Autarchism

[Truth Warrior]

Autarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Autarchism (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "belief in self rule") is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) that upholds the principle of individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_liberty), rejects compulsory government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling yourself and no other. Advocates of the philosophy are autarchist (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "one who believes in self rule"), while the state in which everyone rules themselves and no one else is autarchy (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "state of self rule").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism

[Ozwest]

The Republican Party is a Mussolini.

Nothing like open slather.

[Ozwest]

Autarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Autarchism (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "belief in self rule") is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) that upholds the principle of individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_liberty), rejects compulsory government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling yourself and no other. Advocates of the philosophy are autarchist (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "one who believes in self rule"), while the state in which everyone rules themselves and no one else is autarchy (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "state of self rule").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism

Is that what the Republican Party stands for?

Eight years of butt fucking workers.

[Ozwest]

Why watch another Chairman of the Board get another multi-million dollar payout..

Callouses and hard work mean nothing?

[Ozwest]

Fuck the Democrats.

Fuck Republicans even more.

They have had eight years.

[Truth Warrior]

Is that what the Republican Party stands for?

Eight years of butt fucking workers. Nope, it's what T J stood for.<IMHO> ;)

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff100995.html)

[Ozwest]

Nope, it's what T J stood for.<IMHO> ;)

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff100995.html)

Hardly.

Thomas Jefferson would shit himself .

To make such a statement is inane.

[Truth Warrior]

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[Ozwest]

[quote=Truth Warrior;1697642]"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural

Cute...

But, I fail to see any similarities.

" A wise and frugal government."

In name only.

Warmongering fascists... Totalitarians...

Yeah, He would shit himself, and put some lipstick on your mouth.

[Truth Warrior]

"I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will , is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure." -- Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience" ( 1st paragraph )

[Ozwest]

"I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will , is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure." -- Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience" ( 1st paragraph )

So why would you support Republicans?

They are Totalitarians.

[Truth Warrior]

Autarchists

Robert LeFevre (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Robert_LeFevre), a "self-proclaimed autarchist" recognized as such by Murray Rothbard (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), distinguished autarchism from anarchism (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anarchism), whose economics (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anarchist_economics) he felt entailed interventions contrary to freedom, in contrast to his own laissez faire (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Laissez_faire) economics of the Austrian School (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Austrian_School). In professing "a sparkling and shining individualism (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Individualism)" while "it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Free_market)", anarchism seemed to LeFevre to be self-contradictory. He situated the fundamental premise of autarchy within the Stoicism (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Stoicism) of philosophers (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Philosophers) such as Zeno (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Zeno), Epicurus (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Epicurus) and Marcus Aurelius (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius), which he summarized in the diktat "Control yourself". Fusing these influences together, he arrived at the autarchist philosophy: "The Stoics provide the moral framework; the Epicureans (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Epicureanism), the motivation; the praxeologists (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Praxeology), the methodology. I propose to call this package of ideological systems autarchy, because autarchy means self-rule.".

LeFevre stated "the bridge between Spooner (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lysander_Spooner) and modern-day autarchists was constructed primarily by persons such as H. L. Mencken (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/H._L._Mencken), Albert Jay Nock (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Albert_Jay_Nock), and Mark Twain (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Mark_Twain)".

Ralph Waldo Emerson (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson), although he did not call himself an autarchist, is considered to have espoused autarchy. Philip Jenkins has stated that "Emersonian ideas stressed individual liberation, autarchy, self-sufficiency and self-government, and strenuously opposed social conformity". Robert D. Richardson stated that the anarchy Emerson "has in mind would be 'autarchy', rule by self". George Burghope wrote the essay "Autarchy, or, the art of self government" in 1691.

http://www.reference.com/browse/Autarchism?jss=1

[Ozwest]

Autarchists

Robert LeFevre (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Robert_LeFevre), a "self-proclaimed autarchist" recognized as such by Murray Rothbard (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), distinguished autarchism from anarchism (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anarchism), whose economics (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anarchist_economics) he felt entailed interventions contrary to freedom, in contrast to his own laissez faire (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Laissez_faire) economics of the Austrian School (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Austrian_School). In professing "a sparkling and shining individualism (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Individualism)" while "it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Free_market)", anarchism seemed to LeFevre to be self-contradictory. He situated the fundamental premise of autarchy within the Stoicism (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Stoicism) of philosophers (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Philosophers) such as Zeno (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Zeno), Epicurus (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Epicurus) and Marcus Aurelius (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius), which he summarized in the diktat "Control yourself". Fusing these influences together, he arrived at the autarchist philosophy: "The Stoics provide the moral framework; the Epicureans (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Epicureanism), the motivation; the praxeologists (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Praxeology), the methodology. I propose to call this package of ideological systems autarchy, because autarchy means self-rule.".

LeFevre stated "the bridge between Spooner (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lysander_Spooner) and modern-day autarchists was constructed primarily by persons such as H. L. Mencken (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/H._L._Mencken), Albert Jay Nock (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Albert_Jay_Nock), and Mark Twain (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Mark_Twain)".

Ralph Waldo Emerson (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson), although he did not call himself an autarchist, is considered to have espoused autarchy. Philip Jenkins has stated that "Emersonian ideas stressed individual liberation, autarchy, self-sufficiency and self-government, and strenuously opposed social conformity". Robert D. Richardson stated that the anarchy Emerson "has in mind would be 'autarchy', rule by self". George Burghope wrote the essay "Autarchy, or, the art of self government" in 1691.

http://www.reference.com/browse/Autarchism?jss=1

Psyco-babble.

Run a business for 15 years, look after dozens of employees.

Be successful.

Then explain Capitalism to me.

I read, but practice makes perfect.

[Truth Warrior]

Has anyone else ever noticed how drinking just makes some people STUPID and OBNOXIOUS?

[Ozwest]

Has anyone else ever noticed how drinking just makes some people STUPID and OBNOXIOUS?

Mmmm..

Never trust a Man that doesn't drink.

And even worse, a agro chick, who doesn't drink.

Especially one who relies on endless dribble .

[Truth Warrior]

Mmmm..

Never trust a Man that doesn't drink.

And even worse, a agro chick, who doesn't drink.

Especially one who relies on endless dribble .
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Ozwest]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

Makes perfect sense to me Truth Warrior.

You wouldn't have a clue.

Running a business is hard work and long hours.

You are a wanna-be.

[Ozwest]

Practice what you preach.

[Truth Warrior]

Makes perfect sense to me Truth Warrior.

You wouldn't have a clue.

Running a business is hard work and long hours.

You are a wanna-be.
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Theocrat]

Autarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Autarchism (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "belief in self rule") is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) that upholds the principle of individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_liberty), rejects compulsory government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling yourself and no other. Advocates of the philosophy are autarchist (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "one who believes in self rule"), while the state in which everyone rules themselves and no one else is autarchy (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), "state of self rule").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism

That is an interesting political philosophy. I suppose in some ways, I would be considered as an "autarchist." However, autarchism falls apart because its universal application in any given society would inevitably lead to chaos and misery on the grounds that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, cannibals, homosexuals, arsonists, nihilists, and other social and immoral outcasts would be allowed to live their own lifestyles freely in favor of their own self-rule, without civil government protection of the rights of other citizens.

[Ozwest]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

No, dribble shit.

I contribute.

You lecture.

[Truth Warrior]

That is an interesting political philosophy. I suppose in some ways, I would be considered as an "autarchist." However, autarchism falls apart because its universal application in any given society would inevitably lead to chaos and misery on the grounds that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, cannibals, homosexuals, arsonists, nihilists, and other social and immoral outcasts would be allowed to live their own lifestyles freely in favor of their own self-rule, without civil government protection of the rights of other citizens. Do we have a "civil government"?

If so, how come we still have ALL of the aforementioned problems, and many many more, after ALL these past millenia? ;)

"Civil government" sure looks like a blatant and obvious "failed concept" and oxymoron to me.<IMHO>

Thanks! :)

[Theocrat]

Do we have a "civil government"?

If so, how come we still have ALL of the aforementioned problems, and many many more, after ALL these past millenia? ;)

"Civil government" sure looks like a blatant and obvious "failed concept" and oxymoron to me.<IMHO>

Thanks! :)

Yes, my friend. We still have a civil government (though I get what you're saying, in a tongue-in-cheek way). Civil government is not inherently evil; it's the people who are in civil government which determines whether it will be good or evil. In the beginning of our nation's Republic, we generally had the right people (men of moral integrity and religious character) involved in our civil governments, both on the State and Federal levels. Today, corruption and immorality have become hallmarks of our political process and system.

Interestingly, the corruption and immorality did not begin with our civil magistrates. It began in our local communities and families, and then those people, in turn, ran for public offices. But this gets back to my issue with autarchism. If everyone is allowed to self-rule (even those individuals whom are immoral as I stated in my first post), then the moral fabric and endurance of a society will deteriorate. Eventually, that will bleed into our civil governments, and soon we'll have politicians who care more about themselves than the requirements of their position, as is the case in present-day America.

[Ozwest]

Blood oath!

Stop making excuses. You all forgot about being citizens.

You deserve what you get.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, my friend. We still have a civil government (though I get what you're saying, in a tongue-in-cheek way). Civil government is not inherently evil; it's the people who are in civil government which determines whether it will be good or evil. In the beginning of our nation's Republic, we generally had the right people (men of moral integrity and religious character) involved in our civil governments, both on the State and Federal levels. Today, corruption and immorality have become hallmarks of our political process and system.

Interestingly, the corruption and immorality did not begin with our civil magistrates. It began in our local communities and families, and then those people, in turn, ran for public offices. But this gets back to my issue with autarchism. If everyone is allowed to self-rule (even those individuals whom are immoral as I stated in my first post), then the moral fabric and endurance of a society will deteriorate. Eventually, that will bleed into our civil governments, and soon we'll have politicians who care more about themselves than the requirements of their position, as is the case in present-day America. Sorry, no "tongue in cheek", flat out, stone cold dead serious and literal.

That seems to be a FATAL FLAW in the whole corrupt and barbaric "system", hence a "failed concept" throughout human history.

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." -- Albert Einstein

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein

[ThePieSwindler]

That is an interesting political philosophy. I suppose in some ways, I would be considered as an "autarchist." However, autarchism falls apart because its universal application in any given society would inevitably lead to chaos and misery on the grounds that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, cannibals, homosexuals, arsonists, nihilists, and other social and immoral outcasts would be allowed to live their own lifestyles freely in favor of their own self-rule, without civil government protection of the rights of other citizens.

Fear those nihilists and homosexuals!

I am.

Ozwest.

My posting style is really.

Weird.

"But not as weird as TruthWarrior's" - Me

Sorry hehe :-p

[Truth Warrior]

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class."

~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State (http://www.mises.org/store/Our-Enemy-the-State-P321.aspx?AFID=14)

[Truth Warrior]

How many "laws" ( so called ) could be simply, easily, rationally and merely replaced by?:

"Do as you please, BUT harm no other in their person or property."


My answer: Multi millions of them!

Government, "civil" or otherwise, like war, is merely a RACKET!<IMHO>

[ThePieSwindler]

Any society needs a streamlined system of law and order. The question then becomes whether or not "private law" is somehow adequate enough to replace government.

[Truth Warrior]

Any society needs a streamlined system of law and order. The question then becomes whether or not "private law" is somehow adequate enough to replace government. Who says? Based on what? By whose authority? :rolleyes:

What is a "society"? Last time I checked, mere "abstractions" have NO needs, because they do NOT exist in the REAL world.

Lose the bogus "brainwash" programming. :p

[Ozwest]

Any society needs a streamlined system of law and order. The question then becomes whether or not "private law" is somehow adequate enough to replace government.

Well said,

I get where you are coming from.

[Truth Warrior]

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

[Ozwest]

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

"Politics, as a practice, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds."

Aristotle --- I think.

[Truth Warrior]

"Politics, as a practice, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds."

Aristotle --- I think.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle

[Ozwest]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle

"Law is mind without reason."

Aristotle---

[Ozwest]

Doublethink

[Truth Warrior]

Origin
According to the novel, doublethink is:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

http://www.reference.com/browse/doublethink (http://www.reference.com/browse/doublethink)

AKA cognitive dissonance

[Ozwest]

Exact amundo Truth Warrior!

It's 4:4O AM in West Australia and the Indian Ocean is calm. Heading a couple of miles off-shore to catch me a feed.

Adios.

[Truth Warrior]

Autarchy Versus Anarchy
By Robert LeFevre
http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1965/12/autarchy-versus-anarchy

[SeanEdwards]

We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges. When soldiers take their oath they are given a coin, an asimi stamped with the profile of the Autarch. Their acceptance of that coin is their acceptance of the special duties and burdens of military life--they are soldiers from that moment, though they may know nothing of the management of arms. I did not know that then, but it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.

[Truth Warrior]

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source -
Share This

au·tarch

(ô'tärk) Pronunciation Key

n. An absolute ruler; a despot.
[Greek autarkhos, self-governing, autarch; see
autarchy


1.]

( Obviously a STATIST propaganda "fudge" and twist with the definition. ;) )

[mediahasyou]

Wars are caused by the state. Exterminations are caused by the state. Anarchy is not efficient enough to produce such mass murder.


Is voting an act of violence?
http://members.aol.com/vlntryst/wn103.html

Moral nonpolitical means to abolish the state:
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm5.html

[Truth Warrior]

Let's Call It Anarchy (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/lets-call-it-anarchy)

Miss Koehn and Messrs. Gaskins have collaborated in this effort to show that the word autarchy should not be used in relation to a system containing no political government. They prefer to use the word anarchy. This is in response to an article which appeared in the winter edition of the Rampart Journal (1965) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1965/12/autarchy-versus-anarchy). (¶ 12) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p12)

They argue that the author was in error when he contended that he cannot be an anarchist because he is not a socialist and that the word autarchy (self-rule) can be used to describe a free-market economy. (¶ 13) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p13)

It appears that the authors are not trying to establish that autarchist LeFevre is a socialist. Rather, they wish to establish that anarchy is not necessarily socialistic, and that there is no necessary connection between the concept of self-rule as embodied in the word autarchy and an actual free-market condition. (¶ 14) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p14)

While autarchist LeFevre is criticized for interpreting anarchist writings as invariably including economic intervention and hence being part and parcel of the socialist movement, Miss Koehn and Messrs. Gaskins employ precisely the same method, interpretation of anarchist writings, to reach an opposite conclusion. The difficulty here lies in the fact that any interpretation is neither more nor less a value judgment. Therefore, criticism of LeFevre for employing literary interpretation is only valid if his critics abstain from like behavior. Since their first line of attack is to offer their own interpretation of anarchistic writings, the criticism as to the use of interpretation will not stand. (¶ 15) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p15)

Nor will the assertions that economic revisions were offered by Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker) as a “prophecy,” or that the admitted fact that anarchists were historically included as socialists as a result of “an historical accident,” impress many thoughtful readers. The fact is that the anarchists were socialists. The fact remains that economic intervention is their central goal. (¶ 16) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p16)

Since Tucker has already been referred to, it is instructive to note this analysis of Mr. Tucker's writings in Men Against the State by Dr. James J. Martin. The reference is on page 205 under subhead, “2. Theoretical Anarchism Matured.” “The crystallization of anarchist thought which took place during the period of Tucker's prominence as the literary focal point of the native American demonstration can be found illustrated in both political and economic senses throughout Liberty. Tucker himself, however, leftn o doubt as to which aspect of the struggle against the state he considered the most important. Production, distribution, and exchange were all subjects of long study on his part, and he came to the conclusion that the political and social structures of American culture could better be dealt with after economic problems had been settled (emphasis added). “Liberty, to be effective, must find its first application in the realm of economics,” he declared, and on this matter of the economic basis of life he drummed continually.” (¶ 17) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p17)

The claim that economic science had not advanced to the place where capitalism was viewed as self-regulating, and hence the anarchists advocated economic reform, is of course valid. But this is all the more reason why the term anarchy cannot be applied equally to those scholars and theorists today who wish to rely upon private capitalism and who detect the role of government as private capitalism's destroyer. (¶ 18) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p18)

If there are two groups of theorists wishing to avoid state rule and state control, one because the state makes private ownership of property possible, and the other because the state impairs private ownership of property, it is clear that a single term will not encompass the task. Since anarchists are historically admitted have been practicing socialists (accidental or not), then it follows that those who reject socialism totally cannot be called anarchists. And it is far more logical and far more useful to devise a new term to indicate the new departure away from socialism than to attempt to rewrite history. (¶ 19) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p19)

The next objection, and we suspect the real objection, of the three critics relates to the admitted fact that the word autarchy has not been used to mean “self-government” for 275 years. Therefore, when it is used today, it is apt to convey some of the meaning that is intended to relate to the economically self-sufficient state (autarky). The difficulty here is admitted.

Nonetheless, the word autarchy explicitly means self-rule or self-government. Anarchy, on the other hand, means no rule and no government. (¶ 20) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p20)

The argument proceeds to show that when common usage corrupts a word, the word can only be used in its corrupted sense; therefore, “redcoats” may mean an external garment of crimson hue but it will also certainly signify the British soldier of the American revolutionary period. While this criticism has merit, it serves to sustain LeFevre's rejection of anarchy as a useful word.

Webster gives this meaning to the word anarchy: “1. The state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of political disorder. 2. A state of confusion or disorder. Syn. Anarchy, chaos, lawlessness mean a breakdown in law or order. Anarchy implies total absence or suspension of government; chaos, the utter negation of law or order; lawlessness, a prevalent or habitual disregard of law or order.” (¶ 21) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p21)

Under the term anarchism, the same dictionary includes as a second meaning: “Advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles; esp., anarchistic revolution, nihilism; terrorism.” (¶ 22) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p22)

Under the term anarchist, Webster advises: “One who advocates anarchy or believes in anarchism; a terrorist; a nihilist.” (¶ 23) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p23)

The American College Dictionary adds this to the definition of anarchist: “One who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.” (¶ 24) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p24)

While it could readily be shown that such blanket indictments of anarchy do not apply to historical anarchists as a whole, but rightfully adhere only to Bakuninists, Marxists, Nihilists, and so on, if reliance is placed upon the argument offered, that corruption permanently impairs a word, it would follow that anarchy has been far more grossly impaired than autarchy. (¶ 25) (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand#p25)

The position taken in Autarchy Versus Anarchy (http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1965/12/autarchy-versus-anarchy) is not a position leading to chaos, social disruption, violence, and a complete lack of social order. On the contrary, the position of the autarchist is one that supports self-rule rather than a lack of rule. It calls for social order of a high caliber and totally eschews violence for any reason whatever. The autarchist does not seek to overthrow government even by peaceful means, certainly not by violent means. The autarchist has no political objective whatever. He will abandon reliance on the state in favor of self-reliance. The autarchist seeks to build a useful and constructive order by reliance upon economic law and the manifest self-interest each of us unquestionably has. If the word autarchy has its limitations, then it would be valid to offer a better and more useful term.

Anarchy, even by the arguments of its supporters, is hopelessly corrupted and out of date. Until a better word can be found, the autarchists will use autarchy.

http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1966/06/on-the-other-hand

[mediahasyou]

I like nonstate socialism. i.e. people forming voluntary governments. However, their must be a degree of anarcho-capitalism and protection agencies to insure order.

All anarchists believe in ORDER. That's what the O in the Anarchist symbol stands for:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Anarchy-symbol.svg/600px-Anarchy-symbol.svg.png

[Truth Warrior]

No-state socialism just sounds like another bogus collectivist oxymoron to me.

Autarchy is "self-government", individual, as I understand it.

[mediahasyou]

No-state socialism just sounds like another bogus collectivist oxymoron to me.

Autarchy is "self-government", individual, as I understand it.

Yes as was the puritan society until it turned to theocracy. The mayflower compact outline self-government. The pilgrims lived peacefully in Autarchy.

[Truth Warrior]

Autarchism and Rational Anarchy

Is there a widely accepted stance on how Autarchism relates to the label 'Rational Anarchy'? The Rational Anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Anarchy) page has been changed to a redirect, but I wonder if it would be appropriate to redirect it here instead. Does anyone know? I will try to find a good source and definition of 'rational anarchy', but this page (http://www.geocities.com/hivecell/ra.html) has an example that sounds close to Autarchism: "The rational anarchist has a strict moral code that he will not break. At the same time, the rational anarchist accepts that those around him may require those rules". That sounds a lot like rejecting compulsory government and upholding individual liberty. --Culix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Culix) (talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Culix)) 06:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rational Anarchy is something Heinlein came up with himself, whereas autarchism was a creation of LeFevre. While it is plausible that they had a shared intellectual background, to say that the two philosophies are in some sense equivalent is speculative. For Wikipedia's purpose, any association between autarchism and RA is purely original research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR), so nothing should be touched unless a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS) confirms the association. Regards, Skomorokh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skomorokh) 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autarchism"

[Truth Warrior]

Robert LeFevre

Foreword (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/halfway.php) to Truth is Not a Halfway Place, by Karl Hess
Nature of Man and His Government (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/nomahg.php), by Robert LeFevre
Abstain From Beans (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/beans.php), by Robert LeFevre
Aggression is Wrong (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/aggression.php), by Robert LeFevre

http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/