Misanthropy is an emotion that has always been quite accessible to me. I frequently felt that I never had much of a need for people, and, in fact, “cynical” is usually the first word people use when describing me. I do not (necessarily) have any disrespect for my fellow man, just merely indifference. I feel as though, if anyone were crazy enough to elect me into a position of leadership, or if I were to ever get the opportunity to address my plans for world domination, it would be in my current modus operandi to establish a government centered on the basis of idealized anarchy.
The idea that everyone lives his or her own personal life without any interference seems delectable to me. Of course, many others, particularly those social butterflies, would find this akin to solitary confinement, and, obviously, that would be the only way to truly implement this idea. However, there is certain logic to be found. Crime of all kind would virtually disappear, and the mere fact would be that the only crime one can possibly commit is against themselves, and that begs the question: would that even be a crime? There would be no racial tension, no inequities, no need for education and the sharing of different ideals. The only person available to infringe on one’s rights is that one, and that is such a paradox none would never be able to find the correct answer, especially since he or she would be the only one available to answer it. But, a leader must consider everyone, and that means compromise. To separate people into complete isolation could lead to madness, and that is not something I would want to do. In fact, I would be, in reality, infringing on someone else’s rights, and that is neither responsible nor fair.
To accentuate autonomy and place it at the utmost importance in a person’s life, while still keeping order and some vestige of a basic society would be the best solution. An ideal government inspired by anarchy: another paradox, but a suitable one that can be wrapped around one’s head. Hopefully. Autonomous states, such as Somalia, have proven, to varying degrees, not to collapse in on themselves. They are not the paradigm of society, and in fact are in no way idealized anarchy (quite the opposite, it would so seem) but, nevertheless, they do exist, and this precedent is enough for me to enact a government-less government. The only thing that would really make this form of rule optimum would be to have every individual on board. But that is too idealistic, no? I suppose a utopia cannot exist if everyone is different.
Anarchy is something that has been deemed chaotic and destructive in the past, but I believe it is our responsibility as people to consider every aspect of an idea before it is written off entirely. After all, humans created Anarchy. In a way, I feel that means it is not something that is completely arbitrary; it was not just brought on by a whim. Or perhaps, it was just an easy solution developed by misanthropes who had every intention to make no effort when dealing with other people. Either way, would it not be perfect to live for only yourself?