Vegan Anarchy: The science of liberty for humans & animals

Science: "From Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know".

Anarchists aren't just political dissidents who refuse to participate in the ongoing circus known as politics - they are scientists.

Anarchy, the state of living in a society without a ruling class, i.e. the absence of government and politicians, is more than just some fringe anti-political ideology. It is a science. The comprehension of true freedom requires a scientific understanding of individual liberty and self-ownership. And few people, it seems, have such an understanding.

But that's no surprise.

All political campaigns emphasise security and safety over individual freedom, duping the masses into believing that, without a gang of politicians ruling over us and forcibly instructing us on how to behave, society would descend into chaos and riots would break out on the streets.

It is the oldest trick in the book, and tyrants have been using it since the days of kings and queens and emperors. "If not for us, your rightful kings and queens, your (s)elected political representatives, you peasants wouldn't know how to organise, cooperate and interact on a voluntary, consensual basis. You need us to keep things in check, to instil law and order and prevent things from spiralling out of control. You need us to save you from yourselves".

It's no wonder, then, that most people have no understanding -- or even a desire to understand -- the tenets of individual liberty and self-ownership. The science of freedom.

For hundreds and hundreds of years we have been trained to submit to the political whims of tyrants in fear of the illusory erosion of law and order and the unleashing of chaos and mayhem. Politicians, or tyrants, have trained us to equate freedom with chaos and taught us to fear our neighbours more than the control freaks and psychopaths in the houses of parliament and the white house.

So, what is true freedom?

Each man and woman is born with unbridled sovereignty and free will, which means that, as Thomas Jefferson acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, we have inherited certain inalienable rights from our creator, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Simply put, we have the right to do whatever we want, provided we are not violating the inalienable rights of anyone else. You, as an individual, have the God-given right to pursue your dreams without having to beg for permission from so-called 'authority' figures in government. Provided you are not imposing your will or obstructing the free will of anyone else, you are free to live your life as you please.

The problems arise when people value security over freedom, when people are all too willing to abdicate their personal responsibility and surrender their sovereignty to some monolithic government, in the hopes of being saved from themselves.

"Within each one of us lies the key to our own salvation or damnation".

People say they want freedom, but simultaneously denounce their own right to own drugs or firearms. Why? Because people fear the potential (keyword) consequences of unobstructed access to drugs, firearms, technology, prostitution etc. Rather than embrace the responsibility inherent in freedom, people want to outsource that responsibility to government and politicians. Valuing security over freedom is a hallmark of spiritual immaturity and a belief system that always leads to tyranny. It is true that many slaves, once set free, voluntarily returned to their masters because they were provided with food, shelter, and security. They chose safety and security over their own individual freedom.

The lion that is caged in the zoo, by all means, has an easier life than the lion in the wild. His food is provided for him on a daily basis. He lives in a safe, sheltered environment. And there is no fear of not acquiring the basic needs for his survival. In contrast with the free lion, who roams the jungle as a sovereign being, survival is not a guarantee. The free lion must fend for himself, hunt for food and find a mating partner. However regardless of any potential threats to his survival, the caged lion will ALWAYS choose freedom if presented with the opportunity. He will choose the dangers and the great unknowns of freedom over being someone else's slave, because freedom is the highest truth.

As I expressed in an earlier post (you're neither pro-gun or anti-gun; only pro-freedom or anti-freedom), the issue isn't guns, drugs, or taxes; the issue is individual liberty and the acceptance of personal responsibility. Being for guns doesn't mean you have to love guns. Being for drugs doesn't mean you have to take drugs. It means you understand the principle of self-ownership and the science of individual liberty. You have the right to do whatever you want provided you are not violently imposing your will on others.

Who owns the animals?

If we have arrived at the conclusion that we, as human beings, own ourselves and that government has no legitimate authority over us, should we not consider extending the right of self-ownership and self-determination to the animal kingdom? Are they not sovereign beings with their own innate desire for freedom and self-expression?

This question can be disposed of decisively with a scientific inquiry into the nature of self-ownership:

Animals, who were created by the same creative intelligence which granted man his natural rights, own themselves. They, like us, are born into this world as individuated units of consciousness and have the same innate desire for life, liberty and their own unique pursuit of happiness. Essentially, what this means is that our claim of ownership over the animals is no more legitimate than the government's claim of ownership over us.

Let us imagine, for a moment, that the entire human race was wiped out after the outbreak of a deadly virus, and only animals survived. If human beings no longer lived on planet earth, who then, would have a claim of ownership over the animals?

No one.

And that's because animals, like us, were born with inherent natural rights. They own themselves.

The common argument that we have a right to rule and dominate earth's inhabitants and subject billions of creatures to mass slaughter, because we are more technologically and intellectually advanced, doesn't stand up to scrutiny or scientific reason. If we take that argument to its logical conclusion, then there is nothing from stopping a hyper-technologically advanced race of beings from landing on earth and rearing humans for food.

(Who knows, perhaps the way we treat animals today provides a horrifying glimpse into how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to treat humans in the future. What if, in the future, AI decides to enslave, farm, and mass murder humans for its own gain? An act of cosmic justice, perhaps...)

The fact of the matter is that humans don't just get to make up their own 'laws' and 'rules', or impose their will upon other sentient beings. Moral laws exist in creation, and our goal is to discover and abide by them so as to cultivate the conditions of freedom and abundance for all of earth's creatures. Cows, pigs, chickens, goats and all other farmed animals deserve to live in freedom - it is their birthright.

When we eventually come to the scientific understanding of individual liberty and self-ownership, and abandon our superstitious belief in political authority, science demands that we extend such liberties to the animal kingdom. Only then, after we have come to the realization that all sentient beings are sovereign, will we be able to reach our potential as a species and transform the conditions on this planet for the better.

Thank you for your time and attention.