On Monday Sept 21st, multiple media publications reported that the Trump Dept. of Justice officially designated NYC, Seattle, and Portland as ‘anarchist jurisdictions. The decision came as a result of the cities’ progressive governments allowing violent rioting to run rampant for months, causing massive damage to property, hurting innocent citizens, and diminishing the quality of life. Now that the federal government has officially made the same mistake that many Facebook pundits have made, we must address this error.
Literally, the word ‘anarchy’ means ‘without rulers’. Breaking down its Greek roots, it means without a king or ruler, just like ‘monarchy’ means ‘one ruler’. While each individual can and should have their own perspective on every concept, definitions do matter. Many individuals in the US identify as ‘anarchists’, because they believe that no human ruler should have complete ownership of them, and that each human has the total right to self-ownership. These people often refer to themselves as ‘voluntaryists’, because they believe that all actions must be voluntary and consensual by all parties involved; according to anarchists, using violence to coerce people to act against their will is immoral. Their philosophy states that government as we know it should not exist, because government is 100% predicated on coercion and threats of violence. Governments are funded by taxation, which is extortion by threat of physical violence. And governments effect nearly every policy via the threat of violence (kidnap, prison, fines, execution, etc.).
In the above cases, do the cities of NYC, Seattle, and Portland fit the definition of ‘anarchist’ by any measure?
Those cities have governments. NYC actually has 54,000 cops, the NYPD costs taxpayers $10 billion annually, and they enforce the strictest gun laws in the US. Seattle and Portland have massive amounts of regulations on daily living imposed by politicians and cops. All three of the above city governments also make it as difficult as possible for peaceful citizens to own a firearm for self protection. These infringements on our rights are by law, and are enforced by armed government agents. Keep in mind that ‘anarchist’ would mean that no government, cops, taxes, or laws would exist at all. So, do these governments sound more anarchist or authoritarian?
If the above cities were ‘anarchist’, as the top law enforcement official in the US claims, they would have no taxes and no gun control laws, meaning that every resident living in the jurisdictions would have an un-infringed right to own any firearm they want and carry it however they desire. While some riots by BLM and other anti-white and Marxist groups have become violent, the events of the past few months would have played out much differently if the victims of these violent riots had the right to defend themselves.
Additionally, the protestors are the opposite of anarchists; they are Marxist authoritarians. They want higher taxes and more gun control. They want less personal freedom. Their primary goal is to abolish capitalism and empower the government to become a communist regime, similar to that of Cuba or North Korea. They are advocating for more government, not less. Keep in mind that the foundation for all of voluntaryism and anarchism is the concept of ‘property rights’. This means that each person has the right to own their property, and that they may not violate the property that does not belong to them. Burning down a store belonging to anyone other than oneself violates the core principle of libertarian anarchist ideology.
“When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” said WIlliam Barr, the US Attorney General and head of the DOJ. Barr is either mistaken or lying, because police have no legal or practical duty to protect individuals; their legal duty is to apprehend suspects.
A good policy?
The reason for the new designation of the progressive cities is to begin considering decreasing some federal dollars from being given to the jurisdictions if they continue to allow anti-white Marxist riots to continue. This is an excellent idea for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the federal government should not tax individuals. Secondly, they should not use that tax money as leverage (read: extortion) to coerce jurisdictions into doing what they want. Thirdly, cutting federal funds would force jurisdictions to become less dependent on the federal government, which may cause them to consider such radical concepts as ‘accountability’, or maybe even ‘sovereignty’.
All about police
Many conservatives, including Trump and Barr, believe that anyone who supports decreasing police budgets must want to diminish the government, and must therefore be an anarchist. In a logical response to the rampant police misconduct throughout the US, many progressives have begun to support shifting some funds from police budgets to programs that could include community policing, better training, supporting victims of police, and mental health treatment. Personally, I don’t believe that politicians should take our money. However, I would rather see money used on these programs if the alternative is buying more tanks for police or hiring more officers.
It is no mistake that traditional education (read: government-administered education) in the US teaches students that ‘anarchy’ is the exact same thing as ‘evil’ and ‘chaos’. We have all heard this horrible misconception in classrooms and in the real world. Many adults mistakenly believe that anarchy is chaos, destruction, violence, and would amount to societal collapse. Even I used to believe this. And then I realized that if the whole US magically became ‘anarchist’, not much would change. What would happen, however, is that laws and taxes would disappear. This would mean that our elderly and sick parents would finally be able to obtain firearms for self protection without fearing that police would punish them physically for possessing a weapon in their home. Anarchy would also mean that taxes would cease to exist, meaning that our parents would be able to live without fear of losing their homes or going hungry – or relying on ironic government ‘assistance’ to make ends meet. Without government, I would be able to build a shed in my backyard without worrying about armed government agents punishing me for failing to obtain a zoning permit. Anarchy is an entrepreneur and an employee agreeing to an employment contract without government involvement. Without government, we would have no politicians manipulating our money and using a fraudulent monetary system to finance infinite and endless wars in so many places on Earth.
While this policy proposal has some merit, the verbiage and process utilized by conservatives is sorely misguided, in this instance. Whenever their beloved police are attacked, the political right seems to become flustered and jump to their defense so hastily that they neglect logic and practicality, and in this case, the basics of the English language. So, the next time a conservative friend mentions online that socialist authoritarian regimes like the governments of NYC, Seattle, and Portland are ‘anarchist’, send them this article and politely correct them.