Today, I learned that the #illuminati started out as an Anarchist organization. 

I don’t do the whole #illuminati thing, but I would if they were openly anarchist. 

c-enturion:

pizzavanguard:

sugashane:

To the people who want to actively destroy government, I ask “Why turn to violence? Don’t even bother.” In the long run, every single government will inevitably destroy itself. 

to the people who want to actively destroy government im like okay but u wont also please go away 

‘every single government will inevitably destroy itself’ lmao what a bold and weird claim to make

it’s a good statement, except that why should people have to wait for corruption and greed and repression to collapse on itself when we could cause its immediate collapse and be free from all those years of fascism and instability?

Why? Because using force is not the answer, especially when it’s the use of force that you are fighting. 

A stateless society will be unstable and even unattainable unless the people are ready for it. Until the people are ready for it, you can’t force them to live in a stateless society simply because it fits your preferences, just like you don’t think they can force you to live under an oppressive state. 

But the beauty of it is that everything since civilization first formed has been a movement from monarchy and absolute control by the few to less control or decentralized control and so long as the trend continues, the end result will be statelessness. 

So why let it continue? Because that’s the natural order of things. You can’t force natures hand. Eliminate the state today and tomorrow you have chaos, not anarchy. 

The people simply aren’t ready. This is obvious. They still believe they need government, they need to be taken care of. Until the people realize that they are capable themselves and their confidence grows, you can’t convince them to shed the state. Eliminate one state and another grows in its place. 

But the goal and the hope is that enough people learn and grow, as individuals, that eventually when a state decays and is on the verge of elimination, the people don’t replace it and instead they move on. 

It’s happening. Slowly, but the signs are there. 

effectiveresistance replied to your post: To the people who want to actively destroy…

This post is nonfactual and very dangerous.

Well, no. The reason why some people are willing to use any means necessary to fight back, is to save the earth. The earth is what’s at stake. Civilization will very likely make the planet uninhabitable on it’s way down. We desperately need to act.

Is it now? Just look at all the governments through out history. They all eventually crumble. Every single one of them. 

To save the Earth? Hilarious. 

If we nuked ourselves off the face of this planet, the Earth would be damaged, but over time, it will heal and correct itself and move on. We will be gone, the Earth will be here. The amount of damage we’d have to inflict onto the Earth to destroy it is nearly impossible because humanity wouldn’t be able to survive the process for long enough to see it through. 

We do need to act, but not violently. That’s relying on the same force that government uses to bring about our preferences. How is that justifiable? It’s not.

Put down the violence and pick up the knowledge. That’s our only hope. 

To the people who want to actively destroy government, I ask “Why turn to violence? Don’t even bother.” In the long run, every single government will inevitably destroy itself. 

I think that if you really think about and respect the idea of anarchism or voluntaryism then you are understanding of the idea that some people actually want government, despite the known downfalls and that if these people are willing and open to government then we have to accept that fact and allow them to have a government. Just like we accept that some people want to do drugs and do so much that they overdose. Their habit, their problem. 

What I can’t accept, however, is when they try to push their love and dependence on government on to others who don’t want that coercive force in their life and try to force them to live under an unwanted system for the so-called “good of society”. 

Likewise, the same theory can be applied to any and everything. For example, if people want public school or a Federal Reserve and they don’t mind a percentage of their income being taken for that purpose, we, as anarchists or voluntaryists shouldn’t have an adverse reaction to that. We should first ask if they know what the downfalls are, and if they do then we can only move on. 

If we were to try and force them to give up their statism then we’d be no better than the statists who try and force people into government indoctrination. In other words, using force is wrong no matter what, even when trying to “free people”. They might have a completely different set of ideals and they might feel free in a system that we feel entrapped in. 

This is why I don’t support violent revolution. This is why I don’t support Coup d’états. This is why I’m not a fan of “killing for freedom” or “bombing for peace”. If the idea of liberty and freedom is so good, the people will embrace it without force. If it’s not what they want, then we failed either as a philosophy or in our ability to teach it. We need an intellectual revolution, as Ron Paul says. We need an awakening of the minds and a warming of the hearts. 

I guess at this point we can infer that if we aren’t able to teach or convey the message of liberty and voluntary interaction, free markets and statelessness that our only choice would be to pull a John Galt leave the system that isn’t for us and find a new territory, with like minded people and a system that we can believe in and live by. 

I’m hoping for the prior. 

This message brought to you by alcohol.