What does "anarchy" mean to you?

What does "government" mean to you?

The first premise for the need for a Federal Government is "common defense." But looking back in history for the past few centuries, I can't find a single instance where the "need to defend" wasn't a contrivance created by the Aristocrats who rule the world, the same Aristocracy running the show on both sides of the "conflict." Indeed, each and every investigation leads to the purpose of the contrivance for war being to fulfill an agenda of an oligarchical utopia. Every single "war" for the past few centuries has been nothing but a step in the Hegelian Dialectic that is the "map to Utopia."

Looking back further, I can't find a case of "one nation" attacking "another nation" in the sense we think of it. It's really one cousin attacking another cousin, and forcing those they rule to do all the killing. As it turns out, those cousins are members of the same Aristocracy that rules the world today. Digging even deeper, this same Aristocracy goes back a long, looooong time.

I'm pretty much sick and tired of being Ruled by this Aristocracy. And there is no system of government that the world has ever had (on any meaningful scale) that was not created by them, for their purposes.

I understand that people who live next to each other would want to have some customs, some agreements to live by, to get along. Writing them into formal laws, which are false limits on actions, enforced by coercion (threats of specific reprisal) become problematic, because then consequences for harmful actions (aka "justice") becomes a matter of "law," rather than a matter of people doing what they need to do to make their local environment safe. In other words, in the system of "formal law", the responsibility for handling matters falls on an institution, losing its humanity, losing its respect for We The People.

There are always consequences for actions. That's Natural Law. Government (as most people understand the term) attempts to Rule over those consequences, taking over for us, relieving us of our responsibility to our fellow humans. It removes the need to respect others.

In a world without someone Ruling us, we have no choice but to understand our own Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) and our own Jurisdiction (the Realm of that Authority), and by extension, the Jurisdiction and Sovereignty of everyone else. That understanding brings a fundamental respect. In a world were someone Rules us, we lose that understanding.

Our Jurisdiction is ourselves (you are the Ultimate Authority in all choices you make), our Right to Defend our lives, our freedom, our property, our family, our homes, our friends, etc. People understand intuitively that these are our Jurisdiction. The DoI calls these things "unalienable Rights" because it is impossible to take away our Right, our Authority on these matters, though I think it is more important to understand that they are our Jurisdiction over which we are the Ultimate Authority. Here "impossible" means "Natural Law doesn't allow it." It is a real actual limit on what is possible. A Ruling Government attempts to infringe upon those Rights. It can't do otherwise. That is what "Rule" means. It means "claim Ultimate Authority." That is an impossibility. Natural Law doesn't allow it. Our Authority and Jurisdiction can't be infringed, but a Ruling Government makes the attempt, coercing us into giving up our Authority through threats of (or actual) violence, and is thus fraudulent.

You can have a government without having a Ruler. You can have customs instead of "laws" (as we understand the term). Customs are things society at large says "if you do these things, you probably won't like the consequences." There's nothing wrong with that, no infringement of Rights. You can have "government:" something set up that helps take care of local matters, or acts as arbiter. The most important consideration of setting up a respectful government is understanding what the government's Jurisdiction is, i.e. the people that make up the "government" don't have a larger Jurisdiction than any other person just because they act as arbiter. You are the Ultimate Authority of you and your property. Any government that says otherwise (every single government you have probably heard of) is fraudulent, a power grab, an infringement on your Jurisdiction, thus a criminal organization.

I'm not against "government," I'm against being led by a criminal organization, or one that has all the infrastructure to become one. I'm against being Ruled.

Which is really all that "anarchy" means. It doesn't mean "no laws" or "no government". It most certainly doesn't mean "chaos," or "violence." It means exactly and precisely, no more and no less than, "no Ruler."

I refuse to allow for anyone to lay claims to my Jurisdiction. That's it. That's the only principle guiding my thoughts on government. Does that make me an "anarchist?" Perhaps, but probably not in the way most would mean the term, because they don't really understand it. The reason they don't understand it is because the Aristocracy that Rules the world really doesn't want them to.