Letwing Anarchism

In wake of Katrina, an immeasurable tragedy, I as an individual, as a proud Albertan, and as a Canadian consider these people my brothers and sisters, so I urge everyone to display the generosity that only a free people have the capacity to show other free people. Americans, by no coincidence, are the most giving people on the planet, and Albertans and Canadians owing to these standards should own up and be accounted for through their own generosity and love.
Now to the politics…

I’ve believed in freedom for a long time, excluding the time I was old enough to discover the Communist Manifesto (17) and until the time I was smart enough to refute it (20) and since this time I’ve been lumped in with anarchists and libertarians as defenders of the right. As a philosophy guy at the university an individual has his back up against the wall enough of the time so rarley pursued this subtle battle between us, but being lumped with anarchist only hurt my credibility. The simple thought process goes “what if an individual doesn’t want to relinquish his right to defend himself?” “Isn’t that a legitimate aspect of freedom?” “Anarchy is true equality!” Anarchist believe that man should be free to pursue all values whatever they are--ahhh… moral equivalence-- and that is the pinnacle of freedom. But this type of thinking links freedom with the subjective and arbitrary when actual freedom is incompatible with the arbitrary as freedom is routed in the foundation of objective law.

So now I want to break the bond between liberalism and anarchy for good. Anarchists are just a more subtle form of leftwing politics, routed in the collective and tribal.

The streets of New Orleans are an example of anarchism. Is that freedom? Most people would say NO, but couldn’t answer the anarchist’s most poignant question-- “what if an individual doesn’t wan to relinquish his right to defend himself?”, “isn’t that a legitimate aspect of freedom?”, thus leading them to be sympathetic to government controls. But that's wrong. What was the first thing that happened when law and order broke down in New Orleans? People sought some semblance of order by organizing into groups. Groups which were eventually ruled by strongmen, which created massive amounts of violence towards the individual citizen. And so what choice does the individual have but to join a group himself for his own protection, to join the tribalist mentality for his own preservation. There is no reasoning with thugs and hence there are no individual rights in a an anarchist state.

So how do you answer the question then? Well I would say “don’t delegate your right to self defense but it’s an obvious and blatant contradiction to assert your right to use force as you subjectively see fit while demanding that others refrain from organizing into groups to protect themselves.”

Anarchism has no peaceable way to solve grievances, as if failing to recognize the possibility of genuine disagreement or intentional evil. Its failure to recognize reality leaves its manifestation as just another form of leftwing collectivism.

Governments proper function is the enforcement of legality (not controls) thus ensuring an individual's right to pursue his own set peaceful and rational values. Freedom is not subjective whim worship, but rather a rational path of value attainment routed in the individuals assurance of equality before the law and freedom from coercive government aims