Would the founding fathers be anarchists?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The Republican Party in the U.S. likes to trace its idealogical roots to the founding fathers, who can be called the Jeffersonian democrats. However, I believe that the Jeffersonian democrats would definitely not be a part of the Republican Party. Namely, this is for all the big government aspects of the Republican Party, regarding the war on drugs, the war on prostitution, border controls, massive increases in government spending, getting involved in the so-called sanctity of marriage, the war on gambling, media censorship, funding of religious organizations, militarism, etc. The Republicans support a big government and a nanny state.

Although I would propose the Democrats seem to me to be slightly less big government than the Republicans, I believe the Jeffersonian democrats would be radicals, and would either be part of a third-party, namely the Libertarians, or be anarchists.

Do you think they would be revolutionaries? I do. Do you think they would be anarchists? I do. At the very least, they would be borderline anarchists, right?

Let's look at what they have to say.

John Adams said, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

I have heard Jefferson described as a philosophical anarchist multiple times, so I know I am not alone in my speculation that he would be an anarchist nowadays--especially after seeing what his proposed minarchist state has ballooned into.

Of course, Thomas Jefferson saw the problem and wrote of his revolution: "The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

Though he did claim to believe that anarchism would not work as well with a great degree of population, Thomas Jefferson often spoke fondly of it: "I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate."

Thomas Jefferson also explained his views of types of government by writing: "Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under government wherein the will of every one has a just influence; as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our States in a great one. 3. Under government of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence in these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem not clear in my mind that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it... It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject.... But even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to public affairs. I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing."

Yet again expressing a desire for more rebellion, Thomas Jefferson said, "God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion! ... What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Thomas Paine said, "Government at best is a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable one."

If Jefferson wouldn't have agreed with it then, I believe he would now agree with what I believe and Henry David Thoreau believed:

"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." ~Henry David Thoreau

The first person to call himself an anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, wrote that liberty is not the mother but the daughter of order. Is that much different than when Thomas Paine wrote: "A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government."

I stand by my claim that they would be revolutionaries, and they would either be Libertarians or anarchists. What do you think?

Thanks,
Scott

[anarchyisbliss]

Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

"Government at best is a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable one."

That's true because these are the fundamental principles of anarchy.

[shirleyalone]

Have you ever read Thomas Paine's works, namely Common Sense?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Have you ever read Thomas Paine's works, namely Common Sense?

Yes, I have. I enjoyed it. I think a lot of his arguments against the king can be applied to any governor, which is why I think their political philosophy was at least borderline anarchism. Thomas Paine was, I believe, one of the most rebellious.

What do you think of Common Sense? Do you think it has a lot of anarchistic themes?

[Daniel Owen]

They weren't anarchists because they weren't socialists.

[Dewey]

I regret not coming across this discussion of anarchism until after my posting of a reply to the companion discussion titled (appropriately enough): "Anarchism".

I had some, but no extensive, knowledge about the anarchistic views of Jefferson, Paine, and Proudhon, but not to the extent provided here by Scott. Now, though I'm still very skeptical about anarchism, I'm not quite so certain as before. I hope to learn more, wherever it leads me.


Dewey

[anarchyisbliss]

They weren't anarchists because they weren't socialists.

You are giving a lot of opinion with no support. What reason do you have to believe that they were socialists?

[Daniel Owen]

They weren't anarchists because they weren't socialists.

You are giving a lot of opinion with no support. What reason do you have to believe that they were socialists?

No, I said they weren't socialists -- a necessary qualification to be an anarchist.

[Dewey]

For Daniel Owen:

Please explain your reason for saying that one must be a socialist in order to be an anarchist. Thanks.


Dewey

[anarchyisbliss]

You are giving a lot of opinion with no support. What reason do you have to believe that they were socialists?

No, I said they weren't socialists -- a necessary qualification to be an anarchist.

I see, sorry for the misread. But on another note, not all anarchists are socialists, and anarchism does not necessarily entail socialism.

[Daniel Owen]

No, I said they weren't socialists -- a necessary qualification to be an anarchist.

I see, sorry for the misread. But on another note, not all anarchists are socialists, and anarchism does not necessarily entail socialism.

Anarchism necessarily entails socialism. All anarchists are socialists. Anarchism stands for liberty, equality and fraternity in the political and economic spheres -- socialism (properly speaking) just means economic freedom and equality.

[anarchyisbliss]

I see, sorry for the misread. But on another note, not all anarchists are socialists, and anarchism does not necessarily entail socialism.

Anarchism necessarily entails socialism. All anarchists are socialists. Anarchism stands for liberty, equality and fraternity in the political and economic spheres -- socialism (properly speaking) just means economic freedom and equality.

Socialism is more of the idea that individual activity should run the economic state. Anarchist is a state of nature with little or even no economy or monetary system. Although both request 9social equality and liberty they differ in their economic ideologies.

[Daniel Owen]

Anarchism necessarily entails socialism. All anarchists are socialists. Anarchism stands for liberty, equality and fraternity in the political and economic spheres -- socialism (properly speaking) just means economic freedom and equality.

Socialism is more of the idea that individual activity should run the economic state. Anarchist is a state of nature with little or even no economy or monetary system. Although both request 9social equality and liberty they differ in their economic ideologies.

That's called primitivism. Not anarchism. You're deeply confused about this, mate! All those millions of people the world over who have called themselves anarchists and have fought (and died) for anarchism were not doing so for a future where everybody runs around ******** naked eating berries and frolicking with cute bunny-rabbits.

This is getting silly. You can't pass off your strange ideas about technology and society as "anarchism" if anarchist philosophy disagrees with you, anarchist individuals disagree with you, anarchist social projects disagree with you, anarchist history disagrees with you, and nobody associates "no technology" with anarchism.

[anarchyisbliss]

Socialism is more of the idea that individual activity should run the economic state. Anarchist is a state of nature with little or even no economy or monetary system. Although both request 9social equality and liberty they differ in their economic ideologies.

That's called primitivism. Not anarchism. You're deeply confused about this, mate! All those millions of people the world over who have called themselves anarchists and have fought (and died) for anarchism were not doing so for a future where everybody runs around ******** naked eating berries and frolicking with cute bunny-rabbits.

This is getting silly. You can't pass off your strange ideas about technology and society as "anarchism" if anarchist philosophy disagrees with you, anarchist individuals disagree with you, anarchist social projects disagree with you, anarchist history disagrees with you, and nobody associates "no technology" with anarchism.

Excuse me but I am tired of you trying to tell me, an anarchist , what anarchism is, I'm starting to think you are the one who is acting silly . My dream of running around naked is just that: a dream. I know it will never happen it is just my fantasy world. I am an anarchist and I know exactly what anarchy means and I don't need you defining it for me.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

At the most general, anarchism simply refers to a belief in no government or governance, which includes an elimination of political hierarchies.

There are many brands of anarchism, based on differing opinions on what they each believe is government, what they specifically believe causes government, how to best eliminate government, etcetera.

There are many anarchists who oppose technology (apparently seeing it as conducive to statism), they are generally called green anarchists or anarcho-primitivists. Most anarchists would be wiling to describe their philosophy as stateless socialism, especially anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-communists, and anarcho-syndicalists. Nonetheless, many anarchists would oppose socialism (seeing it as inherently statist), namely mutualists, agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and individualist anarchists.

I personally take a more pluralistic approach. Instead of subscribing to any particular sect of anarchism, I just subscribe to anarchism without so much sectarianism. I agree with Voltairine de Cleyre who said: "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom."

A small anarchist commune could be run like almost any of these sects of anarchism want. What makes it anarchism would be that nobody is forced to join the commune and accept its conditions. (I say 'commune' because an individual is effectively forced to join a nation-wide society because the individual needs to use the natural resources to which the nation has claimed an unfair right.)

I do agree that any anarchist society could not cause too much pollution or environmental degradation because for one person or group to pollute or destroy the world could cause harm to others, and can be as opposable as murder, rape, and battery on those grounds.

About the original topic, if the founding fathers were anarchists, they would probably be individualist anarchists (non-socialist anarchists). They may have just been minarchists, but that still means they would at least be borderline anarchists. (That's ignoring their hypocritical treatment of women, blacks, poor people and the natives.)