Are anarchists libertarian?


Just as the word “liberal” changed meanings in Republican Party argot in 1932, so “anarchist” also changed meaning in 1972. Prior to then its published definition was “the belief that all government is evil and unnecessary, combined with opposition to the institution of private property.” (Smith and Zurcher, 1944)

Looking backward through the preceding century’s newspapers in Germanic and Romance languages, references to anarchy, anarchists and anarchism are, without exception, references to bomb-throwing collectivists and assassins with pistols. French President Carnot, Spanish Prime Minister Canovas, Austrian Empress Elizabeth and King Humbert of Italy were all killed by Italians, but President McKinley was murdered by a son of Polish immigrants. All of the killers appear in the press as self-described anarchists indistinguishable from communist, socialist or labor-organizing zealots.

In fact, the closer the examination, the closer the resemblance to today’s mohammedan suicide bombers, hijackers and gunmen. Indeed, socialism, especially in its communo-fascist variants, is as much a religion as christianity or mohammedanism. All of these things are mysticism: the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Anarchist, communist and religious philosophies all rely on mysticism.

The new religion of Environmentalism now has its own version of the “atheist” epithet and brands real scientists (e.g. the 32,000 degreed scientists who signed the Petition Project) “deniers.” Since it is impossible to prove a negative, and the production of evidence is incumbent upon those who make the claim, the attempt is made to shift the burden of proof with no notion whatsoever of epistemology or logic. A denier is anyone who asks for convincing evidence. As soon as Soviet Communism had in 1920 consolidated control over an entire government, propaganda machines labored to distance it from its anarchist comrades. But the political aspects of anarchism, like that of so many foibles, were best summed up by the philosophical saloon owner Mr. Dooley.

“What on earth’s to be done about thim arnychists?” Mr. Hennessy asked. What do they want?”

“They want peace on earth an’ th’ way they propose to get it is be murdhrin’ ivry man that don’t agree with thim. They think we all shud do as they please. They’re down on th’ polis foorce an’ in favor iv th’ pop’lace, an’ whin they’ve kilt a king they call on th’ polis to save thim fr’m th’ mob.”

But thanks to Republican and Democratic appointee judges’ interpretation that religious murder is “the Free exercise therof,” the act is protected and anti-Planned Parenthood cop-shooters and Houston child-drowners alike are, ipso facto, declared insane and not responsible for their acts until the killing is safely concluded. Catholic and Protestant apologists loudly aver that the very murderousness of the perpetrators’ actions serve as “proof” of their innocence. The Saracen view, as examined by H.L. Mencken, forges a functionally similar conclusion:

Mohammedans “are not bidden to love their enemies but to smite them, and there are no oppressive rules about distinguishing between foes in arms and innocent bystanders. The Moslem theory is that the latter, if they happen to be true believers, will go straight to Paradise and are thus not to be pitied, and that no calamity can be too great for those who doubt. “*

Both brands of mysticism draw the line at uppity females exercising the individual right to choose whether or not to reproduce, and withdraw forthwith the protection so gallantly extended to men who–for reasons of faith–kill doubters.

anarchyloses

No Victory=Losers

Likewise, as political theory, post-1972 anarchism relies on the reverse of Jefferson’s assertion that “to ensure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The anarchist view is that the very act of legalizing robbery, murder and barbarism in general (by abolishing enforcement of the restraining laws) creates a “free” market out of which agencies competing in the forcible restraint of men will rise like faithful toward the Rapture.

Syllogistically, the premises are 1. A market from which force and fraud are not excluded by government and laws securing rights is free (as opposed to coerced) and 2. That the “free” market resulting from abolition of laws against murder and robbery will summon forth agencies to compete–for profit–in the forcible restraint of men, thereby ensuring rights. The proposition: if rights aren’t protected then the market is “free,” is reversed by affirming its consequent. A child could see the error in logic in Lewis Carroll’s day. No sooner had “former” communists announced their conversion to anarchy and consequent devotion to infiltrating and subverting all things libertarian, than Ayn Rand (who wrote the non-aggression principle in 1947) reacted by noting that:

“All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists.

True, few born in 1907 Russia know a lot about American hippies, but her observation that anarchists are collectivists matches the facts of reality for the past hundred years. Like Nixon’s anti-libertarian law or the Hitler-Stalin pact, the sudden reversal of anarchist definitions and rules of inference coinciding with the emergence of a political party devoted to the defense of intellectual rights is a false-flag operation. Anarchists in libertarian drag resemble nothing so much as collectivist infiltrators whose purpose is to see to it that the Libertarian Party is avoided by people whose spoiler votes we need in order to repeal bad laws and taxes. With friends like these…

If there were an ounce of brains or sincerity among “libertarian” anarchists, they would support the LP in accordance with the Constitution and someday, with the initiation of force happily eliminated from the interactions of citizens (which outcome they do NOT want), anarchists could then organize their own party, write a platform and seek voters to complete what they might regard as an unfinished task. This they do NOT do. Meanwhile, the presence of an anarchist at a libertarian function has as salutary an effect as flinging in a dead cat.

** Treatise on Right and Wrong

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s