“The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually, the three philosophies are barely distinguishable.”
– George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9

I frequently get berated for the “impractical” nature of my faith in society’s ability to exist without government. But the truth of the matter is that government isn’t really a part of my day to day life. I don’t need to do anything that requires government involvement in any way. In truth, the only times I interact with the government in any way is when I pay them for the privilege of getting permission to do something that really has nothing to do with them.

Want to drive a car? Buy road tax, get an MOT, etc. It’s not like I don’t pay a princely sum to keep my car in tip-top nick already, but that does not matter to the faceless bureaucrats who spend my road taxes on everything but roads, and insist that may car ticks a number of boxes before it goes out on the road. The fact that I could drive a car which becomes an MOT failure immediately after certification for 364 days after its MOT, entirely legally, is neither here nor there. The bureaucratic box is ticked.

People will insist on arguing that without government to keep us all safe, heartless businessmen would inflict all kinds of cruelty upon us. And it is true that intentionally or unintentionally, a business could inflict some kind of cruelty upon us, but it happens now, yet we’re paying for a burdensome monster to make all of our lives less pleasant that doesn’t really protect us, it just disguises the cost of these things from us. And government does not protect us from murder or burglary, the best it can do is to identify the miscreant and offer them some kind of punishment. Unless, of course, they just give us a crime number and go back to their doughnuts and coffee.

I also get chastised by people who adhere to one political party or another for having the ludicrous notion that there is no material difference between the three main parties. But the truth is that political parties sit on a continuum of interference and direction of how we should all live our lives. Some call for less invasion and hectoring, some call for more, but crucially, all of them insist that without the wisdom and kindness of government to direct us, we would all revert to some kind of feral madness.

The idea that people will just get along most of the time, like they currently do, without a government, is what makes one an anarchist.

Anarchists, in the true sense of the word, are people who believe, like I do, that people do not need a government to prevent them from behaving like feral animals. (In my opinion, there are two main kinds of anarchists, those who believe in property rights and those that don’t. People who don’t believe in property rights are trying to ignore basic behaviour found in most animals. Animals mark their territory, gather their own (or their own “family’s”) food for winter, etc. The idea that something is “mine” and that it can be stolen from me is pretty fundamental to most forms of multi-cellular life. To try and deny something that fundamental would seem absolutely counter-productive to me.)

But the point is this: most people, when left alone, will rub along together fine. Sure, there will always be personality clashes, but by and large, we all just get along, and if we’re not getting along, we vote with our feet and go elsewhere.

And when I’m talking to someone (I may be alone in this, I realise) I very rarely think: “Shall I kill this person and take all their possessions? Oh, I’d better not, lest the government come after me!”

None of our normal day to day life and social interaction actually requires government intervention. Government does not, ultimately, properly protect us.

Now, having read this far, you may either agree or disagree with me, but I think it’s fair to say that I’ve made a reasonable, coherent argument as to the reasons why I am an anarchist: I don’t see the need to get the government’s permission to do what I want to do, I believe that left to their own devices people will just get along and I don’t believe that government is the wise protector it’s made out to be.

No blood has been spilled, no-one’s offices have been trashed, and hopefully, one or two people are now wondering why exactly it is that they pay so much tax.

So why exactly is it that the police feel the need to single out anarchists as the new jihadi?

What should you do if you discover an anarchist living next door? Dust off your old Sex Pistols albums and hang out a black and red flag to make them feel at home? Invite them round to debate the merits of Peter Kropotkin’s anarchist communism versus the individualist anarchism of Emile Armand? No – the answer, according to an official counter-terrorism notice circulated in London last week, is that you must report them to police immediately.

This was the surprising injunction from the Metropolitan Police issued to businesses and members of the public in Westminster last week. There was no warning about other political groups, but next to an image of the anarchist emblem, the City of Westminster police’s “counter terrorist focus desk” called for anti-anarchist whistle-blowers stating: “Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police.”

I can’t help but feel slightly baffled by this. Almost everybody who has met me knows that I am an anarchist. I’m always happy to argue my beliefs and hear counterarguments. I don’t go round destroying monuments or blowing up public buildings. All I do is argue that the state is undesirable (it costs too much and hides the true costs of things going wrong), unnecessary (because we’d all just get on like we do today anyway) and harmful (because of state-sanctioned wars, police shooting innocent people and various other misdeeds). To all intents and purposes, this post means that the Metropolitan Police want to know about me.

This looks like a spectacular own goal by the Met. If a mild-mannered, middle-aged man who has never troubled anyone else in his life needs to be monitored and regarded as a threat to the world, then the Met look like a bunch of idiots. Given the awful publicity they’ve had recently with their own incompetence, I hardly think they need to indulge any more blatant stupidity.

But the fact of the matter is that this chills me. It makes me wonder if some vindictive or deranged policeman might not be tempted to fit me up or start making my life uncomfortable, just because I have perfectly reasonable and peaceful views.

The Metropolitan Police have committed more than their fair share of actual crimes, have harmed far more innocent people than I have and yet they see fit to intimidate anarchists who have not done anything.

Why do they feel the need to do this?

Oh Gawd, no more!
August 21, 2011 at 02:20

Another gem from the article quoted above…”The next big anarchist event in
London appears hardly likely to concern the police. It is a book fair in
October with “all-day cabaret starring assorted ranters, poets, singers and
comics; all-day film showings and two kids’ spaces”. Can these people please
be dumped at sea. Make it soon, eh.

John B August 5, 2011 at 14:59

I would be disinclined to let someone slap a label on me that they had
defined and with which definition I disagreed.
I am for individual freedom
and individual responsibility. Unless responsibility comes from within the
individual it becomes unworkable, and the individuals tend towards
slobs.
As has happened.
Of course if people are slobs it does make
controlling them more justified, so perhaps that’s also a factor as to why
controlled slobs seem to be sometimes preferred rather than free thinking
gentlemen.
The words anarchy and anarchism have been given different
meanings to their original, and are now understood as promoting chaos and
violence, especially of a left wing (collectivist) political orientation,
which is of course the complete opposite of, and alien to, the original
meanings associated with individual responsibility.
In fairness to the
writer of that instruction one has to accept the inaccurate interpretation has
been in common usage for a long time.
But he should do some homework.

right_writes
August 5, 2011 at 14:54

@TJW…

From your description, I would have recognised you as a rightie, like
me.

Semantics is a taxing business… Oh well!

Just out of interest, I live about a mile from where Peter Kropotkin used
to live, but it’s not a particularly awe inspiring building, and neither is it
owned or operated by the National Trust or English Heritage…. (I think you
will agree that these two essential government bodies could do such important
work here)…

No, this rather dull looking late 19C villa is privately occupied.

Thaddeus J.
Wilson August 5, 2011 at 13:14

“In truth, I can think of few societies (apart from very small ones, many
of which are extinct) which have prospered without some kind of
government.”

Robert, do you not think (as I do) that societies prosper despite
government, rather than because of it?

Robert Edwards
August 5, 2011 at 19:37

Yes, I do agree – generally. But many of the – shall we call them ‘coping
skills’(?) – are best acquired by those who need them at the time. We must
take our bumps. There are many, and most (not all) of the gaps created can
be filled by enterprise and anticipation; imagination, if you like. People
will die, swept by famine or plague, or washed away by tidal waves, or
slaughtered in conflict. The latter is, in m view, the most unforgivable,
because it was avoidable. By imagination.

So governments extort money to give in ‘aid’ to, say, the government of
Somalia. Net result is a nice fat order to Mercedes-Benz. So we at present
seem to have African government.

Mind you, I don’t really approve of NGOs either…

Thaddeus J.
Wilson August 6, 2011 at 11:47

“People will die, swept by famine or plague, or washed away by tidal
waves, or slaughtered in conflict. The latter is, in m view, the most
unforgivable, because it was avoidable. By imagination.”

It’s true that if you look around you will find that there are “civil
wars” in very uncivil places. But the objective of war is to control the
government of the “enemy”. The centralization of power is what makes war
attractive: defeat the army of the incumbent and you increase your tax
base, control of resources, etc., etc.

Now imagine if there was no central authority to conquer. You would
have to defeat every household (all most likely armed) and every business
one at a time, and conquering one would mean nothing in terms extending
your control.

One of the greatest benefits of anarchy would, ironically, be the fact
that war would become entirely impractical.

Simon Cooke August
5, 2011 at 11:37

As a good citizen I will now report you to my local police – such sedition
should be dealt with severely

Robert Edwards
August 5, 2011 at 11:03

A big subject, this, naturally. In truth, I can think of few societies
(apart from very small ones, many of which are extinct) which have prospered
without some kind of government.

But it is the definition of ‘government’ (which has morphed into the
hyperactive, intrusive, bloated scarfing-pig which it now represents) which
needs redefining. in the early days of Soviet Russia, when the Bolshevik writ
did not run large or wide, most of the suffering inflicted was, nonetheless
the reponsibility of Moscow. In those areas which were unaffected (very few)
there is evidence that society survived, co-operated and was able to
distribute skills successfully, usually in order of utility.

When central power was established, these groups were slaughtered. So in
that case, ‘government’ felt the need to prove that it was necessary and God
help you if you had survived without it.

‘Anarchy’ is a perfectly respectable political philosophy. Where the plods
have made a catastrophic error is to confuse it with Nihilism. We should not
be surprised at this; as I’ve said before, the police are not the sharpest
tools in the box and never have been. To refer to someone who pisses on the
Cenotaph as an ‘anarchist’ is a simple semantic error. He is merely a cunt.
The big mistake the police are making is o confuse themselves with the
executive. BIG mistake…

‘Monarchy’ is also respectable. Historically, Monarchies only survived
because the Monarch understood that he/she was only in power by the consent of
(and critically the finance by) his/her subjects. Those who forgot that paid a
heavy price. ‘Politics is the art of the possible’ (Bismarck). George
Washington was offered the Crown of America by the Continental Congress. He
turned it down on the grounds that the United States did not need another King
George.

‘Reactionary’ is also respectable. I am a reactionary – indeed I spent much
of my life attempting to maintain standards which were extinct long before I
was born. I am also a Libertarian. I am pleased to report that there is some
evidence that I am not alone. But I am not Colonel Blimp. Or perhaps I am.
Question: Are Libertarians Reactionaries?

There’s a revealing tale from the Alan Clark Diaries:
Rex Harrison, the
actor, was drinking late with a Tory MP of the Libertarian persuasion. “The
trouble with this country”, says Harrison, is that we’re governed by Cunts.
(This during a Labour administration). The MP replies: “Well, yes, Rex, but
there are a great many cunts in this country and they deserve
representation…”

Or, words to that effect.

So, to be a ‘democrat’ (at least in the light of the above) suddenly looks
ridiculous…

Talwin August 5, 2011 at 10:49

TJW.
This puts me in mind of Moliere’s ‘Bourgeois Gentilhomme’ who was
delighted to learn that he had been speaking prose all his life.

Although I’ve long been aware that I spoke prose, on reading your piece
I’ve now learned that all along I may have been something of anarchist.

Do I need to turn myself in?

Michael
Fowke August 5, 2011 at 10:25

They won’t take us alive!

Single Acts Of Tyranny August 5, 2011 at 21:36

They won’t take me at all?

something about not being bullied at school and so not vengeful, petty
bureaucrat material; that and my parents were married; and I don’t want to
interfere in anyone else’s life, nor take their money by force or initiate
violence of any kind against them….

Johnnydub August 5, 2011 at 10:02

Because whether or not you think the mad Norwegian was a false flag op… It
has given the state the perfect opportunity to smear and target anyone who
might oppose them..

Uncle
Marvo August 5, 2011 at 09:47

Because, dearest Raccoon, they are scared absolutely shitless of us
anarchists.

That is the one and only reason.

Libertarians do not bother them at all, because they want less of the same,
but the same nevertheless.

God save the Queen. SNORK

JimS August 5, 2011 at 09:13

But you are up against official logic that has become endemic.

My local authority wants to destroy a nearby road with ‘speed tables’.
Apparently the move is ‘popular’ because 429 consultation letters were sent
out and only two objections received, (why didn’t they include the 7 billion
other world citizens that didn’t object either on their side too?). To carry
out similar works on all of our local roads, using their own figures, would
cost £40 million and might save 0.8 of a child’s life per annum. I suggested
that this was a poor use of money and it should be put towards current
national budget savings. Using their official logic such non-spending is not a
‘saving’ but is ‘lost’ money. Perhaps that is why my local taxes are the
largest single item in my budget?

ManNotNumber
August 5, 2011 at 08:46

Any parasite reacts violently when it fears for its survival. As with the
alien attached to John Hurt’s face in “Alien”, it is spitting poison.

Single
Acts Of Tyranny August 5, 2011 at
08:40

Ignorance and fear.

It encouraged me enormously, since they no longet think we can be
ignored!