This is a rough draft. I wrote it in an hour or so, on a major lack of sleep. I tried to edit it from Word to the forums, so there might be a few errors in translation:
I was an outspoken Libertarian for a long time. *[When spelled with a CAPITAL L (Libertarian), that denotes someone who is part of the party. When spelled with a lower case L (libertarian), that denotes someone who is a libertarian, but not a member of the party]. I joined the party back in 2005. But, for the 2008 presidential election, the Libertarian Party elected Bob Barr to represent them as their presidential candidate. Now, let's be realistic for a second. The Libertarian Party had no chance of winning the election, no matter who was on their ballot. But instead of standing for their beliefs, the Libertarian Party elected Bob Barr to represent them. Barr went against everything the Libertarian Party stood for. Barr was a former Republican representative from Georgia. Barr claimed, as many new Libertarians say, "I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me." But people like Bob Barr and other prominent Libertarians have simply followed the Republican mold. They continually support the Iraq War, wiretaps, the Cuban embargo, the drug war, bans on gay marriage, and dozens upon dozens of issues I could dive into.
The most important part is that the Libertarian Party completely went against their party values and choose someone who was just another Bush Republican. They though Barr would bring attention to the party, even if he was completely at odds with the ideology. Though in the end, the Libertarian Party received 125,000 more votes compared to the 2004 election, but taking into account the voter turnout, it is not much of an increase.
How could a party completely betray what they believe in? It disgusted me. Within hours of Barr's nomination, I wrote an e-mail to the Libertarian Party and demanded to be removed from the party list. I also told them never to send me anymore packages or letters. I was not alone. Many people were horrified at the turn of the party. How could an Iraq War supporter, Patriot Act supporter, gay basher, anti-drug proponent, and general Republican become the nominee for the Libertarian Party?
As soon as Barr was nominated, I began to look to other political parties to fit into. I believed in the free-market, minimal government, and free press above all. It took about two years before I found the "Boston Tea Party." I disgruntled member of the Libertarian Party created the BTP because he did not like the direction of the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately the BTP had no clear goals or policy issues. I quickly left them. I soon questioned the role of government, and its right to exist.
I saw the oppression that government created around the world. I could give thousands of examples. But specifically looking at the United States, this country has thrived off of war and oppressive government since its conception. For less that 20% of the US's existence has it not been in a state of war. Imagine that: for our 233 years of existence, we have only been at peace for 40 or so years. It is difficult to find any country that has not been in war for less than 20% of its existence. Not only that, but the US and other powerful nations profited off of war. Since 1945, the US has been overthrowing democratic governments and been replacing them with dictatorships in order to profit. Recently, the United States has replaced the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, the candidates who most satisfied US interests were coincidentally elected.
With the war profiteering, the US government has been able to support brutal and murderous governments around the world (The Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Israel, Saddam Hussein, and dozens more). At the beginning of my college career, I was slightly conservative. Now, I have nothing but disgust and hatred for government. As I have done further research into what world governments have done, I cannot help but despise government.
This led me directly into Anarchism. There are many misconceptions about Anarchism. Most people see Anarchism as "No Gods, no masters" or "Everyone for themselves!" This is not anarchism. Many Anarchist communities have existed throughout our time. Many are religious societies while others have very competent police forces and law enforcement and have a well run society. They exist to this day (ex. Freetown Christiania in Denmark).
As I drove deeper into Anarchist thought, I realized that there were many schools of Anarchism. Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Feminism, Individualist Anarchism, Egoism, Objectivism, Left Libertarianism, Collectivist-Anarchism, Religious Anarchism, and many more. Some forms were compatible with each other. For the past year or so, I have settled on Individualist Anarchism. But, this system of Anarchism is a broad spectrum in itself. If one accepts the Left-Right political scale, it ranges from center left to far right. I guess my views change a lot. I could spend hundreds of pages going over each and every political view I hold. But I will not do that here, as there is too much to write, and my views constantly change.
Of course, being an Anarchist, I have to live with several contradictions. The first contradiction I always hear is being religious and an Anarchist. Again, the misconception of "No gods, no masters" is always brought to my attention. Though many Anarchists are atheists, that does not mean all Anarchists are. I personally consider myself a "believer in Christ." I despise organized religion which is why I reject the term "Christian" for myself. Organized religion is corrupt and exists to keep the elites in power. It brings forth common enemies to oppress the masses (a subject that I will get into later). But without getting into further explanation, Anarchists do not have to be atheist.
The main contradiction I have to live with is living in a society that has government. "Why don't you just become a hermit and live without government" people ask me when I declare my Anarchist views. Tom Morello, lead guitarist of Rage Against the Machine and Socialist, had to answer to why the band signed a deal with Sony, a Capitalist institution. He responded that when living in a Capitalist world, he had to get by with the system that was in place. He mentioned that Noam Chomsky, a prominent Socialist, sells his books for quite a profit, but he has to because he lives in a Capitalist world. In order to make change, he has to use the system in place. Now, I am no Socialist. I have never been too big a fan of left-wing economics, but I can understand where Morello was coming from.
I live in a world where government exists. Government rules my life and I have to accept that for now. I doubt that within my life time that the world will turn to Anarchism (or the version that I like the most). So, throughout my life, I have to deal with the fact that government exists and I will always have to rely on them. Government is set up to make people dependent on it. Whenever there are tough economic times, people fall back on government to help them. When there is a civil rights issue, all sides will lean on government to pick their side. Other times, government will come in to solve an issue the way that it sees fit. Often, the solution will benefit the government itself the most. Government, whether in a free or oppressed society, convinces the public that it must exist to protect the people from other oppressors.
These other oppressors are presumably, other governments. Government has always binded people together by creating a common enemy. Since the beginning of the first civilizations, one the main aspect that kept states together was a common enemy. The Greeks had the Persians, the Christians fought the Muslims, and the Americans fight the terrorists. Without an enemy, what need is there for the state? If there is no state, the elites in power will lose their power. In order to stay at the top, they need to create an enemy to scare the common person. The elites need to create violence to convince the people they are fighting for the state and common protection from foreign oppressors. The enemy does the same. The elites convince their citizens that in order to protect their families and loved ones, they must fight and die. But without an enemy, the state is useless. Without a state, the elites can no longer rule over the commoners. Thus, the elites of society must keep the state, a common enemy, and violence going in order to stay in power.
This has led me to believe that the state exists only to serve the interests of the elite. In turn, this means the state will do violence against its pre-determined enemy in order for society to feel protected from foreign oppressors, which justifies the role of the state in society. I see government as naturally evil and violent. The only way it can exist is for it to do violence against others to make its citizens feel protected and to continually justify its existence. Without violence and a common enemy, the state has no reason to exist. Thus the state must create new enemies constantly in order to serve the interests of those up top. Once those on the highest rung feel threatened, a new enemy is created to justify the existence of government.
In the end, I feel government is naturally violent and destructive. As long as government exists, the world will be full of violence and hatred. We will continually have random and subjective enemies to suit the interests of those who hold power. I know in my lifetime, government will never cease to exist. But if I can promote the ideas of peace and minimalist government in the life of each and every citizen in the world, that is all I can do. Maybe someday, far in the future, some of my thoughts will be recognized as logical, and a step towards peace and non-aggression can be made.
