The following debate orginally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “The ‘Social Contract’ Doesn’t Exist“…
Rayn: “But.. muh social ‘contract’ proves that they are!” – Shit Statists Say
Hmm… since when are non-consensual arrangements fabricated upon invisible paper with invisible ink referred to as “contracts”? Just more proof that Statism Is A Cult!
“Anarchism: the radical notion that other people are not your property”
Katherine C.: Without getting into an exhausting conversation, I’m just curious that since anarchy by definition is the absolute freedom of the individual, regardless of political views, what would an anarchist do about murderers, paedophiles, and the like since they would be technically free to do whatever they’d like, according to anarchists?
Greg C.: Summary execution on the fuckin spot. Get caught doin something fucked up out comes the 45 and down they go…
Rayn: As I explained to you previously, Katherine, when you misunderstood the concept of Anarchy in our last debate: the word simply means “no rulers.” And, when this concept is properly and logically understood, using PROOF, instead of romantic fables and foundation-free myth, it is clear that the REASON we have no legitimate rulers is because of the self-evident fact that we are ALL born with our very own Individual sovereignty (AKA Self-ownership). With this logic understood correctly, we are NOT, in any way “technically free to do whatever [we] like,” because that would imply a host of actions which would completely violate the Individual Sovereignty of those around us. Realize that Anarchy is not at all chaos, but rather: peace, respect, liberty, and the only real equality there is! I absolutely own myself… and, so do you, my friend!
Indeed, these inaccurate ideas about Anarchy you have been suggesting here are very pervasive within our society, due to repeated efforts, over a long period of time, by the elitist, ruling class, and their minions, alike, to hijack this word, and run it into the ground, in hopes of quelling the evolution of humanity, in favor of CONTROL and BONDAGE. And, it is precisely this co-opting of the term that has caused real Anarchists to avoid it, in order to embrace the more-accurately-descriptive word, “Voluntaryism,” which, by definition, is founded upon the reality of Individual sovereignty and the Non-aggression principle that binds it. There is no wiggle-room for claiming Voluntaryism to be CHAOS, when CONSENT and COOPERATION are written into the very term, itself! 🙂
Meanwhile, “the absolute freedom of the individual,” you mention, as my last two paragraphs describe, is best-referred to as “Individual sovereignty,” and as I also mentioned, can only be acknowledged and exercised in regards to EVERY SINGLE OTHER INDIVIDUAL IN EXISTENCE, as well. Therefore, any efforts to impose upon or violate the Individual sovereignty of another makes that violator JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPTED RULER – and, hence, DOES NOT qualify as ANARCHY!
As for your notion of Anarchy being exercised “regardless of political views,” you must learn to shake off such preconceived notions, so that you can open your eyes to the fact that Anarchism is actually apolitical/anti-political (or, as Gerald Celente so aptly describes it, “political atheism”). The words “politics,” and even “policy” and “police,” are all based in the same root word, “polis,” which is the Greek term for “city, one’s city; the state, citizens” – or, as we would understand it, in modern terms, a State-based control grid of rulers and subjects. (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)