Tag Archive | ancap

Why Does the Libertarian Party Exist?

There are two main sides within the Libertarian Party these days. One side believes the party exists to win elections, and the other side insists that the party exists to spread the principles of liberty. We can definitively settle the matter right now by taking a look over at the Libertarian Party’s official website and checking out its official platform, wherein it states:

Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

It’s pretty explicit and hard to misinterpret. So if you happen to fall in the “the party exists to win elections” camp, then I’m going to have to ask you to free your mind for a moment, because you’re wrong. The party exists to set the world free in our lifetime; winning elections is one of many ways of achieving that goal. The goal is “to create liberty,” basically, to  keep things short. The method–that is, how we get from here to “a world set free”–is not explicitly defined, except in the platform that follows, but that’s more or less just a list of ways that we aren’t free. There is nowhere in the platform any suggestion that we must or, heaven forbid, should go through the state in order to achieve liberty.

That is by design.

It is entirely possible that we may one day set the world free by doing nothing more than spreading the word and making people aware of the reality of the state, and that one day we might have the numbers to simply shake off the fleas and be done with them, without ever electing someone to a political office. That so many people assume that we must go through the state simply shows how trapped in the statist mindset they are. Not only have there been countless sweeping changes throughout human history that did not go through the state, but the best changes have always not gone through the state, and have always been spontaneous creations of individuals acting in liberty, not because of a mandate.

Anarchists Versus Minarchists/Classical Liberals/Statists/Big Ls

This is closest to being honest I’ve had one of the Big L Libertarians get. I’m sure many people reading will instinctively agree with what Tristan said. However, read what Tristan said. “This is our party, and we’re going to do what we want. If you don’t like it, leave.”

It’s been my contention for some time now that when Big L Libertarians talk about “compromise” they don’t mean “with anarchists,” and they actually mean “with Republicans and Democrats.” They love talking about compromise, but when it actually comes down to it, they’re typically intransigent and seem to think that “compromise” means that they get whatever they want, and dissenters get to go along with it or stfu. Compromise is a two-way street, and it means that one side gives up something to secure something that would be tolerable, while the other side gives up something to secure something that would be tolerable. If the nominations of Gary Johnson and William Weld, of all people, didn’t prove beyond any doubt that Big L Libertarians have absolutely no desire to make any concessions–when so many superior Vice Presidential candidates were available, like Will Coley–then I’m not sure what will.

I think that’s the part that Big L Libertarians don’t get: compromise means that they have to make concessions, too. The anarchist-preferred candidate of 2016 was undoubtedly Daryl Perry. Compromising on John McAfee would have been excellent middleground between Big L Libertarians and Daryl Perry. However, they had no reason to compromise, did they? No, because they outnumbered us and have always outnumbered us. We were willing to compromise with having Daryl Perry as a libertarian (not anarchist) candidate. And “we” (I say “we” meaning “me,” but surely most anarchists would have happily agreed) were more than willing to compromise with having John McAfee as something more like a minarchist (whether McAfee is a minarchist or anarchist, I don’t know, but he is certainly easier to sell in the mainstream, simply by weight of his name). And, of course, we had already compromised by playing at all in the system that we want to destroy.

We are, and remain, willing to compromise… with minarchists.

I gladly admit that I have no desire to compromise with Republicans and Democrats. I do not compromise with people who are so blatantly wrong and whose modus operandi is force, violence, and coercion. I will not compromise my freedom to people who see nothing wrong with outlawing abortion, or to people who want to steal from me to pay for other people’s stuff. Not only am I unwilling to compromise with the people who devastated the Middle East and the people who are gleefully beating the Drums of War with Russia, but if you are willing to compromise with such people, then that throws your judgment immediately into doubt, as far as I’m concerned.

If Big L Libertarians want to compromise with Republicans and Democrats, there’s not much we anarchists can do about it, because we are outnumbered–we seem to comprise about 15-20% of the party. Obviously, they are perfectly free to compromise with whoever they want… Or are they? Does compromising with a tyrant or a sycophant not stain one’s hands? Isn’t this a bit like compromising with Charles Manson–“Okay, Charles, we’re going to compromise. You can’t kill anyone, but, I tell you what, we’ll let you torture one person every six months, as long as you don’t kill them. Deal?” How clean would one’s hands really be in such a compromise? And aren’t we all aware that the state is infinitely more horrific than Charles Manson?

Regardless, the issue is that Big L Libertarians act and speak as though what they want is to compromise with the anarchists who actually belong in the Libertarian Party. This is part of the leadership crisis that we face, but we’ve also got a major problem with collectivist thinking having infected the party. They regularly talk about how they wish that the in-fighting in the party would end, and I have to agree, but I dispute their understanding of the in-fighting. The rift is between anarchists and minarchists, or radicals and moderates, however one would like to put it, and exists because the minarchists/moderates have convinced themselves that the Libertarian Party belongs to them and that, at best, anarchists are the red-headed stepchild.

It is not and has never been a minarchist party–nor is it an anarchist party. It is, however, every bit as much an anarchist party as it is a minarchist party, and as it is a classical liberal party. Larry Sharpe came under fire recently (does the drama never end???) for making a video that people interpreted as his saying that he didn’t want anarchists in the party. Even though that isn’t what he said or meant, the whole thing still dances around the issue without actually stepping foot on it: it’s not Larry Sharpe’s party. It’s not minarchists’ party. It’s not their party to say they do or don’t want us in it.

This is my house that I’m writing this from. It belongs to me. If I don’t want you in it, that matters. But if I’m in Bob’s house and I don’t want you in it, that doesn’t matter, because it’s not my house. The very idea that Larry Sharpe or anyone else is in any position to want or not want anarchists in the party is patently absurd–this house belongs every bit as much to the anarchists as it does anyone else. It’s not Larry Sharpe’s house for him to proclaim who he doesn’t want inside, and neither is it any other minarchist’s or anarchist’s.

And the entire root of this rift is that the Big L Libertarians (of whatever variety) do think that it’s their house, and that we’re simply guests whom they allow to sleep on the couch. That… is… wrong. It is factually and historically wrong. Minarchists simply told themselves and convinced themselves that it was their party, and then they began marginalizing the anarchists. However, proclaiming something to be true does not make it true.

The Libertarian Party of the United States was founded in 1971–some of its founders are still around, and you can find them on Facebook and discuss it yourself with them (assuming they are willing). Merely three years later, the Dallas Accord was struck between the anarchists and the larger minarchist faction, wherein the two sides agreed that the question of whether a state was desirable would be intentionally avoided until such time as a libertarian society had been achieved; it was the agreement that the Libertarian Party was neither a minarchist nor an anarchist party, and this was only three years after the party was formed.

In 2006, the minarchists took control and became hostile to the anarchists, deleting most of the party platform and replacing it with things like “Government exists to protect rights…” This doesn’t make it right, and it’s an outright betrayal of the anarchist faction. It caused a mass exodus of anarchists from the party that had betrayed them so brazenly, and was dubbed the Portland Massacre. Now we have a party platform that says that a state-owned military is necessary! It was an obvious stab in the back to the anarchists, and in the years since the minarchists have not only betrayed anarchists further but have betrayed themselves and leaped right into classical liberalism and something very much like Constitutionalism.

I dread to think what the Libertarian Party would become if there weren’t still anarchists out here trying to stick it out and keep the party tethered to its principles, because it has betrayed so very many people, factions, and ideas. Now we have language that says the state should use immigration laws to “protect” us, which not only is patently un-libertarian, but it’s not even classically liberal–it’s full-blown statist, as even the Constitution didn’t grant the Federal Government the power to control immigration. In its desperation for mass approval and Quixotic quest for electability, is there any principle that the Big L Libertarians won’t betray?

Politics & Elections

As stated clearly, the party exists to cause liberty to happen. It is certainly conceivable–although I find the idea incredulous for reasons I’ll detail in a moment–that winning elections could be a valid method of achieving that goal. However, it is foolish, absurd, and narrow-minded to act like it’s the only possible way of achieving that goal, or even acting like it’s the best method of doing so. Given the results so far (widespread betrayal of anarchists and libertarian principles, schisms in the party, some Big L Libertarians even calling people like me enemies…), I’d argue that it’s not even an acceptable way of achieving that goal, even if it is possible in theory.

There seems to be this idea that we can pull a Bait & Switch on the electorate, and that we can run a “moderate Libertarian” who gets into office and enacts actual libertarian policies. This is called “deceit,” and it is generally frowned upon. It is false advertising, and it is considered to be deceptive–because it is deceptive. It’s like marrying a woman not because you love her (as she thinks you do), but because she’s a millionaire with no kids and no one to leave all her money to when she dies. It’s a clear case of false pretenses–everything about it is immoral, and that’s before we get into whether or not it would actually work.

Hint: it wouldn’t.

It is strangely denialistic to think that if you can convince Bob to legalize marijuana, then you’ll have an easier time convincing him to legalize all drugs. If there was any truth whatsoever to that, then the repeal of Prohibition in the 1920s would have prevented any further substances from being outlawed in the first place, because, in American history, Bob was convinced that outlawing alcohol was more trouble than it was worth, didn’t actually eliminate alcohol, created a black market, created gangs, and was a gross violation of people’s liberties. That didn’t stop Bob from turning around and making marijuana illegal barely a decade later, or from adding methamphetamine, heroin, and countless other substances to the list of banned narcotics.

Libertarian: “Bob, Prohibition isn’t working. We need to repeal it and just let people be free. This has done nothing but caused death and misery.”

Bob: “You know what? You’re right. Repeal Prohibition!”

Libertarian: “Alright! Let’s not make this mistake again, either.”

*Ten years later*

Bob: “We’re outlawing marijuana.”

*Seventy years later*

Libertarian: “Bob, marijuana prohibition isn’t working. We need to legalize it and just let people be free. This has done nothing but caused death and misery.”

Bob: “You know what? You’re right. Repeal marijuana prohibition!”

Here we enter Fantasy Land.

Libertarian: “Great! Let’s repeal prohibition of heroin, too! And cocaine! And crystal meth!”

Bob: “Hey, you’re right!”

… That’s so obviously not what would happen. Bob would reply, “Are you out of your mind? Marijuana is one thing, but heroin? No way! That’s something else entirely!”

That’s the flaw with the incrementalist/moderate approach. Just because you can get me to drive five miles doesn’t mean you can get me to drive five hundred miles. It’s absurdly unrealistic, and I find it hard to believe that anyone actually thinks such an approach will have any success. Legalizing marijuana won’t end the drug war; it won’t shift Bob’s position on the Drug War even the tiniest bit. I can already point to at least a hundred people I know who want to see marijuana legalized but who would recoil in shock and incredulity if I suggested to them that we should also legalize heroin.

Phase 1: Legalize weed!
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: The drug war is over!

Phase 2 is “something magical happens.”

The “legalize marijuana” versus “end the drug war” thing is such a wonderful parallel to the radical/moderate divide, because this is true in nearly every sense. I’ve convinced plenty of people that a business owner has the unalienable right to choose the people with whom they associate, and that they therefore don’t have to serve LGBTQ people if they don’t want to. It’s not too difficult to convince people of this. But the next thing out of their mouth is always, “But what if they’re racist and don’t want to serve black people? We can’t allow them to do that!”

It’s insane. It’s either a huge misunderstanding of reality or a purposeful self-delusion about human nature. Though I’ve convinced at least twenty people that discrimination of LGBTQ people by business owners is an unalienable right, I have never convinced anyone that discrimination of black people by business owners is an unalienable right. According to the incrementalist approach, once I convince them that discrimination against LGBTQ people is a right, they should be receptive to the “more extreme” form, yes?

Except they’re not, and they never are.

A World Set Free

It should come as no surprise that the Big L Libertarian faction (which doesn’t include every libertarian, minarchist, or classical liberal) seems incapable of grasping the idea that there might be some other ways to set the world free than by going through the established political system. For anarchists, the established political system is optional–however, we do not deny that it is an option. In contrast, the Big L Libertarian faction denies that there are any other options: they know only the state, and so they only know to go through the state. But that’s where libertarianism starts to contradict itself in the first place, because anyone who follows the ideas to their logical conclusions will end up as an anarchist, since aggression is the only way that the state can do anything while still being a state.

It’s just another example of how anarchist ideology isn’t even being considered by the larger faction, and, if they’re not even considering it, they can’t possibly be able to compromise with it. It’s like that Jody guy who blocked me when he claimed to be an anarchist immediately after saying that the state should exist to protect liberty. If you’re unwilling to even learn what anarchists think, then how can you compromise with them? If you’re trying to sell something to a person, don’t you kinda have to know what they’re offering to pay? But, of course, they’re not willing to compromise–as we’ve established–and they aren’t willing to even consider anarchists enough to learn what we have to say. If they were, then they would already know that going through the existing state is most certainly not the “only” way to set the world free (and, if one follows the ideas to their conclusions, it’s actually impossible to use the state to set the world free because the state is literally what you’re trying to set the world free of).

To compromise with someone, you must first know what they want and what they believe. Judging from my person experiences, the Big L Libertarians (which, again, isn’t inclusive of every minarchist, libertarian, and classical liberal) have no idea what anarchists want or believe. Jody’s silliness was the most flagrant, but it was hardly unique.

These Big L Libertarians seem to operate solely on their belief and their idea of what they want the Libertarian Party to be, making whatever assumptions they like, and from there they seem wholly resistant to facts. This Travis person has the idea in their head of what the Libertarian Party is (and, it’s worth mentioning, that their understanding of the Libertarian Party just coincidentally is exactly what they want it to be), and nothing will shake that delusion.

To say that the Libertarian Party exists to win elections is to say that anarchists aren’t welcome in the party, because we imagine different ways of achieving the Libertarian Party’s goal (which, one will read, is to set the world free, not “to win elections, duh!”). Having our methods spit upon and waved away even as we’re willing to go along with their methods, as long as they agree to the standards that we laid down in 1974 to solve exactly this problem… We’re using our preferred method, but we’re also willing to help you and use your preferred method to get libertarians elected to office. Our method and your method are only at odds because you set them to be by saying our method is meaningless, that yours is the only method that matters–by usurping the entire party and proclaiming it to be nothing more than a vehicle for your chosen method!–and that we’re not even welcome in the party if we don’t cease our method, shut up, and meekly go along with you.

This is our party, too.

And that’s why the goal of the party is to set the world free, not to win elections. Like the liberals I’ve talked about before who associate their emotion with their preferred method, it has trapped you and left you unable to even fathom that there might be some other way of achieving that goal. After all, the liberal takes “There shouldn’t be anyone starving in America!” and links that directly to “We need to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour!” It’s the basest and most confused of human behaviors to link a given goal inextricably to one’s preferred method of achieving that goal, and then dogmatically sticking to that method regardless of whether it works (like how liberals continue to demand increases to the Minimum Wage, despite the unemployment that it has caused).

Our method is 100% as valid as yours, and the Libertarian Party is 100% as valid as a vehicle of our method as it is a vehicle of your method.

We are anarchists, and this is our party, too.

Rantings & Ravings Rebooted Ep 03 – “Gays & Justice”

Intro (0:00)

General conversation about stuff.

News 1 (2:33)

Gay couple in Norway attacked by Moroccans, and reflections on the Pulse Shooting, as well as the fact that we’re not able to fix a problem if we aren’t allowed to discuss it. Also the mess in Syria, why Trump thinks it’s okay to create more terrorists, and the clusterfuck state of American foreign policy.

Stupid Comment of the Week (10:06)

A “former AnCap” who left the ideology because… he couldn’t envision a way for the ideology to come to fruition…? It was really hard to make sense of his ramblings, and this is from someone who rambles a lot. So we discuss various ways in which the radical ideology of non-violence could be implemented, and mention again that beautiful event during World War 1.

News 2 (23:52)

There actually isn’t a second news item this week. I had one, but deleted it to instead talk about the fact that we shouldn’t have this much shit to discuss in the first place, and how it’s an indication that something has gone awry. My anarchism doesn’t come out often (much of the time, I could be mistaken for a libertarian), but here it really shines through.

Are You Fucking Kidding Me? (36:37)

Skittles’ attempt to show solidarity with a rainbow-oriented group by… removing all colors from their candy…? What? I’m far from a Social Justice Warrior, but they have a point. Removing all color doesn’t show support; it shows antagonism, morons. “I’m going to show my support for the women’s march by waving my dick around!” What? No, it doesn’t make sense. A candy with the slogan of “taste the rainbow” removing all its colors to show “support” for a group whose emblem is the rainbow is, at the very least moronic, and that’s assuming it wasn’t meant as a snub of LGBTQ people in a society that wouldn’t tolerate it.

Darkside Philosophy (40:53)

Justice and AnCap principles–most people don’t mean “justice” when they say it. They mean “vengeance.” So I talk a bit about my murdered mother and how I might have justice over it. Spoiler Alert: the only way for me to have justice is to forgive the murderer. The conceit that it’s okay to inflict violence on someone because they used violence is called Eye For An Eye, and it’s not justice; it’s revenge.

Mistakes AnComs Make: Rulers & Leaders

“Anarchy” is derived from the Greek an arkhos, which translates literally to “without rulers.” It follows, then, that we have our universal definition of anarchy: a state in which there are no rulers, and our definition of anarchist: someone who advocates that there should not be rulers.

Then we have something that is completely unrelated–the point of divergence between anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists. It is a statement of fact that this thing is not related to anarchy, and this “thing” is hierarchy, which derives from hierarkhes, which means “sacred ruler.” Anarchy, then, means “without a sacred ruler,” because “sacred” is a type of ruler, and anarchy means “without rulers” of any and all types–sacred or mundane. In this classical, etymological sense, yes–anarchy does mean “without hierarchy.”

But what does hierarchy actually mean today? Briefly, we turn to Google for the definition:

a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.

Not a mention of rulers or anything sacred.

It’s a matter of record that the meaning of “hierarchy” has changed considerably over time–clearly, and no one can dispute this assertion. This is a word game that the Anarcho-Communists pull, as follows:

  • “Anarchy” means without rulers.
  • “Anarchy” means without hierarchy [sacred rulers].
  • “Anarchy” means without hierarchy [a system in which people or groups are ranked…]

We can tell with no more than a glance that “sacred rulers” and “a system in which people or groups are ranked” are not even kinda the same thing. For example, in a lot of ways the colleague I’ve mentioned several times is my boss, and I am subordinate to him; in our two-tier hierarchy, he is above me. He is not, however, sacred nor a ruler. He is not my ruler because I am free to disobey and disassociate from him at any time I would like, and that is not the case with rulers, least of all sacred ones.

It’s a word game that the AnComs are playing, by saying that anarchy means not having “this word,” knowing that “this word” has a new, modern meaning that has absolutely nothing to do with its ancient meaning–and they know they are correct when they reference its ancient meaning. The Anarcho-Capitalist would gladly agree–anarchy most certainly does mean “without sacred rulers.”

Does anarchy mean “without a system in which people or groups are ranked”?

To the Anarcho-Communist, the answer is “Yes.”

To the Anarcho-Capitalist, the answer is “No.”

No True Scotsman

This post is motivated by the claim I hear ad nauseum that AnCaps aren’t true anarchists. This is nonsense. We established the definitions clearly above. Their etymological origins are in full accord with their modern meanings–notwithstanding statist propaganda that has attempted to redefine “anarchy” to mean “lack of a central authority or civil war.” Anarchy means today exactly what it did when the Greeks combined an with arkhos: without rulers. So anyone who advocates the ideology that there should not be rulers is an anarchist.

It’s a two-sided game, and I am more than willing to stop playing it if the AnComs will stop playing it. If you guys stop saying that we aren’t true anarchists, we’ll stop saying that you aren’t true anarchists. This is most definitely an argument that we can make.

For example, the anarcho-communist would not allow me to voluntarily subordinate myself to my colleague. In so doing, the anarcho-communist has granted themselves authority over me, and I must obey them. They are, in every sense, attempting to be my ruler–attempting to decree what I can and cannot do, rather than what I should and should not do. There is nothing anarchistic about this, as they are making themselves rulers. Far from eliminating rulers, anarcho-communism attempts to turn an idea into the ruler–the idea of equality across the board, whether people like it or not, and the anarcho-communists become the footsoldiers of the state to enforce that ruler’s decrees.

See, I don’t have to rely upon word games to say that AnComs aren’t real communists. They do. They have to perform a literary sleight of hand, by saying that anarchy means “without hierarchy” while using the classical, original definition, and pretending that this applies to the modern, unrelated definition. If you argue for them to explain what is meant by hierarchy, you will ultimately beat them back until they confess that what they want is not a society without rulers but a society where everyone is a ruler as long as they bow to this idea and attempt to enforce it.

Person A to Person B: “I hereby voluntarily agree to work for you and to do as you say.”

AnCom: “No, you can’t do that. You have to be equals.”

Person A: “Says who?”

AnCom: “Says me. Everyone has to be equal.”

Person A: “But you have the authority to tell me what I can and can’t do?”

AnCom: “Yes.”

Person A: “Then everyone isn’t equal, are they? You are my ruler.”

AnCom: “It’s for the greater good. Everyone must be equal.”

Person A: “Except they aren’t. You’re at least my ruler.”

AnCom: “It’s for the greater good of equality. You can’t be allowed to subordinate yourself to someone.”

Person A: “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!”

Ah, what the hell.

In the anarcho-communist society, entering into a voluntarily subordinate agreement becomes an act of revolution.

It’s a blackhole of contradiction and oxymorons that, in order to ensure that there are no rulers, everyone must become a ruler and rule over everyone who doesn’t agree ideologically–which we see play out precisely in the above conversation. It’s impossible to force people to be equal without setting yourself up as a ruler over them, and why is that? Because the use of force, violence, and coercion are what mark a state, and the state is the ruling caste. Anarcho-Communism does not abolish the state. It widens it.

Leaders & Rulers

The problem is the inability to see that there is a difference between choosing to be subordinate to someone, and being forced to be subordinate to someone. In the above conversation–which, I daresay, few AnComs could actually dispute as being a realistic interpretation of the ideology–in order to stop someone from choosing to be subordinate to someone, they are forced to be subordinate to someone–under the auspices that it is unacceptable to be subordinate to someone. We can see the doublethink and cognitive dissonance in action, can’t we? We know the AnCom is shaking his or her head and mumbling, “No, no… That’s different. That’s not the same.”

And they’re right–but not for the right reasons. They’re right that it is not the same to choose to be subordinate to someone and to be forced to be subordinate. It is the critical difference between a ruler and a leader. A leader is someone to whom we choose to defer–either because of their expertise, knowledge, strength, wisdom, intelligence, or whatever. A ruler is someone to whom we must defer–because of their use of force, violence, and coercion.

It is the difference between following and obeying.

It is the difference between choice and force.

It is the difference between advice and mandate.

It is the difference between suggestion and requirement.

The AnCom, by extension, sees no difference between the above dichotomies, yet there is a world of difference. For example, I have suggested repeatedly that people who read my stuff should use Firefox, Ghostery, NoScript, and Adblock Plus. I have never mandated that these things are required. Of course I haven’t! I have no authority or power to make any mandates or demands. This is the difference; this is where the distinction lies. That some people choose to follow what I write, and on some occasions to even acquiesce to my ideas and adopt them, gives me no authority over them or power over them whatsoever. They can disavow me and disassociate from me at any time. I am not their ruler*.

If I attempt to enter into a voluntary agreement with someone else, and you tell me that I can’t, then how do I not have a ruler? In fact, I’m quite far from being an arkhos, aren’t I? I have a ruler: you. The ruler is the one who mandates that I cannot enter into this voluntarily agreement; the ruler is the one who requires that I not enter into this voluntary agreement.

* To be fair, I would also say that I am not their leader, either. Except, perhaps, in the case of a few examples–two in particular, those same two to whom I posted videos a while back. But let’s not get into that.

 

Reconciling the NAP & “Reality”

There are three main threads through everything that I write:

  • A rejection of absolutist black & white thinking.
  • Strict adherence to the Non Aggression Principle, to the extent that punishment becomes off-limits in favor of forgiveness and prevention of future crimes.
  • What I now call Nietzscheanism*–that is: morality is a human construct that primarily exists to keep the strong from abusing the weak; it is a luxury of the middle class, one not allowed to the lower class and one that the upper class isn’t held to.

It’s immediately clear, from the second two bullets–the first is only mentioned because it simply is a common thread, but it’s not the point of today’s discussion–that there is a conflict.

Can there be a greater example of middle class morality than the NAP? In fact, I would say that the NAP is the shining bastion of middle class morality–fully swearing off and condemning all force, violence, and coercion and asking that everyone else do it. Obviously, this can only happen in a world where everyone compromises the middle class. This is the crux of anarcho-capitalism, and the reason I insist that Nietzsche would be an AnCap if he lived today, knowing what we know.

nietzscheGoodness, there’s just so much ground to cover to bring my ideology full circle. It’s always difficult to explain to people exactly what I advocate, because it is very much circular, and that makes it hard to pinpoint a beginning. Here, we’ve started from Nietzscheanism and objectivism, and that works, but only if there isn’t a deity. After all, if there is a deity giving some sort of meaning to our existence, then life does matter. So before I could really get anyone on board with Nietzscheanism, I have to get people on board with atheism–Nietzscheanism, after all, is nothing but Applied Atheism. But before I can get anyone on board with atheism, there is a whole lot of groundwork to lay, and it’s groundwork that I’m not going to attempt to lay, because atheism and theism are irrelevant to the larger point. I can be right or wrong about individual pieces regardless of the existence of a deity.

However, I would say that before I could attempt to convince someone that there isn’t a deity, I would have to convince them the value of reason over emotion since, by any measurement, faith is an emotion-based position. We will keep going back and back and back until we arrive right back at subjective value determinations, which lands us right back in the territory of Nietzsche and the Austrian economists. I actually made a few years ago a document–a flow chart, for the most part–where one ideology led to the next, and it was clear by the end of it, after I was able to connect Nietzscheanism back to subjective value determinations–because the essence of Nietzscheanism is that morals are subjective–that I had just created a giant web. I know I still have it somewhere, but I can’t be bothered to find it, and it’s not that important anyway.

Morality, Very Briefly

There is no such thing as “morally good” or “morally bad.” These are values that we prescribe to various acts based on the consequences of those acts, the motive behind those acts, and the circumstances around which that act was committed. This is virtually a tautology at this point, but I will take the time to explain it anyway.

Let’s say that I push you down, causing you to break your arm. I have assaulted you. Everyone would agree that I was morally wrong to do so.

However, let’s say that I push you out of the way of an oncoming train that, for whatever reason, you aren’t aware is coming, and I cause you to break your arm. Suddenly most people would call me a hero and say that I’d saved your life.

In both scenarios, I did exactly the same thing: I pushed you, you fell, and you broke your arm. However, in the first scenario I was just being an aggressive bitch. In the second, I was saving you from being hit by a train. Yet the act itself and the consequence of that act are the same in both scenarios: the act was that I pushed you; the consequence was that you broke your arm.

What changed? In reality, what changed were the imagined consequences of me not pushing you. See, morality, as Henry Hazlitt observed in The Foundations of Morality, arises as a result of imagination, that wonderful characteristic that homo sapien has but so few animals share. It is our ability to imagine that gives rise to morality. Without even realizing it, so gifted are we at doing this, we imagine hypothetical alternative scenarios where I did not push you, and we compare the likeliest result of those scenarios with the reality that transpired. Marvelous creatures, we humans! And, in this way, imagination is literally the cause of morality, as it is precisely what allows us to envision these alternative realities.

In the first example, the most likely hypothetical alternative is that you continue standing unassaulted, and your arm is not broken. You go on about your day without a broken arm. By most criteria, that is certainly a better outcome for you, and since I am the reason you do not get to enjoy that superior outcome, it is determined in a fraction of a second that what I did was morally wrong. We do this innately; I’d almost say that we conceive these hypotheticals instantaneously, and the speed and proficiency are the reasons why we forget that morality is the result of imagination.

In the second example, the most likely hypothetical alternative is that you continue standing unassaulted right up until a train plows into you and utterly destroys you. By most criteria, that is certainly an inferior outcome for you, and since I am the reason that you were spared that inferior outcome, it is determined, perhaps instantaneously, that what I did was morally good.

These value statements themselves, though, are built on a few assumptions:

  • Empathy: This person is generally like me, and I should do unto this person what I would like this person to do for me. In most cases, what I want is much the same as what this person wants.
  • My own preferences: I prefer to not be in pain. I prefer pleasure. I prefer happiness. I prefer to not be sad. I prefer to remain alive.

By combining our own personal preferences with an extension of them onto other people–the very essence of what “empathy” is–we arrive at a criteria by which we assess whether something was good or bad. It’s by no means a perfect system–how could it be, when we are imperfect creatures?

Whenever I think of empathy and the application of my preferences onto others, I recall the time in college that I was behind the desk unplugging my laptop because class was over. While back there, without even asking, I took it upon myself to unplug my neighbor’s laptop, because he was in the process of packing his backpack. It seemed perfectly reasonable to assume that he’d like me to go ahead and unplug his while I was back there. Because I have all the social graces of Dexter, it didn’t occur to me at all to ask if he’d like me to do it; I simply did it. And I immediately learned that his laptop’s battery didn’t work, and that I did a cold shutdown on his laptop. Not a big deal, but something that has always stuck with me about assuming that our preferences automatically apply to others. They don’t. However, generally, they do. I mean, what are the odds that his laptop battery wouldn’t work at all? Under 95% of circumstances, the person would have said, “Oh, cool, thank you!” instead of “Oh, hold… What the hell? Did you unplug me?”

Nietzschean Morality

Nietzsche described good as “the will to power” and happiness as “having power.” From a strictly Darwinian perspective, he’s not wrong. He’s clearly not wrong; he can’t be wrong. However uncomfortable it makes us, he’s right. If our criteria is “survival of the species,” then the only thing that makes sense is to let the powerful do what they can. Do the powerful want to wipe out the weak? Turn them into sex slaves? Install governments throughout the world and use those governments to control the weak? Then they must be allowed to, under this perspective, because we do live in a universe that is trying to kill us, where only the strong survive. It’s a straight line from there to Eugenics, to forced breeding programs to breed the “most capable human.” It’s a sickening path.

Now, to be clear, Nietzsche most certainly did not go that far, and he did not advocate any of that. He was merely arguing that morality is a tool used by the weak to neuter the strong, creating three classes of people in the process: the middle class who were strong and obeyed the morality, the lower class who were weak and therefore didn’t have the luxury, and the upper class who were strong and rejected the morality.

The NAP

With all the above being true, we can see that the moral statement “force, violence, and coercion are unacceptable” is the epitome of Middle Class Morality. For one, this maxim is as close as we can get to a universally applicable morality. Is it true that absolutely no one wants force, violence, and coercion done to them? Certainly not. It’s no longer acceptable to say for some reason, but there are people out there who would genuinely like to be raped, for example. I’ve met a few, and their problem is always the same: they want to be raped without consenting to it, but giving someone permission to rape them is consenting to it, and the odds that a random stranger is going to rape them are not good. Beyond that, if they ran around clearly looking to be raped–wearing excessively revealing clothes and being unnecessarily sensual–it is passively consenting to it. I raise all this to make the point that they don’t want to consent to have it forced on them; they want it genuinely forced on them.

Rumor has it that Angelina Jolie once paid a hitman to kill her. She genuinely wanted someone to do violence to her, assuming it is true–and I don’t care whether or not it is, because there have been enough suicides by cop that it’s provable that some people genuinely want violence done to them. My own mother apparently sought out violent and coercive men. So obviously these things are not going to be universally applicable, because nothing is universally applicable to a species filled with individuals as varied and wild as we are.

Rights

In essence, all rights can be distilled to the following: we have the right to not have force, violence, and coercion used against us unless we consent to it priorily. This statement is all-inclusive. Just as you have that right, as does everyone have that right. This means, then, that you do not have the right to use force, violence, and coercion against someone without their consent. The right to free speech, free religion, free trade, free employment, and free everything else–they all stem from this basic right to not have force, violence, and coercion used against us. They are applications of this maxim to specific issues.

Are these inherent rights? Perhaps and perhaps not. It could be argued you have the right to attempt to stop someone from using force, violence, and coercion against you; in essence, it could be argued that you have the right to try to be strong, and, by being strong, subjugate the weak. It depends upon our subjective values–our criteria for determining morality. If we go with the Darwinian approach, then we arrive at this latter system of rights, where one has the right to do anything they can–this is an underground system of rights, the one that lives in the underbelly’s shadows in society, when certain behaviors are outlawed and black markets thrive.

Because that is, after all, the essence of the black market: a place where the forced middle class morality doesn’t apply because it happens in the shadows. The black market is generally created when the state outlaws something it has no business outlawing**, creating a new dichotomy of the strong and the weak, instead of the trifecta of those who can’t, those who do, and those who don’t. Since middle class morality ceases to apply to anyone, you’re left with only the strong and the weak–the victims and the aggressors.

It follows, then, that if outlawing things leads to the creation of a black market–which we know it does, from indisputable proof and countless examples from the drug war to abortions to ration stamps–that is differentiated from society by the fact that middle class morality doesn’t apply at all and we’re left only with the strong and the weak, then if we outlawed nothing, we would utterly eliminate this black market characterized specifically by the rule of the strong and Darwinian morality.

Application of the NAP Against Nietzscheanism

There are two things that must be done for the NAP to be realized, for middle class morality to be universally applicable–as much as it can be, at least. First, the lower class has to abolished and lifted up into the middle class. So let’s state this loudly and clearly:

No nation other than the United States has come close to eliminating its lower class.

This isn’t a bad thing. We look around the United States and, yes, we have a lower class still, but they aren’t really “lower class,” not in the grand scheme of things. They aren’t poor like the man in Ethiopia who throws out middle class morality to steal food for his family. By an overwhelming degree, the American poor abide middle class morality, though they have no qualms about stealing from the state. Seeing as the state is stealing from everyone, I don’t think it’s fair to condemn them for that one. Besides which, without the state and taxation, they wouldn’t be able to game the system to get “back” finger-quotes-wink-wink ten thousand dollars anyway.

Our “lower class” has electricity, clean water, running water, indoor plumbing, heating, air conditioning, vehicles, iPhones, laptops, steroes, flatscreen TVs, cable/satellite, Internet connections… Our lower class is so high on the totem pole that they’d be considered upper middle class in most parts of the world. This is actually part of the problem, since our lower class, our “poor” have totally lost all perspective on how luxurious their lives are.

To clarify the phrasing, the goal is not to kill off the lower class, not by any means. That’s horrible. No, the goal is to lift up the lower class and bring them into the middle class. Yes, this creates a new middle class, because humans naturally form hierarchies, but none of that matters. The point is that the applicability of middle class morality must be extended to the lower class and, if it is, then it is also true that they are not generally facing the threat of starvation, which is the escape clause that gives them an out from middle class morality in the first place.

Secondly, the upper class must be made to abide middle class morality. Currently, they don’t. I couldn’t even begin to guess how much shit the upper class gets away with in the United States. I’m positive that a solid portion of them engage in child sex tourism and pedophile rings. I’m not referring to the Podesta leaks, but a lifetime of hearing whispers and accusations directed at the upper class. It all may be false, but, in most cases, where there is that much smoke there is usually a fire.

But beyond that, does the upper class get away with theft? Holy crap, absolutely. Not only do they take part in the state and steal from us directly while calling it taxation, but they also use the mechanism of the state to create things like intellectual property and eminent domain, utterly gutting our property rights in the process.

Does the upper class get away with murder? Again, holy crap, yes. The death toll of the 20th century was 160,000,000 from war alone as upper classes in various parts of the world put the lower class to use killing lower class members who were fighting for other upper class groups. They call it “war,” but it is murder.

It’s indisputable that the upper class doesn’t just reject middle class morality; they do so brazenly and openly, in full view of everyone else, and they get away with it by using carefully constructed euphemisms, deceit, and manipulation. There are countless people who will insist that taxes aren’t theft. Except… they are, by any definition of theft. And sending a group of armed people to go kill another group of armed people is unequivocally murder. We cannot allow euphemisms and a refusal to face the truth obscure these basic facts.

Combining

So yes, it is true that we are animals who need to be strong in order to survive, and that our species as a whole must embrace strength and shun weakness. This does not mean a lack of compassion, though, as I’ve explained elsewhere. See, we have mistaken “compassion” as being hardly anything more than getting down in the floor with someone and crying with them. That is fake sympathy; it is empty sympathy.

If you are a herd of gazelle [humans] and are trying to get away from lions [the universe that kills the weak], and you have a loved one who is injured [weak, for whatever reason], then you are doing no one but the lions a favor by laying down with your weak gazelle friend and crying with them. This is empty sympathy. This is virtue signaling. This is nihilistic.

True sympathy leads one to help the other gazelle get up, heal their injuries, become strong themselves, and flee the lion.

We absolutely must have compassion and must be guided to help the weak–it is why we have our middle class morality. It is as close as we can get to “objective morality,” after all. However, if our gazelle friend refuses to get up, if they instead embrace their injury and their victimization, refuse to try to heal, and refuse to try to escape the lion, then we must cut our losses and flee before the lion gets us, too. There is a line between sympathy and nihilism.

Based on observable cause and effect–since it is impossible to speculate too much into our hypothetical alternate realities, and since we lack omniscience and can never know exactly how anything would really have played out if we had acted differently–we know that leaving the gazelle to be eaten by the lion would be bad, and our application of empathy derived from our own personal preferences compels us to help the gazelle. We know with reasonable certainty that the lion would eat the gazelle, and that, if we did not help, we would bear a portion of the blame in that.

We should all be strong; we should all be middle class, with no one enshrined above [through the state] or below [through poverty] anyone else. Now, what is the mechanism that allows that to happen? What mechanism eliminates the state that allows the upper class to escape culpability for their moral violations? Anarchism. What mechanism has provably lifted up virtually the entire population into middle class territory, where the fear of starvation is exceedingly remote? Capitalism.

So how do we create this world of people abiding the NAP, of all people being strong and none being weak?

Anarcho-capitalism.

Boo-ya, bitches.

 

* Thanks to the overwhelming number of angst-ridden ultra-emo millennials who think nihilism means “life sucks and death is cool,” I’ve been left with no choice but to change the label, but that’s fine; Nietzsche wouldn’t have approved of “nihilism” as the label anyway. Of course, these people have never read a word of Nietzsche and don’t fully understand the philosophy, because:

nothing-mattersand they get lost on that second part: nothing matters. They don’t fully apply it, though, or they would realize that it doesn’t matter that nothing matters. That is completely and utterly meaningless.

** Anything they outlaw is something they have no business outlawing.

America, We Need To Have a Talk

It took me one minute this morning to find three examples of absolutely horrific bias and fearmongering from liberal media elements–one of them from The Guardian, who claims each day in their subscription email that we should give them money to support “independent” journalism. I am so goddamned tired of the fearmongering. Just look at the bias and fearmongering in these three pieces.

This one, from a CNN affiliate, is so extreme I basically had to highlight the entire passage!

This one, from a CNN affiliate, is so extreme I basically had to highlight the entire passage!

Now, this is alarming because there are tons of people out there who believe that CNN is unbiased, fair, reliable, and not sensationalizing everything they say. But holy fuck–the sensationalism! “…making of a dictator… attack on freedom of speech… attacked SNL… demanded the show change… this is what dictators do… we will slowly lose our freedoms… Chilled by Trump tweets? You should be… lashing out at anyone who dares criticize him should worry every citizen…”

I mean, I’m stunned. I’m legitimately stunned by this blatant bias and fearmongering.

Let’s not forget, because it is worth pointing out, that we are discussing some dumb shit that Trump said on Twitter. We are talking about tweets. Tweets. Donald Trump’s freaking tweets are a threat to freedom of speech, show that he is a dictator in the making, and will take away our freedoms.”

If you handed me a list of stupid tweets from Donald Trump and asked me to write the most hyper-sensationalized article that I could, I don’t think I would be able to succeed nearly as well as Dean Obeidallah has. Let’s be clear about this. This kind of insane senationalism is what you would expect to find at www.obamaistheantichrist.net, not CNN. “Here’s a picture of Obama not wearing his wedding ring… OMG, he’s a Muslim… going to impose Sharia law… turn the country over to Isis… supporting black supremacy…”

That’s the essence of sensationalism: taking something that’s pretty much meaningless and innocuous and drumming it up to fever pitch proportions, and CNN is clearly guilty of it here. Just stop what you’re doing, pull back for a moment, and remember that we are discussing Twitter. We are discussing tweets. And the mainstream media has gone so far into LaLa Land that Donald Trump’s tweets can make him a dictator in the making.

Does anything else have to be said about how insane the media has become?

Yes.

fear2Here is a headline in today’s subscription email for The Guardian–the only news outlet that I’m subscribed to. Why? Because I like getting news from the other side. Unlike most Americans, I have absolutely no desire to place myself in an echo chamber. I’m also subscribed to the Rational Review News Digest, actually, but they aren’t a media outlet. This headline appears almost immediately after the Guardian asks for funding to support their “independent and fair” journalism.

I’m sorry, Guardian, but you are jurnalizts, not journalists. Honestly, I am closer to a journalist than you clowns are, and I know that I’m a jurnalizt. Those who want to know the difference should follow Jim Sterling, because it’s not really a matter of “one is serious and one isn’t.” It’s more nuanced than that.

Anyway, these jurnalizts at The Guardian are neither independent nor fair. Just look at this madness.

Trump hasn’t even ascended to office yet, for crying out loud. We are still fully under the rule of exactly the same people who have been ruling us through the last two years. And I’ve already addressed the reality that requiring a woman drive to another state to get an abortion is not a threat to her abortion “rights.” Your ability to rule the entire country and tell everyone what to do is under siege, not your abortion rights. I’m sorry that you don’t know the difference.

What do you even say?

What do you even say?

If These Are Your News Sources…

…then I can only imagine how terrified you are. I feel for you; I truly do, because you are a victim. No, you’re not a victim in the sense that someone said mean things about you. You’re a victim because the liberal media has been knowingly and consciously sensationalizing everything about Trump to the point of full-blown hysteria–and I know a thing or two about hysteria. In fact, I think 2016 has been the Year of Hysteria, and there are no signs that the hysteria is about to abate.

I also know first-hand how impossible it is to talk someone back from the edge of hysteria. Such people are fully caught in the grip of their emotions, have lost all perspective, and have been jumping at shadows for so long that they think standing in the darkness means they are surrounded by monsters. When I tried to reason with people over the clown bullshit, I was repeatedly attacked and viciously insulted, all because I dared tell these people that they were overreacting and needing to calm the hell down, because they had lost all perspective.

img_2678It’s not an accident that I have “PERSPECTIVE” tattooed on me; it’s a constant reminder to maintain perspective.

If you’ve been getting your news for months or even years from these websites like CNN and NYDailyNews and The Guardian, then it’s almost certain that their ultra-sensationalized headlines have driven you into a frenzied hysteria. It could very well be true that you’re no longer capable of stopping and saying to yourself, “Wait a minute. They’re accusing Trump of being a dictator in the making because of some stupid shit he said on Twitter. This… This has to be a joke, right? They can’t be serious. They can’t be writing an article that ridiculous, that absurd, and that sensationalized while trying to pass it off as genuine journalism, right?”

Except they are, and they’ve been doing it for a while.

It’s distressing, but leftwing media has gone totally insane, and the only question is whether they have gone so insane that they believe their own sensationalization, or whether they know that they’re sensationalizing everything and are just doing it to manipulate you in favor of their ideology.

It’s true, you know. Every time Trump says or does anything, this is exactly how the media reacts:

Let us not forget that because Trump said this:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

… and the left and media retaliated with “OMG HE’S CALLING FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF OUR LADY HILLARY”

Talking about Constitutional court battles in the Supreme Court where these judges would be, Donald Trump referred to Second Amendment advocates possibly being able to fight it anyway. And the media and left interpreted this as a call for the assassination of Hillary Clinton.

You can’t make this stuff up, man.

Well, clearly, you can. But you have to be a “journalist” employed by The Guardian, CNN, the NY Times, or the LA Times.

This happened repeatedly; it has been happening repeatedly.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t realize that this is sensationalized bullshit with little relation to what was actually discussed. Just remember that tweeting can evidently be an attack on free speech and make someone a dictator in the making.

Fake News and Real News

Now liberals have a new culprit to blame their loss on, instead of, you know, rightly blaming the loud faux progressives in their party who paint everyone else as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, gun-toting, Bible-carrying hillbillies, and that new culprit is: fake news sites. Well, I’m sorry, CNN, Guardian, and NYDailyNews, but you have absolutely no ground to stand on in accusing other people of spreading fake news when you’re producing the above articles. The article about how Hillary is totally a reptile person from caves deep in Meso-America contains exactly as much truth as your article about how Trump’s tweets make him a dictator.

Projections

Months ago, I recorded a podcast when I observed that a lot of people were projecting bigotry where there clearly wasn’t any, which did, of course, make them the bigots.

There were two, actually.

Projection is a serious problem, especially with Donald Trump, because he’s basically the Bible of American Politics, and there are millions upon millions of people who project things onto him, either as a reason to hate him or as a reason to like him. Donald Trump was supposed to be a threat to the sanctity of democracy and the peaceful transfer of power from one person to the next; Donald Trump was supposed to be a sore loser who wouldn’t concede the presidency. Then it turned out that Hillary said “Screw it” and waited to concede the presidency, telling her supporters to go home and go to bed. Then it turned out that the very people accusing Trump of undermining the electoral process went out and started rioting, petitioning for the Electoral College electors to vote faithlessly, to elect Hillary even though Trump won the electoral college, thereby undermining not just the peaceful transfer of power, but the entire Republic system that we have built.

The Electoral College

No, the electoral college does not exist to protect rural states. It does not exist to give disproportionate value to rural white voters. It exists because we are a union of fifty sovereign nations. We are not a single, unified state, and we never have been. We are fifty individual republics, and this is the result of a hundred years of fascism and an overblown federal government. Popular votes decide your Governor, your senators, your state legislatures. The popular vote doesn’t decide the presidency because the President isn’t your ruler. Your governor is. We’ve simply forgotten this. We’ve forgotten what “state” means.

Hell, I’ve seen people suggesting that California should form the Republic of California. It’s already the Republic of California!

The popular vote doesn’t decide the President because you are not, first and foremost, a citizen of the United States. First and foremost, you are a citizen of whatever state you live in. That is the way our republic was designed; that is the way our federalist government was designed. Once upon a time, we didn’t elect our national senators through popular votes, either, for the same reason–we are a coalition of fifty sovereign republics. We do not elect the President. Our states do. This is critical to understand the very essence of our nation. We don’t elect the President for exactly the same reason that popular votes throughout Italy, Germany, Spain, Greece, etc. don’t elect the President of the European Council. It’s not the way the system is designed.

Fakes News, Real News Projection 2

For all the talk of how Donald Trump is a threat to free speech and a free press, who is it that is actually campaigning for some kind of elite media group to determine who gets approved to be considered “Real News” and who doesn’t? That’s right–the liberal media. The very people who accused Trump of being a threat to a free press are now fighting to have sites that they deem to be “fake news” censored, shut down, and blocked. If you want to talk about a threat to a free press, let’s talk about the enormous dangers that such a cabal of elites represents to a free press.

Nowhere in the First Amendment is the press required to tell the truth. This seems to surprise a lot of people. In fact, the first amendment guarantees that the press can never be required to tell the truth. They can lie, exaggerate, manipulate, deceive, and stretch things as far as they want. Just scroll up to see how a few stupid tweets are stretched to the point of making Trump a dictator in the making. The only things that require the press tell the truth are libel laws, and those are extremely limited when it comes to the press. I don’t think they should be expanded–obvs–but if you’re afraid that Trump is a threat to a free press because he wants to expand libel laws while you advocate the creation of some agency–governmental or not–that rubberstamps some news as “real” and other news as “fake,” then you aren’t exactly on the side of a free press yourself.

Whoever made this, thank you.

Whoever made this, thank you.

It’s another case of projection. I don’t think expanding libel laws so that the media is held to account for saying that Trump “brags about sexual assault” would be a threat to a free press. In fact, I think that such an expansion, in the current system, would probably benefit the American People. Because, let’s be honest here: No, Trump most certainly did not brag about sexual assault. He said women let him. And the media took that and ran with it, completely forgetting what the meaning of the word “let” is. If you let someone do something, then you are consenting to it. If you’re consenting, then it is not sexual assault. I absolutely think the media should be held to account for that sensationalizing, that drumming up of hysteria, that fever-pitch insanity that completely twisted and ignored what Trump actually said so that they could push their narrative of some orange gremlin running around grabbing women by the pussy.

Because they harbor a desire to inhibit freedom of the press, they project that onto Donald Trump and accuse him of wanting to inhibit freedom of the press. Honestly, if I was Trump I would be pretty pissed off, too. I mean, the man spoke of how women consent to have sex with him because he’s rich and famous, and the media immediately accused him of sexual assault and twisted his words into being “bragging about sexual assault.” I’d be pissed, and if that blatant twisting of the truth and sensationalism doesn’t fall under the legal definition of “slander,” then our libel laws do need to be re-evaluated.

Liberals want to use the government to force everyone to abide their policies, their values, and their standards. This is no surprise–it’s what separates liberals from conservatives. We’ve twisted the meanings so that “liberal” now means “pro-tolerance on social issues” while “conservative” means “intolerant,” but this is ridiculousness that I’ve addressed before.

So because liberals want to enforce their worldview onto everyone, they can only assume that conservatives want to force their worldview onto everyone, but, again, that is the critical divide between liberals and conservatives. Theoretically, conservatives want small government. They don’t want the federal government to tell the state of Mississippi that it must allow gay marriage, and they don’t want the federal government to tell the state of California that it cannot allow gay marriage. Basically, liberals want democracy while conservatives want a republic.

It’s funny that, for the first time in my life, the Democrat Party is actually advocating a swap to a democratic government, while the Republican Party is actually defending a Republic government. So of course Democrats want the popular vote to determine the President–they’re democrats. They want democracy, not a republic. It’s literally what makes them Democrats. And they’re tied to liberalism because most people–I would say well over 50%–are in favor of gay marriage, pro marijuana, pro-choice, and so on. So they want these liberal positions adopted by 51=% of the population to rule over everyone because “democracy.”

It’s been a hell of a ride, this election, and battle lines were not re-drawn but reclarified. Democrats are, once again, pro democracy. Republicans are, once again, pro-Republic. Liberals are, once again, pro big government and pro ruling over everyone. Conservatives are, once again, pro small government and pro ruling at a state level–ostensibly. Time will tell, but it is my contention that Conservatives will not use the federal government as a vehicle for ruling over all 50 states and will instead attempt to send social matters back to the 50 states.

Of course, that’s not good enough for liberals, who are unwilling to compromise, but I think that’s where Trump will come in. “You can accept that Mississippi is banning abortion and that women in Mississippi will have to drive to Tennessee to get an abortion, or we can have the federal government ban abortion across the country. Which do you want, liberals?”

Liberals have been in power so long–even if they didn’t control all of the federal government, they did win the culture war, and they did dictate social issues–that they decided that they didn’t have to compromise. In order to teach them the value of compromise, I think we’re going to have to have a conservative play hardball with them, and I think Trump, the alleged dealmaker, is capable of doing that. I don’t know if that is what he plans to do, but it’s what he needs to do to heal our country. Because liberals aren’t willing to let Mississippi ban abortion if it means some women might have to drive all the way to Tennessee to get one. To them, that is unacceptable. They’ve convinced themselves that the women don’t have just the “right to an abortion” but have the right to a convenient abortion, and that if it’s even slightly inconvenient or difficult then she is being oppressed.

“We’re sending abortion back to the states, where conservative states are likely to ban it,” says Donald Trump*.

“That’s unacceptable!” the liberals would reply. “Then Texas would ban abortions, and women in Texas couldn’t have them!”**

“Sure, she can,” responds Trump. “She just has to drive to another state to do it.”

“That’s not acceptable,” the liberals would reply.

“Well, it’s either that, or I ban abortion across the country. Accept this compromise or we’ll ban it nationwide.”

I hate to say it, but it does seem that this is the only way to get liberals to compromise, and what we need, more than anything, right now is compromise between liberals and conservatives. But that can’t happen as long as liberals are getting their news from places that tell them that we are watching the “making of a dictator” because of some freaking tweets that Donald Trump sent out.

I’m an Anarchist. What Do I Care?

I have had a lot of anarchists–actually, let me stop right there. Every single person who has criticized me for taking part in current events and the election has self-described as a voluntaryist, not an anarchist. From what I’ve seen, voluntaryism is like anarchism, but with cult-like dogma to it. The voluntaryist is unrelenting, refuses to compromise, and refuses to accept any progress. They’re fools. Evidently, they expect that they can just keep putting out arguments and one day the entire country will wake up and say, “You know what? They’re right. We don’t need a state.”

The state isn’t going to dissolve itself.

We’ve been under a century of fascism, interventionism, an overbearing federal government, and a nanny state, to the extent that most people have no understanding of why the popular vote doesn’t elect the President. Come the hell on, man. You can’t seriously think that these masses of people, who are about as far away from voluntaryism as a person can get, are going to be swayed to go from fascism to voluntaryism in one swoop. These people don’t just think that the state is necessary to prevent crime; they have become convinced that the state is a good thing, that the state helps society.

Here, in a nation formed by people who characterized the government as a necessary evil that had to be bound by the chains of the Constitution, the average person now believes that the state is a force for good. Not a necessary evil. A force for good. And we are currently on the cusp of widespread liberalism and acceptance of democracy–a political system so flawed that it was discarded in the BCE age for being a tyranny of the minority by the majority. And voluntaryists, for all their words and arguments, are not doing anything to fight it. In fact, I would go as far as saying they’re accomplices in it.

We once had a nation of classical liberalism. Due to our lack of vigilance, the state steadily grew, and then there was the civil war, which marked the turning point away from the Tenth Amendment and states rights. That was the moment we became not fifty [though there weren’t fifty then] individual republics but fifty  constituencies of a larger republic. Then the World Wars happened, and War Collectivism took over and we moved away from liberty and the free market toward fascism. The Great Depression saw an influx of people convinced that the government was the answer to all life’s problems, and government intervention in the economy and lives of the people became accepted as not just a necessary evil but a force for good. After the Cold War and decades of the Military Industrial Complex*^ spreading fear, deceit, and manipulation–with elements in the government so eager to give us a war that they repeatedly considered attacking our own citizens–and after 9/11 and fifteen damned years of a “War on Terror,” we have gone so far from liberty that even classical liberalism would be welcome at this point.

Now, this might seem strange, given as how I routinely criticized Johnson and his supporters for being pragmatic and choosing pragmatism over principle. It may even seem like hypocrisy. I’ve laid out my reasons for that, though, and it has more to do with “liberty” being redefined in the eyes of the masses, which leaves actual liberty as an incommunicable idea. And don’t get me wrong. When it comes to my actions and what I do, I advocate anarchism, and my goal is absolutely anarchism and nothing short of that.

However, I’m not so blinded by dogma that I’m unable to see that the road to anarchism is a long one that contains many, many steps. I don’t believe that Gary Johnson is one of those steps, and I think the Libertarian Party spreading actual libertarian ideology is the only way that we can get wider society to take those steps. Remember how Ron Paul pulled the entire nation toward liberty–albeit temporarily? He did. Let’s not forget that. Ron Paul’s platform was partially adopted even by Romney in 2012. Our goal must be to pull the entire nation toward liberty by running libertarian candidates. We get Republicans to become liberty-leaning conservatives and we get Democrats to become classical liberals. That is how we begin to restore liberty. We have to consciously work to pull these people toward liberty, because right now they are so far from liberty that classical liberalism is a relic of the past.

Like it or not, before we can pull western society toward anarchism, we have to pull them toward libertarianism. And before we pull them toward libertarianism we have to pull them back to classical liberalism. So far, fascism has won. We have to start thinking strategically, not tactically. In order to do any of this, the Libertarian Party must be the party that does not compromise on libertarian principles. We are not going to pull the nation toward libertarianism if they think “liberarianism” is “pot-smoking Republicans who are okay with gay people.”

Fellow LGBTQ People, Please

Divorce the Democrat Party. They are lying to you. They are terrorizing you. They are manipulating you. They are doing everything in their power, using these sensationalized headlines, to convince you to be afraid so that they can paint themselves as your saviors. We don’t need saviors. We don’t need heroes. Do you not see what they are doing? They are blatantly terrorizing you and telling you that you’re going to be rounded up, killed, placed in FEMA camps, placed on national registries, and blah blah blah. That way, when none of that shit happens, they can say, “See? We saved you from that! We fought for you and protected you from the people who were going to round you up and kill you!”

I’ve already seen Twitter posts and Facebook posts of people boasting that their protests have “already had an impact” and caused Donald Trump to be more moderate. It’s absolute nonsense! Donald Trump was always going to be more moderate. Anyone with a brain could have told you that. But now they are saying that, thanks to their protests, Donald Trump has backed down and is now promising to protect LGBTQ people! Except it never had any basis in reality–Donald Trump has been pro-LGBTQ longer than freaking Hillary Clinton. Even during the Republican Primaries, when Trump was in Full Conservative Mode, he was pro-LGBTQ. These lunatics are telling you that there is a monster outside who is coming to kill you, and then they are asking you to bow to them and thank them for protecting you from that monster who was never there in the first place.

I Don’t Like Trump

I really don’t. I know it seems like often I’m defending Trump, and, to tell you the truth, I do often find myself defending Trump. But it’s because I fight hysteria. I fight sensationalism. And no one I’ve ever seen attracts hysterical sensationalism like Donald Trump. So if I fight hysteria and people become hysterical every time Trump opens his mouth, then, yes, it’s going to come out like I’m defending Trump. I’m not. I’m telling people to stop being lunatics.

* Overlooking, for the moment, that Trump himself can’t do this, but can appoint a Supreme Court judge who overturns Roe v. Wade and then orchestrates Congress to send the matter back to the states.

** In fact, we know they would say this, because this is precisely how the host reacted when Trump said this in the recent 60 Minutes interview.

*^ Don’t even get me started. Whatever is meant by “Military Industrial Complex,” there is absolutely no doubt that it exists–even Presidents have warned us about it, among them Dwight Eisenhower himself, who helped create the damned thing. Don’t be an idiot. It’s a fact, not a conspiracy theory.

I Will Not Compromise

I’m a transgender resident of #Mississippi. When I first accepted this and told a few people–only a year ago–I was told that it would make me a reject. They were right, of course. I didn’t have to be told that; my family represents the worst of fundamentalists, with actual compounds for when the antichrist takes over. So I know Mississippi well.

Aside from a small percentage of people, everyone would reject and dislike me. I would certainly be fired, and wouldn’t be able to find work. Both the message and the reality were clear: if I am who I am, then it will make my life almost unbearably difficult. Best to put it aside, bury it back in the closet, and wear the mask that the masses of people would accept.

The Libertarian Party has been facing an identical crisis. The masses won’t accept “true” libertarianism. Best to shove it back in the closet and wear the mask that the masses will accept.

So the party compromised. “We’re ashamed of what we have in the closet–please don’t look!” they’ve begged for months, going from disdainfully calling us purists to radicals to extremists to enemies.

It’s lethal to live a lie. Transgender people kill themselves everyday because of it. I would ask the #Libertarian Party to stop living a lie. Be the freak that it is. Stop shoving its identity into the closet out of some misguided need to have the masses’ approval. Yeah, it made my life difficult–more difficult than most people can guess, especially since I’m an #anarchist and would never use legal channels to violate their rights to refuse me service and employment (even if Mississippi had them, which it doesn’t).

It’s remarkable how liberating it is to stop compromising with people you *shouldn’t* be compromising with. It’s absolutely liberating to tell people, “You will deal with me on my terms, as who I am, or you will not deal with me at all.”

People are sick of compromise. People are sick of politics, of “business as usual.” We have the two most despised people in America as the two major party candidates, and a ticket that is not even polling 5% against them. Maybe it’s time we asked ourselves if the compromise that everyone hates is the *reason* we’re not beating these grotesque abominations of bad ideas and worse policies.

Stop hiding who you are. Say it loud, and say it proud. “We are #libertarians, and we don’t give a damn what you think. You will accept our party on its terms, or you will get out.”

It’s not about winning elections. It’s not about mass appeal. It can’t be. If all you want is to win elections, then take your ass to the #GOP or the #Democrats. Stand up for yourself and stand up for who you are. We need that more than ever. The last thing we need is to compromise the principles of liberty.

But Muh 5%!

This is something I’ve been hearing a lot. “But if we just reach 5%, then it will all be worth it!”

Why?

It was initially for “muh federal funding,” but we “purists” dropped the hammer on that real fucking quick. Taxation is theft means exactly that. It doesn’t mean “taxation is theft until we’re getting the money.” No, it’s still theft. If the Libertarian Party qualified for funding through stolen tax dollars, then it absolutely must reject that money. Even the Democrats and Republicans don’t accept that money; we’d be the only party who accepted it, and we’re the only party with a strong, principled reason why we shouldn’t.

That there is any “libertarian” out there arguing that we need federal funding tells us exactly how very, very far from principle Johnson and Weld have taken us. It is time to put the “libertarian” back into the Libertarian Party.

The reason they’ve since adopted–once they realized what a bad idea it was to even suggest we’d accept stolen money–is that it makes ballot access easier. So? It’s not like we really have a hard time getting on the ballot in all 50 states. We’ve done it several times; this is not the first time that we’ve done it, and neither are we the only party who has achieved it. There is no political party with more grassroots activism than the Libertarian Party. If we need to go out and get 5,000 signatures, then, by god, we go out and get 5,000 signatures.

But Muh Pragmatism!

Forgive me if you’ve heard me use this analogy before.

The Libertarian Party is like a fat woman who has her eyes on a pair of jeans that are way, way too small for her to wear. To remedy the situation, she takes up a razor blade and starts cutting huge chunks of flesh, fat, and muscle from her legs, hips, and ass, hellbent on fitting in those jeans that she can’t fit in. We are reaching for her wrist and telling her, “Baby! Stop it! You looked great! You don’t need to fit in those pants to be sexy!”

“Those pants will make me so much sexier!” she insists, shakes her hands free, and continues cleaving her flesh. Then, finally, as she stands among a pile of severed skin, tissue, and blood, she tries once more to fit on the jeans. To her horror, she finds that they still don’t fit. Frustrated, she begins sawing away at her bones. She is hellbent on fitting in those jeans, because wearing those jeans will make her sexy, and that’s all that matters.

If I was even remotely skilled with graphical stuff, I would make a cartoon of a very fat woman cutting off slices of her skin. She would wear a shirt that said “Libertarian Party,” and her legs would be drawn on with a Sharpie, separating her legs into numerous sections. “End the Drug war” would be written on one section. “Stop spying” would be written on another. Then, all around her on the ground would be strips of flesh that she’d already cut off, with one of them reading “Second Amendment” and another reading “religious liberty.” Beside her would be a pair of pants that were clearly way too small for her, and written on the pants would be the words “mainstream acceptance.”

The people who laid the groundwork for libertarianism absolutely hated pragmatism–his pragmatism was the primary reason that Hayek and Mises despised Keynes. They didn’t dislike Keynes because of his ideas; they were clear about that. They disliked him because he was pragmatic. He didn’t stand by his ideas; he chose whatever was most practical to achieving his own ends. That was what they disliked.

Today we have a political party founded on their words–for all intents and purposes–that is actively, consciously, and even gleefully choosing pragmatism over principle. I’ve written too much about this folly to go into it again. I’ve done videos on the subject, podcasts on the subject, and articles on the subject. It’s been thoroughly exhausted as far as I am able, and no one cares, because “But muh 5%.”

But Muh Dallas Accord

I’m sick of having people throw the Dallas Accord in my face. The Dallas Accord was an agreement between the libertarians and the anarcho-capitalists–such as myself, though I was one with oblivion then–that the official party platform would not mention whether or not a state was necessary or ideal. It was, in effect, an agreement that anarcho-capitalists would be welcome within the party as long as AnCaps didn’t make it an anarchist party, and an agreement that libertarians would be welcome within the party as long as they didn’t make it a statist party.

dallas-accord-failureThe Dallas Accord was meant to give middleground and forge a compromise between libertarians and anarchists that both sides could be happy with. The agreement was that anarcho-capitalists would at minimum support a libertarian candidate because, as I and countless others have said, if nothing else libertarianism is a probably necessary next-step on the road to anarchism. I would be 99% happy with a libertarian state, and would throw everything I have into supporting that state and seeing its existence come to fruition. No, it’s not anarchism. That’s where the Dallas Accord comes in; it was the agreement that the anarchists would be content with libertarianism until it was even possible to step from libertarianism to anarchism.

We’re a long, long way from the Dallas Accord with statists like Gary Johnson.

It was the Libertarians who did not hold up their end of the accord. They were supposed to hold up their end of the agreement by working toward libertarianism and proposing libertarian candidates, since libertarianism is something that we ancaps will at least tolerate. At absolute minimum, the Libertarians need to nominate people like Darryl Perry or John McAfee if they want to hold up their end of the agreement.

The Dallas Accord was not a blank check for the Libertarians to nominate whoever the hell they want with no dissent from the anarchists. It was the agreement that the question of the state’s necessity would not be addressed yet.

That’s correct, modern Libertarians. We were once considered so vital to the party, and so included within its ranks, that Libertarians forged the Dallas Accord with us.

Now we’re purists.

Radicals.

Extremists.

Heretics.

Enemies.

So you tell me who violated the Dallas Accord.

Anarcho-capitalists are a vital part of the Libertarian Party, and we have been since its inception. The Dallas Accord was our agreement that we would not try to warp and twist it into the Anarcho-Capitalist Party. And we haven’t. I didn’t even know about the Accord until a few weeks ago, but I’ve been adamant in my refusal to twist the LP into the AnCap Party. I would not support or endorse a candidate who somehow ran as an AnCap–even though he is an AnCap, it’s worth pointing out that Darryl Perry is not running as an Ancap; he’s running as a libertarian. I wouldn’t expect most Libertarians to understand that.

You were supposed to nominate libertarians. We’ve been asking you to nominate libertarians. We’ve been speaking up for and advocating libertarians. John McAfee is right there. Right there.

But Muh Conformity!

The national chair released a video today talking about how ridiculous we are to ask for a recall of Weld, how “we knew what we were getting,” and how his job is to unite behind the candidates. If we don’t like it, he said, then we needed to nominate a different chair in 2018.

2015 and 2016 were awful years for me. Getting to the LNC this year simply wasn’t feasible. I had just come out as transgender and was not in any sense ready to do anything that public, and I was broke anyway. This will not be true in 2018. My reach here at Anarchist Shemale is growing every single day. My financial situation is better every single day. I’m more passable every single day. I’ll be moving to Vegas soon, where I will be able to easily get employment, and that’s assuming the agents who are reading Dancing in Hellfire right now don’t help me become successful, and assuming none of the other things I’m writing will be successful. I’ve got lots of opportunities, and the last year of hard work and investment will have paid off before 2018. So you can bet your ass I’ll be there.

And, Sarwark, I will do everything that I can to have you replaced.

What will my influence be like in 2018? I don’t know. I know that I’m on the first page of Google results for a number of liberty-oriented search strings. Between 7 and 15 people find my site every day simply through Google. Not including Yahoo, Bing, the Rational Review News Digest, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

no-porn-in-sightJust imagine how much traffic my work must be getting for any search string containing the word “shemale” to not contain any porn at all. When I first took up the moniker, “anarchist shemale” resulted in porn. Now there isn’t porn anywhere in sight. Once more–the word “shemale” can be searched on Google in some context and not result in pornography. Can you guess what it took to achieve that? People are finding something with the word “shemale” in it through Google and it’s not taking them to porn.

I don’t know how influential I’ll become if I continue what I’m doing, but I know my goals and my hopes. I also know that the Libertarian Party completely and utterly ignored my request to become an affiliate for my county. Despite routinely posting on Facebook about how they want people to become affiliates, they have totally ignored my email and my application form, none of which mentioned “The Anarchist Shemale.” I could understand why they wouldn’t want affiliation with me if I was pushing Anarchist Shemale as an official libertarian work, but I’m not, haven’t, and am not going to, regardless of how officially tied with the party I become. But what I do in my personal life and what I call myself is also not the Libertarian Party’s business.

Besides which–you want to get people’s attention or not? Send the Anarchist Shemale out there proudly and then just wait on the flood of liberals bitching that I dare call myself a word that they don’t like, and then celebrate as I rip apart their reasoning, because I have damned good reasons for it and the simple fact is that what I call myself has no bearing on anyone but me.

But, once more, indications are that the Libertarian Party is afraid of stepping out of the mainstream, of doing anything weird, of generating any controversy, of ruffling any feathers. So fixated on “Oh, my goodness, but what will the masses think?” that they probably wouldn’t formally associate with anyone called the Anarchist Shemale, even though libertarians are exactly the people who you’d expect to not give a damn what I call myself. And they don’t. But neither are they willing to take a stand on that, either.

Some are.

Liberty.me, the RRND, and some others have absolutely no qualms about calling me the Anarchist Shemale. Officials within the Libertarian Party, though–I can only imagine their discomfort, like a white person who is hesitant to quote an episode of The Boondocks, “And then they defined the… uh… the… the… ‘N-word’ moment… as the moment when two… uh… when two… African American men… are… uh…” I can only imagine poor Mr. Sarwark trying to reference me. “As for what the Anarchist sh… The… uh… Hm. As for the Anarchist… Uh… Aria… DiMezzio? Dimeggio?”

Grow a spine, cowards.

Now, that’s supposition. They haven’t replied to my email, but I can think of only two reasons that they would not accept me as an affiliate for my county, when my county does not have one. The first is irrelevant. I’m not a dues-paying member, but have no issue with becoming one. As I said, I only recently learned of the Dallas Accord and didn’t think the Libertarian Party would be welcoming enough of a dyed-in-the-wool anarcho-capitalist. Officially, the party is.  I made it clear that I have no hesitation regarding purchasing membership–when I can afford it–if that’s necessary. Considering that I do work actively to spread the cause of liberty, though, I’m not entirely sure formal membership would be required. And even then, they’d list me as my male name since this is Mississippi but let’s not get into that. It’s not why, anyway.

No, the reason is that I’m closely tied to the Anarchist Shemale. If you google “Aria DiMezzo,” then you will find–in addition to links to the masterpiece song from which I derived my name both because of its beauty and its translated meaning–the Anarchist Shemale right there, #Godless and #Lawless. I imagine that, before any political party formally associates themselves with someone, they at least do a Google search.

At any rate, I am disappointed. It has been at least a week now since I applied, and I know the Libertarian Party of Mississippi with all four of its members aren’t that busy. Moreoever, I know that I can coax at least six or seven friends into formally joining the party, too, since they’re all anarchists and libertarians themselves. If I was the affiliate for the party, they would do so, because the party would immediately become something that they personally knew of and understood, not some distant monolith. It would become more personal for them; it would mean more.

I said on Facebook last night:

There are two kinds of people with whom I’ve never hesitated to inform that I’m transgender:

Gamers and libertarians.

Me: “I’m transgender.”
Republican: “Ah! Satan!”
Democrat: “Oh, you poor thing! We’ll save you!”
Libertarian: “Okay. Whatever. Dafuq you telling me for?”
Gamers (to everyone): “Shut up, faggot. You’re gonna get us killed.

Me: “I’m a shemale.”
Republican: “Ah! FIEND! Malificarum! Simm sallabim!”
Democrat: “Ah! Satan!”
Libertarian: “Is this relevant to the discussion?”
Gamers (to everyone): “Shut up, faggot. You’re gonna get us killed.”

I fully appreciate that I do have to stop dropping the word “faggot” and so much profanity in my articles. I am working on that. By the same token, though, the Libertarian Party is the last group of people who I would expect to care. I do have two distinct styles–one that is official and formal, and one that is loose and sometimes profane. I am more than capable of writing formally; just check my reviews and editorials at Cubed3, or buy V2: The Voluntary Voice. So that’s something I need to address if I want official ties with the party, but, once again, it was not The Anarchist Shemale that was seeking party affiliation.

It is Aria DiMezzo.

Their silence dishonors them.

The cowardice on display in so many ways dishonors them.

Be proud of who you are, libertarians. Don’t apologize for it. Get out of the closet. You’re libertarians.

The yellow you’ve chosen for your party color has become more appropriate than you think. So tell me, Sarwark and Libertarians, are you yellow? Because it looks to me like you are, and not because I haven’t heard anything about affiliation; that isn’t a big enough deal for me to think that. That’s just one more example of what I’m perceiving as Libertarian cowardice and fear of rejection.

How To Cause Anarchy to Rule the Globe

I freely admit that anarcho-socialism is a utopian fantasy within a utopian fantasy, but I also have to stress that the latter utopian fantasy is not impossible to achieve, and that, in fact, achieving it would not be terribly difficult. It would be relatively easy to cast off the shackles of the state and violence, and I’m going to take a moment to clarify what I think is the best way to achieve this.

godless & lawless

Step 1. Acquire Territory & Abolish Its State

In many ways, the easiest step, and in other ways, the hardest. Every single parcel of land on the planet is sectioned off to one state or another, so this territory acquisition is more than just purchasing territory: it is also telling the currently-ruling state that it no longer has any authority. Rest assured that the state won’t take this well–it never has before. When American colonists told the British Empire this, it resulted in war. I tend to think an attempt to do it today would also result in war.

We’re going to assume, solely for the sake of simplicity, that we can purchase land in Hawaii, and that native Hawaiians are ready and willing to refuse the state’s authority. So let’s presume that we anarchists do exactly this, and we tell the Hawaiian government that we will not pay another cent in taxes or listen to another of its laws. It will react with violence, and will enlist the help of the U.S. federal government to do it. We have to gloss over this for the time being. Plenty of people have written about this sort of scenario, and there’s no reason for me to spend much time in it. I’m not saying this step offers assured victory, but it’s certainly not impossible–as I said, the American colonists succeeded.

We need not declare war on the state to abolish it. We need only to refuse to consent to its authority. As countless others have observed, the state needs our consent; our consent is not optional, in theory or in practice. A state that deals with a population that does not consent to it will ultimately be abolished, as its reserves will wear out against the continued resistance, keeping it from accomplishing anything. It will not be the anarchists who declare war on the state, though; the anarchists will simply start ignoring the state.

The state will be the one to declare war, by kidnapping the anarchists (calling it “imprisonment”), killing the anarchists (calling it “war”), and stealing from the anarchists (calling it “taxation” and “resource acquisition from enemy combatants”). It will absolutely be within the anarchists’ purview to retaliate–the Non-Aggression Principle forbids aggression, not defense or retaliation.

Step 2. ???

With the state abolished, there’s not much more to be done, except for individuals to simply do whatever they think is best. That an individual’s own best interests are served through cooperation rather than violence is tautological, and is frequently called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It has long been observed that cooperation–that is, reciprocation and presumed “give-and-take”–pervades human society*. Without question, which works better is revealed to be cooperation, not competition, though it’s worth mentioning that “competition” as used in these articles is speaking of “competition” in general terms, not economic ones*^.

It is stated that, in modern society, a mess of laws and rules help prevent companies from cheating, because cheating might be more beneficial than fulfilling an agreement*. In a certain, very limited and very short-sighted sense, this is true. I would benefit from dropping by a random gas station and cajoling its attendant into letting me pump $5 of gas that I’d “totally pay back” later that day, and then never return–I would net a $5 gain at their expense. Since there are numerous other gas stations from which I could purchase gas in the future, why don’t I do this?

Aside from inherent moral concerns, which are not always applicable, the truth is that I am likely to have to do business with them again. The fewer gas stations are in the area, the more likely I am to have to do business with these people from whom I have effectively stolen $5. As my options dwindle, the chance increase that one day the other gas stations will be out of gasoline, will not have my cigarettes, or any number of other things. Simply put, the fact that I’ll almost certainly have to deal with them again prevents me from screwing them over**.

It may be in my best interests in the short term to con them out of $5 of gasoline, but in the long-term it is tremendously damaging to my own self-interests to cheat them**.

Violence as a Driving Force

Intuitively, we all know this.

I’m sure we’ve all had that one friend who, at our party, gets drunk and becomes belligerent, ultimately getting into a fight. What happens next? Though the party may not recover that evening, the reality is that the friend who became violent (even if he did so because another friend who owed him $100 wouldn’t pay him back, or any other short-term gain the violent friend could have gotten) will not be invited to future parties, and will find himself increasingly without friends, and this will, for any social animal, be a negative thing^^.

Our belligerent friend may have beaten the $100 out of another friend, but he will be ostracized from the group, from the pack, and has harmed his own self-interests.

It is primarily when people will never be held accountable for their actions that people behave immorally (according to most moral conventions), and that should be no surprise to anyone. This isn’t to say that the average person will behave immorally if they know they can get away with it (I would argue that the average person obeys an internal moral compass that has been socially instilled in them, and that it is not fear of consequences that keeps the average person from stealing, raping, or killing), but it is to say that anyone who would be willing to do something immoral becomes significantly more likely to do something immoral as the chance of being held accountable drops.

If a person sees a $20 bill fall from someone’s pocket when no one is watching and no one can possibly see, the first person is far more likely to pocket the money themselves, instead of stopping the second person and handing it over. Yet if an attendant is watching, the person is substantially more likely to stop the person and return their dropped money. It’s worth pointing out here that nothing about anarchy precludes accountability.

Of course, in an age of surveillance cameras, national criminal databases, mugshots, and the Internet, is increasingly hard to find any place that a person can go where they cannot still be held accountable, but this is the reason that so many American politicians continue going to Thailand, the Philippines, and Cuba to have sex with child prostitutes–something they would never do in the United States because the chance of being caught is far too high.

As social exposure increases because of the Internet, the long-term consequences of short-term benefits at the expense of others become greater. The violent friend might be able to use Facebook and other websites to find a new circle of friends, but I would point you to this unusual Craigslist ad:

This screenshot is from a "Best of Craigslist Crazies" series I'm working on.

This screenshot is from a “Best of Craigslist Crazies” series I’m working on.

Remarkable, isn’t it?

Notice that the guy doesn’t appear to have even done anything overtly wrong, but has indisputably harmed his own self-interests in the long-run. A violent friend may learn that the friend he attacked has contacted the new circle of friends, and informed them of the guy’s violence, and that they, too, ostracize the violent guy. Cheating, conning, and lying are always about short-term gain at the expense of long-term benefit, and this is why an anarcho-capitalist society does not need (as John McAfee suggested in the Stossel debates) a requirement of people to keep their word.

People will keep their word because it is in their best interest to do so. No one would want to do business with a company that routinely breaks its contracts and agreements, and the problem would sort itself out, quickly eliminating the scruple-less companies while leaving only the honorable ones. This has routinely been accomplished in the past through free market means, and trust relationships have consistently formed throughout human history, a direct consequence of people recognizing that their own interests are served best by “playing nice” with the other kids**.

Step 3. Profit.

It’s hard for us to even comprehend how successful such a society would be.

There would, first of all, be no corporate tax or income tax, because there would be no one to charge, collect, or spend the tax. This would cause an incredible influx of international corporations and businesses. There would be so much money sloshing through this place’s economy that we’d be left breathless, and this is not hyperbole. How do you think the corporations would treat these wonderful people who were welcoming them?

With tremendous rewards.

Thankful to keep 100% of their money, the corporations would very quickly work together to pave every road needed, would build hospitals and schools, would build and maintain airports and seaports (this one primarily because they need them).

We in the west understand corporations only as straw men, and we’ve become completely unable to realize that these straw men… are straw men. Before we continue, we have to regain the ability to recognize these Straw Men Corporations for the straw men they are.

First of all, it takes remarkable levels of cognitive dissonance to call corporations greedy because we are helping ourselves to 35% of their money. Let’s take a moment to appreciate that. We are literally taking 35% of someone else’s money, and then bitching that they are being greedy. How dare you steal from someone for your own benefit and then call them greedy! Cognitive dissonance in full swing, of course, because the greedy one is quite obviously the one stealing money for their own benefit, especially since 0% of the money earned by corporations is earned through theft.

Secondly, we are swimming in a sea of corporations who do tremendously helpful and generous things. Even with the exorbitant tax rates, most corporations gladly give Senior Citizen discounts, after all. For centuries, doctors were expected by the bounds of morality to treat those who could not afford to pay; it was only when we started using the law to force them to treat people that this even became an issue. Our doctors have never allowed poor people to just die.

On a Guardian article yesterday, I found someone who said that Apple should have to make more contributions to society. I found that to be an utterly and remarkably stupid thing to say. Apple has made enormous contributions to society. Apple invented the smartphone. That’s a contribution so enormous that we have not fully understood who much of a game-changer it really was. I presume this person wasn’t there when the first iPhone was debuted; it revolutionized everything. “Apple should contribute to society…” Are you kidding me? They’ve contributed more to society than even Microsoft has, and far more than CERN has (though CERN’s contributions will increase exponentially in the future).

Seriously, when you have contributed to society to even 0.0001% the extent that Apple has, then you can demand that they contribute more.

Dealing With Growth

The rest of the world will not be happy with our prosperity.

Behold how the EU is forcing Italy to raise its tax rates. This is precisely what we are seeing. Italy has set its own tax rates, and the EU does not want to compete with the awesome deal that Italy is offering corporations. So what does the EU do? It demands that Apple pay Italy, and demands that Italy increase its tax rates. Instead of lowering their own tax rates to compete with Italy, the EU exercises its authority and power to maintain its monopoly.

Imagine that Italy is Wal-Mart, selling a loaf of bread for $1, while the EU sells bread for $2. The EU gets pissed off, because no one is buying its bread, not when they can buy it from Italy at such a lower price. So what does the EU do? Rather than lowering the price of their bread to $0.97 to compete with Italy/Wal-Mart, the EU whips out its guns, points them at Italy, and says, “Don’t forget we’re bigger and more powerful than you. Raise your prices, or we’ll punish you.”

Yay, democracy, right?

Stupid UK fools for wanting to get out of that…

After all, who doesn’t enjoy having a tyrannical authority point guns at them and force them to comply? I’m probably gonna get some of that this weekend, because it’s such a wonderful thing to experience.

We’d see this, too, in our anarchist society. The rest of the world, tremendously envy of our lack of taxation and the influx of international corporations that just drives our prosperity through the roof, would invade us. Here, we’d mostly have to rely on the hostility between the United States, China, and Russia to keep them from being involved, but it wouldn’t strictly be necessary. But have no doubt: nations would invade us out of envy, wanting the money for themselves, and many Americans, Europeans, Chinese, and Russians would justify it. “They should have to pay!” they’ll scream and cry, forgetting that they’d literally be invading and conquering a place to take its  money, and that it would be blatant imperialism. “Capitalist imperialism,” some people would call it, though the anarcho-capitalist society would be the capitalist one. :/

But it’s all about long-term benefit, isn’t it? What’s in the best interests of the corporations here?

To fight tooth and nail alongside us for our right to govern ourselves, and the corporations would have the power to do it.

Other states would not be willing to just sit and watch us prosper. They would grind their teeth as they stared enviously at us, thinking about why they should have our money, and justifying to themselves why invading and conquering us would be totally justified.

I’ve covered it elsewhere, but a free people fighting on principle to resist oppression and conquerors, motivated by liberty and justice, cannot be defeated.

* http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/financialanalyst00.pdf

*^ http://www.charleswarner.us/articles/competit.htm

** http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Public_Choice_and_the_Economic_Analysis_of_Anarchy_by_Strigham_and_Powell.pdf

^^ http://www.aipmm.com/anthropology/2010/05/humans-are-social-animals-1.php