The False Definition of Anarchy

When I hear the word 'anarchy' I think 'without rulers', (as in the word's origin: Mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler').

When I hear someone using the word 'anarchy' to describe 'violence' I fear I may be confronted by a person who does not respect the basic tenants of liberty and freedom.  A person who has taken that word to mean its usurped bastardisation, its twisted propagandistic corruption, its false inversion.

A society without rules and rulers is by no means de-facto one that will be racked with violence.  Indeed look at the record of violence that result from the actions of 'the state', by far the greatest numbers are murdered by people who believe that the magical authority of 'the state' immunises them from normal human decent conduct whereupon they, for example, go to war and slaughter with apparent personal immunity.  It is a simple fact that many more have died at the hand of the cult of 'the state' in the last 100 years than all other non-state based violence together.

The only way 'the state' survives is through the use of force, the constant threat of violence.  Without the monopoly on violence 'the state' would collapse.  So is it any coincidence that in modern understanding the one word that describes the solution to this hateful system has been twisted inside-out to be taken to mean the very opposite, to strike the greatest threat to the cult of 'the state' a slanderous blow.  NO!  This is how language is used the build fase ideas into the minds of the common man.

I am not a clever clogs picking at use of words I am (a clever clogs) picking at use of an expression that says that: an absence of rulers would defiantly result it the total and violent breakdown of social order.

I say an absence of rulers could only result in a pure, balanced and harmonious social order.  The only thing preventing a balanced and harmonious social order from manifesting is but one of the effects of having rulers.  Far from 'the state' preserving social order, 'the state' causes social order's breakdown by reserving for itself the supposed right to total violence - especially through the coercive and constant threat of violent force.  Do people see this effect of 'the state' in their everyday experience?  Not always, they accept the tyranny, living kowtowed under the threat of use of violent force, as normal, an easily acceptable trade-off to allay their implanted and false fear, therefore essential, desirable even.

This is where I differ from the Libertarian.  Just as it is imposable to be a little bit pregnant, I do not believe there can ever be social harmony whilst there exists any form of 'the state'.  Whilst belief in the cult of 'the state' remains, no restraint can be devised that will stop it from growing into the Leviathan.  Just look at the degradation of America: from being the nation with apparently the most liberal constitution in the world's history of governments to what it is now, a disgusting military and intelligence complex, a police state and a nest of fascism: a human tax farm to feed the corporate internationalist oligarch's global hegemonic ambitions.