The Conservatives Lose One Of Their Own

[mrjarrell]

Not to the progressives, not to the libertarians. Nope they lost one of their best commentators to the anarchists (not the Marxist black flaggers, real anarchists). Joseph Sobran has gone over to the side of the angels.
From LRC

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]My arrival (very recently) at philosophical anarchism has disturbed some of my conservative and Christian friends. In fact, it surprises me, going as it does against my own inclinations.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] As a child I acquired a deep respect for authority and a horror of chaos. In my case the two things were blended by the uncertainty of my existence after my parents divorced and I bounced from one home to another for several years, often living with strangers. A stable authority was something I yearned for.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Meanwhile, my public-school education imbued me with the sort of patriotism encouraged in all children in those days. I grew up feeling that if there was one thing I could trust and rely on, it was my government. I knew it was strong and benign, even if I didn't know much else about it. The idea that some people – Communists, for example – might want to overthrow the government filled me with horror.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] G.K. Chesterton, with his usual gentle audacity, once criticized Rudyard Kipling for his "lack of patriotism." Since Kipling was renowned for glorifying the British Empire, this might have seemed one of Chesterton's "paradoxes"; but it was no such thing, except in the sense that it denied what most readers thought was obvious and incontrovertible.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Chesterton, himself a "Little Englander" and opponent of empire, explained what was wrong with Kipling's view: "He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reason. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English." Which implies there would be nothing to love her for if she were weak.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Of course Chesterton was right. You love your country as you love your mother – simply because it is yours, not because of its superiority to others, particularly superiority of power.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] This seems axiomatic to me now, but it startled me when I first read it. After all, I was an American, and American patriotism typically expresses itself in superlatives. America is the freest, the mightiest, the richest, in short the greatest country in the world, with the greatest form of government – the most democratic. Maybe the poor Finns or Peruvians love their countries too, but heaven knows why – they have so little to be proud of, so few "reasons." America is also the most envied country in the world. Don't all people secretly wish they were Americans?[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] For most people, "anarchy" is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism – things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term "state," despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what "legitimacy" means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"But what would you replace the state with?" The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be "replaced."[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Christians, and especially Americans, have long been misled about all this by their good fortune. Since the conversion of Rome, most Western rulers have been more or less inhibited by Christian morality (though, often enough, not so's you'd notice), and even warfare became somewhat civilized for centuries; and this has bred the assumption that the state isn't necessarily an evil at all. But as that morality loses its cultural grip, as it is rapidly doing, this confusion will dissipate. More and more we can expect the state to show its nature nakedly.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] For me this is anything but a happy conclusion. I miss the serenity of believing I lived under a good government, wisely designed and benevolent in its operation. But, as St. Paul says, there comes a time to put away childish things.[/FONT]​

Read the rest at the source.

 

[level.eleven]

You were beat to the punch by one of the other resident an-caps.

Nice to see freedom representing today.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/71148-the_reluctant_anarchist.html

 

[mrjarrell]

Didn't see it amongst the few hundred new unread posts I scrolled through. Dang.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...discussion/71148-the_reluctant_anarchist.html