Beyond Individualism

Carousing about the internet, I stumbled across a comical website. It is a group of Anarchists planning on disrupting the RNC convention. The futility of what they are doing verges on the comical simply due to the fact that they are organizing; quite an oxymoron to say the least. It appears they gathered into autonomous "consultas" which would come up with internal plans then meet externally with other consultas. Hmmm, sounds like a half-baked form of representative democracy to me. I've never found internal consistency to be incumbent in the left, but this takes it to a different level. Not only are they straying from their professed beliefs by organizing at all, they are permanently uncommitted to a superior and more effective method of achieving their goals by holding(loosely as they do) on to an impossible ideal.

Before I go any further I'll say I'm a rather introspective person, I enjoy my own company and often prefer to be left alone. However, I recognize the need to associate with people and often enjoy social company. I also believe needs are a function of wants and only imply what is necessary to achieve a goal. I'll also say that ideologies like Anarchism and ultra-individualism fly in the face of human inclinations and will forever be stuck in the doorways by trying to reconcile their ideals with reality.

Science is not formulating a preconceived notion and seeking out evidence to support it. Science is the observation of natural occurrences, following that observation is the isolation of variables until one can observe a direct cause/effect and determine how something works. By this method, science is simply the description of reality.

The reality we have learned in regards to human nature cannot be ignored when discussing philosophy and ideology. We know that every single human being has separate DNA (even identical twins have different RNA). We also know that although everyone has separate DNA we all have exceedingly similar DNA. We also know that by virtue of quantum law everyone has different experiences, although many of them are similar. People are naturally inclined to preserve their existence. They then naturally associate with those who are perceived to be similar. The levels of society reflect this, first there is the individual, then there is the family, the greater family, friends, then the nation. It should be noted that this structure is very elastic and is changed by who the individual perceives to be more similar (such as a teenager preferring to hang out with his friends than family).

When there is association there will be a natural sorting of people with proper authority. In a chaotic situation, natural leaders will inevitably emerge. These occurrences are natural. The problem with Anarchism is implied with their name. Anarchy is a composite Greek word. It comes from the word "Archon" which means a ruler or king. "Archy" is then the concept of power. This is then modified with prefixes to describe the source of power, Monarchy (one ruler), Oligarchy (rule by a few). Anarchy implies that there is no power. Now I don't expect to get angry e-mails from Anarchists solely because I doubt anyone actually reads this site, but usually they would argue something along the lines of "Anarchism isn't like that, you idiot! It's a voluntary collective with no true leader."

The thing about voluntary associatism is that it hinges on basic contracts. First there must be recognized an individual sovereignty. Then there must be some sort of recognition on what will bar you from this recognition. This is the establishment of law, and even if theoretically there was no conditions to lose individual sovereignty, that would still be a function of law. To have these contracts the "Archy" must come from somewhere. Here in America we believe in Demarchy, that the authority for all laws comes from the will of the people.

The reality is that all of society is ruled by all the individuals that compose it, Pandemarchy. Like a pointillist painting, these individual elements compose a larger picture. Since there is an inherent disparity of all people, similar groups bind together and splinter. Throughout the long march of history it has been designed for the individual to surrender his power to the nation to in turn receive its protection. How this power has been exercised is known as the "ocracy." A theocracy channels this power through religion; democracy channels the surrendered pandemarchy into the hands of the majority of people.

What makes the American system so unique is that it was not formed on the premise of surrendering power to the state. Through a willing association and contract (the Constitution) the pandemarchy is voluntarily invested into a representative democracy for the preservation of the individual. It will only be through the recognition of how this power is formed and for what purpose that this system can continue to work. It will only be through the willing association of those who share these basic beliefs that America can be preserved.