In Support of Anarchism, or, Would the REAL Freedom and Equality Stand Up Please?

I'm hoping that title got your attention. I'm also hoping you are now thinking about how it relates to its sub-heading. If both statements are true, and you're still reading this, good - its fulfilled its purpose.

Anarchy is the most free and equal form of society and state governance in existence today. There is no truer statement. It is also the perfect antidote to the whiny, entitled, complainers of today's Western society, but I'll get to that later. Now you may call Anarchy a cop-out solution to today's issues of equality and whatnot in both society and state - as it is representative of the lack thereof - but I would argue, that it is just as valid as saying your favourite colour is black (the absence thereof) (coughBethcough).

First some definitions:

Anarchism:  essentially the belief that humanity is best left ungoverned by any form of state or institution. Imagine a world in which no government, government paraphernalia (laws and taxes), or government services (police, fire departments, state-run libraries, universal healthcare) exists, and you've hit the nail on the head.

Freedom: the ability to do what one wishes. Example: the freedom of religion is the freedom to worship whichever religion one chooses.

Equality: Fair or "equal" treatment of all individuals, with no regard to race, gender, or any other means by which people form group identities.

Now for the real stuff...

Everyone has equal rights in a state of anarchy because no one has any! And before you whine that "but that's not fair!" remember that under that system, a male WASP would have the same rights as a First Nations Islamic transgender lesbian woman (whether the latter is even possible is debatable, but my point still stands). It is also the most free form of society because there are no laws to enforce. Before all the feminists in the crowd get up in arms over how this perpetuates rape culture, let me say this; in the form of society I am laying out, yes a woman can get raped, just like in today's society, but, unlike today, in a state of anarchy she can track down the perpetrator along with her friends and kill him in return. I'd call that a deterrent, wouldn't you? Discrimination would also be cut down on within whatever communities people would form in a time of anarchy, as you can't afford to alienate someone you depend on for survival.

For all you atheists out there, anarchy also restores the natural Darwinian order to human existence. In anarchy, only the strong survive, thus progressing "human evolution". The same, entirely logical, train of thought was behind the eugenics movement, but that's just me being cold.

The reality is people these days want to have their cake and eat it too. They want society for which the natural endpoint might be scarily close to Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html). This may sound ridiculous, but with the number of hoops corporations and institutions are supposed to contort themselves through to remain viable in this day and age, one really does have to wonder if Vonnegut may have come closer to hitting the mark than he realized.

We live in a society where anyone in minority groups can claim and use victim status, and use it as a weapon, gagging others and benefiting themselves in the name of "equal rights". The root of this problem lies deeper in the cultural undercurrents than it might seem. What many don't seem to realize is that ours is a generation of entitlement. We feel like deserve to be treated in certain ways, a members of various group identities tend to feel like they deserve special treatment (or, as they call it, "equality"). Time for a reality check. Many of the key assumptions behind "rights" in today's culture are actually fallacious. Nowhere is this better exemplified in the classic dichotomy "rights and privileges". This assumes the two are mutually exclusive, when they are in fact the total opposite. Rights, in and of themselves, ARE PRIVILEGES. Yet we, in our 21st century Western society, think we are entitled to them and more besides.
From where are these rights derived though? They have no base in nature, for if you strip man of the trappings and structure of the state, and you will find such ideas as "rights" simply do not exist. This is what I meant when I said that anarchy is the antidote to a society infested with entitlement. In such a social state all lofty ideas of "rights" are stripped down to the dichotomy of right and wrong arising from one's conscience. A conscience is a curious thing, as it limits one's actions, sometimes in ways which make no logical sense. The fact that they exist, and that the rules governing them are roughly similar between cultures across the globe is interesting indeed. Some may say that they come from psychological evolution, but the sheer notion of that further weakens the argument for a natural basis for rights due to the fact that there is significant variation in conscience (though some rules remain fairly static), which adds a certain relativity to the whole picture. In order for there to be a basis for rights as an application for a moral code is if said code were to be universally applicable and thus transcendent of individual humans. Who provides such a code? Well, God of course, so all you atheistic SJWs can kiss my glorious rear end.
Since the separation of church and state is a thing though, what is the source and definition of "rights" in a secular world? Here's my thought: Rights are privileges allotted to the members of a state by the state, which is then responsible for enforcing them. To be clear - all rights are privileges, but not all privileges are rights. Regardless, before you tell me to "check my privilege", check your own, and think about if you really have all that much to complain about.

States also have rights, but that's for another discussion.

Despite the merits of Anarchy, as discussed earlier, no one in their right mind - myself included - no one in their right mind actually wants it. I like the benefits of living in a state society and I want to keep it that way - I am a Conservative after all (though an anarchist party would be my third choice on election day - after the Conservatives and the Rhinos). And I have a Christian moral code, which tells me that it is best that all be treated equally and respectfully, and as a result I agree with the vast majority of rights in current legislation. What isn't "right" is the rights-entitled, identity politics based, victim culture that has arisen in recent decades that demands the death of meritocracy and promotes reverse-discrimination, if anything. But more on that in a later post.

I was going to say more, but this post is long enough already - a shorter one next time.