ere in the United Kingdom, there is a phrase that is increasingly being used among an educated public in periodic attempts to define the very odd form of regime that’s emerged principally since the prime ministerial office of Sir Keir Starmer began: ‘anarcho-tyranny.’ This term denotes a state of affairs in which the government habitually fails to enforce the basic laws against criminals that makes the ordinary members of society feel safe and secure, whilst enforcing increasingly stringent regulations against those ordinary members of society.
In turn, those living in such a society begin to feel that they live under a tyranny, but not a typical tyranny of the citizenry by the state, at least not directly. Rather, it is a tyranny of the ordinary member of society by bad members of that same society, from which the state absolves itself of the duty to protect them. If tyranny is the worst form of government, anarcho-tyranny is arguably the worst form of tyranny.
What, though, has been emerging in the UK—and for some time now—is perhaps something even worse than anarcho-tyranny as defined above. For it is not simply that basic laws against criminals are not enforced while the state imposes strict regulations against society’s ordinary members, but rather that the state goes a step further in actively rewarding those people who either are or should be deemed miscreants.
If you are an ordinary person with very modest aspirations, like earning a wage sufficient to look after a family, owning a property with which to shelter your loved ones from the elements, protecting your children from ideological influences that might corrupt them or even lead to mutilations, and all the while hoping not to be taxed to the point of robbery, you will find that your humble aims are almost impossible to achieve.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member