PART TWO

After my comment section on my web-site was unavailable for several weeks, it’s now up and running a number of comments, to address. Not the least, the one by Kent, suggesting Anarchy and Autarky are synonymous. Which prompted my article on the subject. Followed by another comment by Kent, debating the subject. The entirety of his response is posted below my article on my web-site.

It’s my position, there are two kinds of government, one is political and the other is self government. And I define Freedom as Self-government and self-control. And political government as a condition whereby “others” dictate control.

Kent’s stated position is: “When I control my own actions, I don’t consider it being “governed” because it is voluntary. I realize that is probably a distinction that few would see.”

Out of the starting gate, I suggest there may be many others who feel this way. However, I had never even considered the notion. When a dispute over a word or term arises I go to Webster who defines govern as “To rule or direct by Right of Authority – to guide or control the action – to exercise authority.”

Kent has a different definition, stating, “To me government is always involuntary, or coercive, it is imposed outside one’s self.”

It is further my position, in order to intelligently debate any subject, we must first have at least one area of agreement. From the articles Kent writes and our previous contact, I know there are some areas in which we agree, however I disagree in this case.

The condition of being governed, can be either voluntary or involuntary. The fact self-government is voluntary, does not invalidate its meaning. Because it is self-control, absent coercion. However, both self-government and political government have consequences.

In self-government, one always acts for a profit or a gain, despite the fact one’s choice of action may turn out to be a loss, it was not one’s intent when making decisions in one’s life. Conversely, because political government has nothing until it first takes from someone, the basic premise is a system of thievery. And stealing is an immoral act according to accepted definition.

Some medicate their feelings by projecting a lie, and say, “Oh well I don’t mind paying taxes for thus and so.” That’s just an erroneous reaction to the force of political government. The self-control of self-government means one cannot steal from one’s self. To suggest because one’s action of making their own decisions, in one’s best interest, is not being governed, is ludicrous.

Voluntary acts describe self-government, but do not define it. Self-control defines self-government and Freedom. Why one decides to confuse the issue, by saying they don’t consider decisions they make for themselves as not being governed because they are voluntary, is contradictory.

Further, to claim Anarchy as a form of government, when it means no government is equally ludicrous. The argument that Anarchy, i.e., no government and Artarky self-government is interchangeable, is so far fetched it defies reason.

The dictionary describes Anarchy as: “lawless confusion and political disorder,” the theory that all forms of government are incompatible with human behavior. When in fact, the self-government of Freedom is very compatible with the natural order of behavior, and according to Universal Principles.

There are so many superstitions and misconceptions about government, and as Herbert Spencer said: “None is so widely diffused as the notion that majorities are omnipotent.”

There are many names for many governments, however, it can all be reduced to two and that is political government or self-government. The fact one is voluntary and one involuntary, describes the conditions of each. And does not deny the fact self-government is a a form of government.

To understand either one, it is imperative to understand the meaning of words in the language. Simple words we use everyday.

Political government was originally designed to “protect,” but always winds up attacking the very persons it was designed to protect. A condition we are now experiencing here in these United States. Political government is a power that cannot permit nonconformity.

However there are still many areas in one’s life when they can practice some Freedom, if they understand what it is. That is self-responsibility and self-control.

Thomas Jefferson said: “The best government is the government which governs least.”

Robert LeFevre said: “It is not that governments begin in virtue only to end in sin. Governments begin by protecting some against others and ends up protecting itself against everyone. This is the course of history.”

Let Freedom Ring

Just me AC

Email: annecleveland@bellsouth.net

Share →

4 Responses to DEBATING SELF-GOVERNMENT OR POLITICAL GOVERNMENT, ANARCHY OR AUTARKY – PART TWO (Issue 804)

  1. Self-determination- whatever one may call it- is what I wish for everyone. Now, if their self-determination involves attacking or stealing from others, then I hope the self-determination of their intended victims includes effective self-defense.

  2. Freedom Lady says:

    What does this comment have to do with Autarky? We were debating the subject of autarky, because you dis-agreed with me then I dis-agreed with you. I!m trying to figure out what you wish for relative to self-determination, has to do with the subject we were discussing, Seems totally un-related from where I sit.

  3. FREEDOM LADY says:

    Be sure and read my next article, issue 805 titled; “THE CLIFF WE ARE SITTING ON IS NOT FISCAL_ ITS FREEDOM OR BONDAGE”

  4. Freedom Lady says:

    Got up early with a bee in my bonnet to write on several subjects. Wrote 3 articles up-coming, be sure and read!! I addressed the latest comment by Kent in one of them.