Sand castle democracy

This current system of democracy is truly terrible. What strikes me is the amount that voting gives the great illusion of participating in change.
I‘d like us to imagine, if rather than pieces of paper being put into boxes, votes were cast by placing a single grain of sand upon a castle, and whoever‘s castle ends up greater, wins power. The castles may get magnificent, but your grain is forever lost. Did your grain ever increase its grandeur? Is placing the grain worth your trouble?
And then the castle that would be built would function as a symbol of the new government, that would quite surely crumble away, like the hopes of the voters in the party, as its lies are gradually revealed.
The greater the castle, the more tragic the mound of sand left at the end of the day.

Ahh, dreaming of a system designed to reveal its own faults. Pointless to plan, but crucial to imagine.
My point is, if you want something good to be done, don’t try to convince politicians through paper (or sand). Instead, do good things directly, and when necessary, actively protest against the government.
It is people, not institutions, and certainly not governments, that will make the world truly better.

God bless you.

Friendly anarchy

Anarchy‘s been given many bad names, some by the state and capitalist media, and some from the actions of a few anarchists. It’s actually the most friendly of all political ideas.
It’s not about hating everything, or mindlessly calling everyone you see a puppet of the system. It’s about hating injustice and revealing the system‘s love of injustice, and then building a better world.
It certainly isn’t about chaos and each man for himself. Anarchists believe people would naturally help each other. Think about it, do you know anyone who would murder, rape and rob whenever they got the opportunity (when all are equal as well)?
It’s far more friendly than capitalism. Capitalism says people are evil, and need superior people to rule them (despite these people being repeatedly shown to be, at least morally, inferior). “Anarcho“-capitalism says all against all, defending their own, and that the people who should be allowed to rule aspects of people‘s lives, are those most able to increase their power (who are repeatedly shown to be corrupt).
State communism is even worse. It says the superior will look out for all, but those in power always exploit those they believe to be inferior. But it’s worse than capitalism because the power is entirely centralized.
Only anarchists say we are equals, and we will look after each other.
There’s a crazy statist myth floating around, that we need government, and without it we‘d have a free for all. This ignores the remarkable amount we do freely for each other, and always better than the state, and the evil the state always pushes, for their own wealth and riches.
Are humans perfectly capable of looking after each other for the common good? No, not in my opinion, at least, not everyone and not perfectly. But it’s certainly not better to have certain humans over others by violence.
The least friendly part is the threat of violent revolution, which is a terrifying thought. But this is not a key part. Many want to achieve anarchy through non-violent protests or workers strikes.
Anarchy is about the hope of a world where we don’t run things by violence and selfishness. Where we look at needs not deeds.

Anarcho-capitalism vs freedom

“Anarcho“-capitalism is not anarchist, because it’s not really free. Every other anarchist believes everyone has the freedom to bread, to education, to housing, to work, to life and so on. Anarcho-capitalists only believe in the right to private property. That is, they only believe in the right of each man to dominate as much as he wishes.
Property rights and all other rights are incompatible, because one says one man may control everything for his own good, while the other shouts, “all things for all men“.
But how will I have any privacy without private property? Because while you can abolish property, (because it’s on paper) you cannot abolish belongings (because they’re in hearts and minds). If you need to know the difference, listen to ‘we belong together‘ by Mariah Carey. A farm belongs to its farmer, not its landlord, and food belongs to the hungry.
Now to leave concepts and get practical. I‘m not going to take from anyone’s property, because it wouldn’t be kind. But I should disrespect all property, especially my own, and respect other’s belongings.
So I won’t be breaking into your house, or stealing loaves from the bakers. But I may walk through private fields or forests, and pick grains and berries as I go, and I may give all I have to those in need.
But really, my anarchy is based entirely on love, and love is the only principle it needs.