On anarchy

It is not very often in a man’s life or in the lifespan of a nation or civilization that a man or a nation decides that it is better off in servitude to a power than be independent and free. Yet for the most of the recorded history of man, there have been civilizations not in rarity but as a norm who have served under some or other power. This power when not another civilization has been divine or worse self-imposed. It is the most misanthropic of all views that some part of every society or some societies in every epoch are incapable of self-rule. The extent of this misanthropy is when an individual in a society is considered to be too weak for existence that a higher authority is needed to rule over him. This higher authority has historically been lords, dukes, barons, kings and above all God himself. Yet even the complete annihilation of aristocracy, divine rule and monarchy in countries has not completely liberated man from subordination. He now is subject to a government elected by his fellow country-men. Although he has some control over the government, he continues to be subject to laws of the land that he doesn’t directly approve of. His disapproval can be expressed only occasionally and doesn’t necessarily help him overcome subordination. For even when some laws may be shaped his franchise, there will always be laws that he will never approve of. This is the case with every single man in the country including the representatives who play a more active role in shaping the society. So, subordination has not disappeared from the face of earth as visionaries imagined but has compounded and disguised itself in the form of the Nation-state. For a man, who chooses not to follow the laws of the state, becomes an outlaw punished for not confirming to a set of laws he neither made nor can unmake. He is bound by, as many philosophers have liked to call it, a social contract. This contract is not voluntary but imposed. An individual doesn’t ‘sign’ a contract with the state, the state signs a contact on his behalf. He has no option but to accept a contract that has been signed without his consent. He is condemned by the state to be its ‘citizen’ and he loses all his individuality for the sake of the state. He is now forced to conform to laws he doesn’t believe in, expected to pay taxes that don’t benefit him and serve the nation through his talents. His service is never repaid. In return for his labor, he gets to become a servant of the state. How different is this then for serfdom which democracy hoped to replace? True liberation cannot come from changing the style of government; it comes from the elimination of government. Only with the elimination of governments can an individual truly realize his potential. The argument that men work best when they are enslaved is absurd because men who work not from the fear of punishment but for the love of their profession work better and in greater harmony with others in their profession and with those in other professions. In a stateless society, men get their fruits according to their labor, and not according to their conformity. Men then work to be as useful to the society so as to gain maximum from it and each man thinking in the same manner, provides more goods for the society than ever achievable under the most provident government. The problems of the society are solved by men within it and not above it and since no man are detached from the society and placed at a pedestal higher than rest as it is so common in our times, the men who govern are the men who are governed and by that principle will govern benevolently to be governed with benevolence. This is not the case with governments who deriving power from the society cease to be a part of the society and hence work only for their benefit and not for that of the society. Anarchy is the brainchild of nature and because it needn’t be invented by any man is generally free of prejudice. All species in this planet, although may work in unison, have never formed nay visible government or hierarchy. This is how nature works. It doesn’t need any support but what it has been naturally given to it by evolution. Man too doesn’t require a government. His vices arise not out of lack of conformity but out of too much authority which he seeks to overthrow. Societies are created from need, governments from greed. The greed of a few men has subjected a majority to a life of subordination. Man doesn’t get security from having a government but rather loses all security he had hitherto possessed. He is constantly under the fear of the government. Man’s life doesn’t improve because of the government but only reduces in quality. His life now becomes one of many lives in the state and loses all its value. He becomes a mere ‘number’ in the state. His efforts are used to exploit him. His tax-money is used to control his actions. He pays to be enslaved. And worst of all, he can neither evade tax payment nor government control without punishment. He is a slave of the state. 

Deciphering the Political Trinity

When Aristotle wrote in his book "Politics" that there are three types of good government- Royalty, Aristocracy and Constitutional Government and three bad-the perverted forms of the aforementioned governments where royalty slips into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy and constitutional government into democracy. It was Machiavelli writing nearly two millenia later, reinstated this in his discourses. Furthermore he added, that the ideal government was a combination of the three good forms of government-monarchy, aristocracy and democracy ( in Machiavellian terms- 'democracy' refers to constitutional government). When governments are ranked according to their longevity, the ones who rule the apex are those, Machiavelli concluded, a healthy combination of the three governments. From Sparta to Rome in the ancient times to the United States today, the strongest countries never mind strong democracies, the greatest powers had a fair mix of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy in them. It is a fair conclusion then to make that, any future government must have all aforementioned  forms of government to sustain itself and thrive. But a deeper understanding or even a slight thought to it will reveal that the three forms of government have only small differences which can be bridged. A government created by this form will be stronger than the one that blindly adopts the the three governments. No country that has hitherto existed has had such a government. Even Rome had and United States has what is but a superficial culmination of the three forms of government. In essence, monarchy  just refers to one ruler and isn't necessarily hereditary. So the American Presidency would qualify amply as monarchical. Aristocracy is many rulers-by definition wise men who are educated in public affairs and that of administration whilst a constitutional government is a representative body duly elected by the people of the state. The advantage of a monarchy is stability. An individual is less likely to argue and fight with himself than a body politic and so important matters are not deferred by democratic tradition. An aristocracy puts merit over popularity and hence allows talented men to rule the country as opposed to just popular men. This prevents as Jefferson put it "mobocracy of the cruelest nature". It also protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority which being more populous than nobility or kingship can cause greater harm and injustice. Democracy as we so popularly know in today's age, has its own advantages of responsibility and protection against dissolution into authoritarian rule. In an educated society where the electorate is sufficiently literate not just in linguistics and sciences but also in civics and public life, the people will elect only men whom it feels will be best suited to serve the state. By this virtue, they will elect as it may seem to them, one man, a group of men or a constitutional body that is capable of administration. Monarchy will not be absolute, as men to this high power are chosen by an informed body which when it finds it appropriate may remove him. An aristocracy too will descend into a group of over-nourished lazy men because one, the country is educated and two because these men are themselves from the public elevated to their current positions by their virtue and intelligence, will try to protect themselves from vices of greed and ignorance which will disqualify them to their jobs. A constitutional government to in the same manner will be a responsible body and it will also be stable because the people who elect them are aware of the ills of excessive responsibility that nurtures uncertainty and will accordingly empower a particular group or one man or the entire body politic in such manner that it may carry on its duties without the fear of sudden absolution.