What Anarchy Isn't...

[Maia Gabrial]

So, after hearing this simple explanation of Anarchy by Tessa Rose, I'm thinking I'm more of an anarchist thinking person myself. I have to admit that I thought it was more about violence, not freedom. I think this way MAY BE a better system for us....

Personally, I'm sick of the way the corrupted US govt has gone hog wild, violating our sovereignty, telling us what we can and can't do, stealing us blind..... Some days, I just want to tell them to stick it....:yell::yell:

It could very well be that we'll be facing the decisions to change our system sooner than we think. How much more corruption can we take from the present system anyway?

This video will probably make sense to you as much as it did to me. Anarchy doesn't sound so bad....

xMoPBDz5ycA

What do you think?

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think of anarchy as envisioned by most is when the government collapses and there is fear and chaos on the streets. We see roving bands of half-starved people with guns, shooting up the town and setting it on fire. It is this absence of authority, this power vacuum, that creates mobs that pilfer and pillage. Finally set free, they do not know how to behave.

Anarchy as depicted in the vid is another matter. There, the citizens have effectively isolated themselves in a nice agrarian setting with lots of land and population in check. Also, those people are assumed to already know the rules of that society so that social order is self-regulated, just as it is in our crappy world today. Anarchy is not the absence of government but the absence of a higher authority. There are legitimate functions for which a form of government is perfectly suited, like education, health care, public works, foreign affairs, defense, etc. Anarchy is confused with sovereignty and although they come hand in hand they are not the same.

A sovereign citizen declares no one has the right to claim authority over him. In so doing the sovereign citizen also assumes the same rights for every other citizen as well. A further evolution of ethical impact is the understanding that to infringe on the rights of one citizen infringes on everyone's rights. Often the rights of a sovereign citizen must be upheld by the neighbors, the bystander, the good samaritan. No infringement can be tolerated because it abrogates the rights of all. Any and all threats to freedom must be met with unyielding resistance and unrelenting dilligence.

That is true anarchy. And it does not just happen overnight. It seems, as the USA attests to, in can take more than two hundred years...

[TargeT]

Great video, very well articulated points.

Common law fits right into this type of model, you have a ruling court that enforces rules if you voluntarily allow them to.

This sets up a system where someone CAN rob you and take your things, but if they choose not to voluntarily submit to the judgment of the common law court, they become "out- laws" out side thet law & there for not under protection of the law, so anyone that so chooses to can do anything they want to this person, as they have chosen to not participate in the society.

I've always thought this was the true method we were suppose to be functioning under (and in fact this is historically the method that was used for some 5,000 years). In alaska there was a functional common law court set up & it was amazing, until the head of the movement was arrested by the feds (google schaeffer cox, liberty bell network, common law for more info)

xFOUqurUgFk

These things WILL happen if we want them to, but YOU have to do something about it.