s a numbers game - getting enough people to not feel beholden to government is the best start. I hope people come to at least see the truth, just as you eluded to — government is merely a large group who will use violence to control people …and they get most of this power because people feel a moral obligation to obey. This is why my main focus is on helping people see this truth.