Lately, when people ask me if I’m a Democrat or Republican or what, I smile at them and tell them I’m a rational anarchist. This usually makes them blink, taken aback, and prompts questions about what I actually believe rather than which political party I support. That’s the goal.
The concept of rational anarchy appears in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, courtesy of a character named Professor Bernardo De La Paz. His words on the matter:
“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”
So, what does that mean? Contrary to the usual concept of ‘anarchist,’ a rational anarchist does not believe that the government should be destroyed-he believes that it doesn’t exist in the first place, not within his sphere of influence and understanding. A rational anarchist seeks to live in the world as it is. Yes, he can try to change it around him-the Professor is part of a revolution in the novel-but he understands that there is no mysticism in politics. It is simply a large gathering of individuals making individual choices.
How would our world be different if more people were rational anarchists? Think for a moment about the people you know and talk to. How many of them are always making excuses for their own actions? Heck, Jerry Springer would go out of business-those people would not need to make a spectacle of themselves over situations that are obviously their fault.
How about you? Would your life change, if you were to take full blame for all your own choices? I remember a motivational technique for writers, where on every day you do not write at all you must fill a page with reasons why not. After a while, you tire of your own excuses, and you start to see that it’s really your choice, nine times out of ten, rather than the fault of whatever external event you were blaming.
To get back to politics, what would happen if every individual in the government were to own up to their choices too? If our illustrious president took the blame for his choices… and so did every member of his team, from speech writers to advisors. How would our country be different, if such a thing were to happen? Different choices would be made, most certainly.
That’s how I try to live my life-taking responsibility for my problems and my choices. That’s how I’d like to see all people live their lives as well… but, as the Professor said, I know that not only do others live up to that standard, neither do I all the time. I’m okay with that-it’s my own fault, after all.
So why do I tell people that it’s my political affiliation? Mostly to throw them off. I dislike discussing politics, and by putting it all into the rational anarchist perspective, I am saved the tedium of doing so. But I also hope that if I tell them about it, they might start thinking as a rational anarchist as well. Enough people do it… it could change the world.
