Am I really an Anarchist?

As we stepped from the asphalt parking lot and on to the well worn pathway through the woods I unleashed my trusty German short hair pointer. She bolted free as if shot straight from a cannon and bounded down the path out of sight. In an effort to keep up I quickly tossed my back-pack over my shoulder, secured my laptop under my arm and proceeded to wind my way through the old growth cottonwoods that grew sporadically all around me. Our favourite beach lay at the end of the path and I was hoping a swim under the late summer sun with my girlfriend and our dog Jessie would provoke some inspired thinking. The deeper we traveled into the woodlands the more I became immersed within the familiar aromatic scent of Ponderosa pine. I could already feel my body and mind relenting helplessly to the pull of nature and as I took a deep breathe I felt the many concerns of my city life instantaneously fade as if helplessly overcome by the summer breeze, carried off into the bright blue summer sky and lost forever.

We were about half way to the sand when we crossed paths with an interesting older man returning from the beach with his small dog. As our dogs acquainted themselves, we exchanged the usual niceties one dog owner often affords another dog owner.

"Nice day" he said,

"Sure is", I agreed.

"Bringin' your work with ya' I see" as he inquisitively pointed to the laptop under my arm. "Yeah"

"What are you working on?" he asked.

And, since he asked, over the next few moments, we stood together in the wilderness, just the two of us and our dogs as I explained what it is to be a forensic historian, political commentator and video content provider. After some cordial back and forth banter it wasn't long before he brought up how important it was for people to recognize the individual responsibilities we all share within a free and open society to hold our government accountable. As often happens when I engage in conversation with those of an older generation, barely a minute had passed before we found common ground on several key points. The irony not lost on either of us that we were engaged in a conversation advocating for less governmental control while enjoying the serenity of a beautiful, government managed, provincial park. Eager to get to the beach I directing him toward my website and wished him an enjoyable day.

After a few more minutes, I finally came to the edge of the tree line and sunlight quickly warmed my face as I stepped from the shadows. I could see Jessie busy reveling in her freedom as she scavenged along the shoreline. I stepped unto the sand and the beach opened up in front of me. I could see my girlfriend approaching from the distance and as she gave me a wave and made her way towards me I could see her pass by the same stranger I had met in the woods a few moments earlier. As she approached close enough, she asked me,

"Did you just talk with that guy?" while pointing back at the stranger and his dog,

"Yeah I did", I said, "Interesting old man."

"When I walked past him, he asked if you were my boyfriend and exclaimed, 'You know he's an anarchist!'"

As we shared a laugh we continued on to our favorite spot just down the beach and across a small creek. Along the way I couldn't help but thinking how strange it felt to be called an 'anarchist'. I'd never been called one before. It's no secret that I've always been one to question the assertions of absolute authority, those who know me even cursorily know this much to be true, but his declaration still caused me to pause and consider what it meant. Did I miss something? Certainly I considered myself a proud nonconformist but for how long have I been an anarchist? Wasn't it John Milton who wrote that:

"constructive criticism of [our leaders] is far better than false flattery."

And Milton, as far as I knew, wasn't considered by historians as an anarchist. I had always considered the act of questioning authority an important part of living in a democratic society. I thought I was simply representing the dissenting voice in a free and open society in the same way professor of philosophy at Cornell, George H. Sabine, had so famously wrote when endorsing John Milton's Areopagitica:

"[A free and open societies] basic principle was the right and also the duty of every intelligent man as a rational being, to know the grounds and take responsibility for his beliefs and actions. It's corollary was a society and state in which decisions were reached by open discussion, in which the sources of information are not contaminated by authority in the interest of party, and in which political unity is secured not by force but by a consensus that respects variety of opinion."

While it is true that Milton and Sabine were both important historical figures in the fight against government censorship neither were considered anarchists. As far as I was concerned I was merely being rational, I was only attempting to live up to the 'responsibility of every intelligent man living within a free and open society'. The truth is, up until that chance encounter with the random stranger I had never, for more than a mere moment, contemplated myself as some kind of anarchist. How did my beliefs become so controversial? Had the definition of anarchy somehow slid closer to center without me noticing or, was I simply ignorant to the true definition of anarchy? Was it true I asked myself, am I really and anarchist? This question proceeded to dominate the rest of my day at the beach.

Once I arrived home, the first thing I did was look up several dictionary interpretations of anarchy. I then started researching the qualifications of an anarchist. I watched videos and read articles and over the next several weeks I would read books on the topic, even engaging in online conversations and questioning my friends and family on their definition of anarchy. And what I found was, that when one defines 'anarchy' accurately, the general public's understanding of the word is far from accurate. The true definition had been co-opted, hidden and manipulated by propaganda and now, in the 21st century, it's definition implied something far more sinister than its original intention.

Anarchism, according to the Mirriam Webster dictionary can essentially be defined as something like: an absence of government or the absence or denial of authority. This being a fairly incomplete interpretation that every dictionary seemed to offer, I noticed that they all wasted little time invoking the non sequitur fallacy, employing words like chaos, unruly, social disorder, turbulence and so on. But isn't this an example of attaching an assumption or opinion to a definition? And isn't the definition of terms the most common source of misunderstandings and the cause of nearly all conflict or argument? I soon found that using anarchy as a pejorative term is an irresponsible or even ignorant exercise. Furthermore, to use 'anarchy' interchangeably with descriptive words like disorder, chaos or tumult is to fatally misrepresent it and to fail in an effort to define the word properly. This amounted to nothing more than a fallacious effort to poison the well and now I could feel my interest pique even further. Why were dictionaries of some repute following their definition with that which does not follow? How are they attaching an assumptive effect to an illusionary cause? How did they arrive at these stereotypical conclusions? This all leading me to an important question - had anarchy ever been attempted in real life and if so, did it really conclude in chaos and social disorder? More on that in a moment.

First, I would like to offer a more accurate interpretation of what I believe anarchy to be. When one is to attempt anarchism, whether in their own personal life, a group of people or within a large society it can be defined as something similar to this:

anarchism: (noun); to converge the philosophy of benevolence with the action

of self governance. Or, combining a life lived in accordance with the concept of self-determination with the adherence to non combative, non violent action.

The reader may take notice that no where do I advocate the use of balaclavas or spray paint or the setting of fires to cities. No where do I promote the generating of havoc and chaos upon themselves or within their community. All anarchy really means is living a life devoid of governmental dependency. It means stepping away from the social programs of the Welfare State. Anarchy, in simple terms, includes the harmless acts of growing your own food; collecting your own water; being in charge of your own education; the promotion of your own individuality and consciousness, creativity and imagination; the pursuit of happiness through an entrepreneurial outlet in which you can support yourself and your family without the disruptive influence of government oversight. It means being in control of your own life by making mature, rational decisions while being thoughtful and careful to not adversely affect others with the careless acts of selfishness. To be a well developed individual is the perfect antidote to a tyrannical government.

It seems that this alternative definition of anarchy is far from the dictionary definition offered by Oxford scholars that overtly implies the overthrow of government. In fact, the acts of self-awareness or self-determination seem to be exactly the opposite of what the dictionary or mainstream television portray anarchy to actually be. One could even say that the false meaning offered by the dictionary and the practical reality of anarchy are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. It had become painfully obvious that my previously held definition, or preconceived notion of anarchy wasn't my own but had been given to me and completely false and I was forced to discard my old, stereotypical beliefs. Interesting to note as well that the combination of action with philosophy can be interpreted as the true expression of art. Meaning that living a life in such a way as to combine your philosophy with the active pursuit of said lifestyle is an art form. Upon further reflection some, maybe even Aristotle himself - if I may be so bold as to speak for an ancient philosopher - could categorize anarchy as the art of happiness!

Furthermore to the question being asked herein. Anarchists from the past like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who many consider to be the 'father of anarchy' and, interestingly, a member of the left, advocated for 'order without power' and interest free loans. Or consider Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism that promoted self-ownership, private property and free markets without government. Or Josiah Warren, who, perhaps more than anyone else gives us tangible, real-world examples of a successful version of anarchy. Warren edited the first anarchist periodical, The Peaceful Revolutionist and lauded the 'sovereignty of the individual' . Warren should be considered an historical figure of some importance, however the State, that entity in direct competition with any competing variant of government, regards him as someone they would rather you never know.

Derrick Broze, co-author of Manifesto of the Free Humans spoke of Warren's contributions recently during a Corbett Report interview published on April 17, 2017, entitled, The Most Dangerous Philosophy: What the Oligarchs Don't Want You to Know.

"We have somebody (Warren), a historical example of somebody who had a community of thousands of people with no cops, no courts, no jails and they dealt with people by excommunication, they stopped doing business with people that were unfavorable...things we talk about in theory that we can look to and see, and they didn't fail...they just got swallowed up and incorporated into the State unfortunately"

Not one of these early pioneers - Warren, Proudhon nor Rothbard lived a life of malevolence or violence, each defying the over-used stereotype of lawlessness, chaos, havoc and violent revolution that I spoke of earlier that seems to permeate popular culture today. And I reiterate, that it should not be lost upon the reader that this lazy, propagandized, fictional depiction of anarchy originates from that source to which anarchy is the greatest threat, the over-extended, failing State.

No, these men are not violent supporters of murder and mayhem, they never advocated the use of violence in the streets, they only wished to move towards the decentralization and discontinuation of an authoritative ruling power, something that all of us, as human beings in the pursuit of happiness should be interested in. And while the State hydra digresses into tyranny it continues to hoard power and attempts to suppress humanity at every turn, quick to use every crisis as a platform and every chaotic event as a reason to take more of the public's sovereignty. The State is more than aware that the world is busily heading in another direction entirely and is desperately scrambling to get out in front of people empowering technology.

With the emergence of blockchain technology we are now seeing the systematic restructuring of society as we know it and the State is terrified. A transfer of power is happening in real time so dramatic, that many experts liken it to the advent of Gutenberg's printing press or the introduction of the internet. A large portion of the populace are actually unknowing witnesses to a silent revolution - the decentralization of information, communication and commerce. Any movement away from the centralized control of the Federal Reserve could be one of the more significant historical events ever and can only serve to empower the citizenry, however, when you couple that with the emergence of mesh networks, a new distributive form of internet, there is no doubt that we have an unprecedented opportunity right in the palm of our hands. On paper, it would seem to be the peaceful transfer of knowledge and power that has been long overdue. As the pendulum swings the way of the everyday man or woman an historical event is now at hand that will inevitably lead to diminished state power and a strengthening of the freedoms and rights of the individual, and all we need to do is grasp it.

So, as the next generation of communists argue the reasons for a static, bureaucratically controlled system, while vehemently denying the efficacy of capitalism and a free market economy, and the Libertarian movement offer valid objections to counter the Marxist' invalid propositions, blockchain technology may have made the entire debate moot. While one side argues that a society needs stringent government oversight to keep itself honest while the other believes that a 'free market system' can act as its own coordinator, mesh networks have irrevocably altered the landscape. And, if voicing my opposition to governmental control mechanisms means the end of our debt based, fractional reserve, fiat banking system; the end of information censorship; the end of omnipotent surveillance; the end of government support for perverted industries like Big Pharma and Big Ag or the end of our corrupted compulsory school system, then I say to you, dear stranger in the trees, yes, I am really an anarchist.