RULES!!! LAWS!!! COMMAND!!!

Rules are nothing but will of a Tyrant


Is most intelligent being is befitted to be tamed? Are we a herd that need to be kept on leash?

Rules for what???for whom???
They say that rules are for the well-being of society. Believe me if there is no punishment on killing someone(extreme case) than tell me if you would go out and kill someone in reality. Iwould not and I bet most of us would not irrespective of how much we hate a person.....

An honest person will remain honest inspite of laws or no laws and a dishonest person will find a million ways to bypass them. For whom rules are than made. To fill treasuries and coffers of government so that it can usurp that money, spend it on useless wars and bailout the blood-suckers of poor.

Or to generate a false sense of right and wrong in which what suits to governement is morally and legally right and what does not suit to them is a legal punishment.

What sort of rules are this which are against an existence of individual and society. Where is the concept of free will when there is an external agency to control our actions. What is right and wrong is according to morals of society not through the petty rules.

It is the rules that provide a curtain to the elite to carry on with their agenda of sucking out blood from the poor.
 A great society needs principle and not rules. The more principleless a society is the more rules it will require.
 The more rules are there the more tyrant the government will be.

The damage caused to society by removing laws is much less than the inferno under which it is going through. It is just like small sacrifice to get to bigger objective.

 So break all the rules that control the freedom of Humans because whatever which binds human body and mind needs to be destroyed in order to complete the ordeal of gaining human independence.

TODAY'S LEADER IS TOMMORROW'S TYRANT

Every revolution starts under specific circumstances and under the direction of front-line leaders. These leaders provide the vision, direction, guidance, moral and social legimitacy to the revolution. But what happens when the revolution achieves its primary function?

Aim of each revolution consists of concrete part and an abstract part. The concrete part is the immediate objective i.e. to overthrow the current social set-up and the other is to build a new social order which is a long term aim. While there are numerous examples of revolutions achieving their primary objectives there are very rare cases of revolution achieving their second objective i.e. to build a new social order (which most probably is a utopia).

Take the example of the Russian Revolution. While it was able to achieve its primary objective i.e. to overthrow czar and to bring the whole nation under a single communist government, it failed miserably in creating a classless society.

The reason is simple and it is that Power corrupts.No matter how idealistic a leader can be, after all he is a human being motivated by the primal instincts of getting power. And this power is addictive. Thus whenever a revolution succeeds, the new elite replacing the earlier elite gets addicted to this power. As I had said earlier that Human being is more animal than any animal. This hormonal rush soon overcloud the rationality of man. And thus irrational primal instincts of man overpowers the rationality and vision of  man.There are numerous examples too like  Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Iran where the revolutions succeeded initially only to create an equally brutal state.

It is therefore imperative that a revolution should be leaderless so that any chancs of a leader HIJACKING  the revolution for his mean puposes is removed. Now, how is that possible? First of all leaderless revolts had been occuring all through the history. From Boxer revolt to Boston tea party, all revolts had been carried out by random people without any guidance .Apart from this even French revolution in its initial stages was leaderless. Even today the revolt against Muammer Gadaffi is majorly been fought by unorganized groups which want Muammer to leave rather than seeing a new government and Egyptian revolution was also a primarily leaderless revolution.
All this indicates that Leaderless revolutions are possible. A leaderless revolution is the best possible way of avoiding failure of a revolution.

SELF-GOVERNANCE IN A STATELESS SOCIETY

It is a myth that loss of authority leads to chaos. Infact the very presence of  it gives rise to all the conflicts in society. By having a authority a society passes on the responsibility of regulating itself to an external agency. This external agency (which we call government) is then ASSUMED to discharge its duties effectively and in the best possible manner. But the problem is that there is no subsequent agency to regulate its functions and that's where the problem arises.
Even Mahatma Gandhi called the state a "soulless machine" which, ultimately, does the greatest harm to mankind beacuse of this inherent lack of accountability in it.
Apart fom this, when society gives up its responsibility it also gives up its power. It loses its voice to something which is created out of itself. It is more of a mental block rather than a reality which clouds the collective wisdom that a society needs some external agency to control itself.

A society can govern itself unaided by an external agency. It is possible only when
1) That external agency is removed
2) Desicion making based on the consensus is taken up in society

The fact is that authority today has created much differences within us because of which we cannot get straight to the second step. Another fact is that a society needs to become tolerant of the differences existing in itself so that consensus-making can be accomplished.

A society which is not tolerant of differences that exist because of religion, caste , gender etc. will find consensus-making difficult and will succumb to the hold of authority again and again.

THE HIDDEN REVOLUTIONARY

Remember the time when you had a grudge against authority, against injustice and against inequality. Most probably the time was your Youth. There was a hidden fire which is looking to become a conflagration , there was no thought of dousing it at all. What then you did as a mark of protest was breaking the social norms...But only those social norms which do not cause any damage to society even if they are broken. So you took to smoking, carried out fights in the street and in the home, did drugs , danced to rock music and all those "Marks Of Protest". As the time passed you realized that this protest is worthless and it didn't take you anywhere. So that fire of non-conformity finally scummbed to the pressures of "making a living " and having an "acceptable lifestyle".

After all these years you find that you have gained the acceptance of society but also became a hollow being inside. So one wonders whether it is better to fight a losing battle or no battle at all?

Two mistakes have been done here. First when you took wrong ways to protest.The protest towards society was those "suggested by society itself".Though one can be pardoned on the basis of naviety. But the second mistake is what you had consciously chosen i.e.to douse the fire yourself.

There is a hidden revolutionary in all of us. There is a little voice in us which is telling us everyday to make a solid change to society in which we are living. Yet sometimes misdirected, sometimes silenced by ourselves, this fire inside us is not able to achieve what is its goal. And it does not mean that we should leave our jobs to get into streets. It simply means that we need to avoid looking in the Black-and-white. Full fledged war or no war. Infact one can start by a small change itself, but for that you need to accept that changing society is also a part of your responsibility. 

It is only by giving strength to that hidden revoulutionary and that igniting that fire again albeit directed this time, can we hope to justify our existence in the world.