By: JDenigma | Mar 17, 2011 Featured
Before I get into the antagonistic portion of my post,let me get some qualifiers out of the way here,that may serve as somewhat of an olive branch
While I cannot agree to what anarcha-feminism & much of what feminism in general seems to promote,that does not mean that I oppose any individual women anarchists from history or the somewhat more palatable “individualist feminism” & its standard-bearers such as Christina Hoff Sommers
I can obviously agree to such basic fundamentals as equal rights for women in terms of Natural Rights, free from any coerced mandates. I also am no bigot and can respect an individual woman if she seems to warrant my respect. I do that across the board with all humans,but that does not mean that I will make apologies for any past wrong doings against women by pedestalizing them, as feminists and many men are wont to do. It also does not mean that I can’t see some differences or natural roles. I would never coerce a woman or abuse her. However, this does not mean that tolerance always equals acceptance of all the lectured guilt trips that are directed my way by what is taken as a whole as the umbrella feminist movement.
So have I made myself clear here? I had to get that out of the way, in case anyone is tempted to throw smears at me of being a misogynist or promoting a COERCED culture of “male domination”. I resent the subtle derogatory remarks directed against men in general and men who oppose this. As a man, I have nothing to apologize for in terms of this collective guilt here. We’re all individuals.
What is feminism? Yes,I understand that it’s true it’s an umbrella term that can mean different things so yes,one shouldn’t necessarily paint it broadly as just one thing, but neither should the feminists broadbrush us. In reality though, in the post-Enlightenment, Western world,what is deemed as feminism,is largely a political tool to browbeat men & gain female advantage via the State,which has nothing to do with mere equal rights.
Yes,anarchists will say they’re not represented by those feminists & thus it’s not fair for me to say that,but they’re a very small wing of the larger movement. Also, I have to ask, what is the point?It’s one thing if you’re fighting for equal rights for women who are legitimately suppressed by a State. I get that. However, it’s not like women don’t have that here. Women in some Arab states have much more justification to cry for such a movement than our women here do. If there is to be any such thing as feminism, in my view, it should merely be about fighting for equal rights in terms of liberty from the State
If equal rights aren’t the issue and women have that here, then I have to ask, what are you even fighting for? It appears to go well beyond that to morphing into being ironically a sexist movement against men in complaining about men as being generally crude pigs towards women & somehow holding them down in this “patriarchal” society that delineates roles. So,really,I don’t even see what all the fuss is about & why it’s even an issue. I say,abandon your feminism and instead embrase individualism. Stop clinging to the feminist label and simply fight for equal rights for ALL humans. Why can’t it just stop there? FeminISM as a concept,as a movement,is intrinsically collectivist, as it’s trying to represent and fight for a ‘group’ of people,instead of individuals. FeminISM is just being used as a tool to wag the finger and lecture and emasculate men as if they must collectively hang their heads in shame. It becomes divisive and a sex war. Liberty from coercion is one thing. Acceptance of any naturally occurring,voluntary societal structures,hierarchies and biology,is another beast
Another thing that bothers me about “feminISM” is it seems to largely perpetuate victimhood status for women as a result of a whole smorgasboard of things resulting from men,whether it be sexism,discrimination,cultural biases w/ “gender roles”, allegations of rape,war,violence,& THE MAN holding them down in the male dominated “patriarchy”. It’s simply persecution syndrome and it’s just, pathetic. They wallow in this victimization and I hear women all the time complain how awful men are and it’s a huge turnoff. I want to run from that kind of woman, when I hear that. They’re living in the past as they hold onto the crutch of historical examples of subjugation of women to justify their modern day complaints when women today have it much better than women in history who were at times genuinely oppressed by a State, and in many cases they have female supremacy privileges over men in our society today. So give me a break. Were women at times oppressed in history? Yes, but who wasn’t in history? History is rife with people of all races, creed, and sex being enslaved, tortured and the like. Women aren’t unique to this. It’s as if they’re the chosen sex, equivalent to the Jews, as supposedly being uniquely persecuted and more special than everyone else.Also,when it comes to violence of the State and subjugation, it takes two to tango. I’ll get to that later
Now,about the criticisms over cultural gender roles & discrimination against women, there are innate differences between the sexes that are hard wired into us. I’m not going to shy from that. Sure, cultural influences can have an affect to a degree, but for the genuine differences between the sexes, those cultural influences can only have a malleable affect,at best. There are deep seated physical,physiological, biological, and aptitude differences between men and women, that can’t be ignored. Some of these anarcha-feminists essentially try to say that gender roles and differences are irrelevant while at the same time going on to say how testosterone affects men and blame men for everything. Sounds like a contradiction there and that they’re trying to have it both ways. There are differences or there aren’t. Evolution has hard-wired us this way since our Upper Paleolithic hunter gatherer days.
I wouldn’t say all differences are intrinsically genetic as cooking for example is largely a culturally influenced difference, which either sex can handle quite well. For the genetically influenced differences though,it shouldn’t be white washed. Their brains & evolutionary wired primal urges,are different. We hear it all the time, the common knowledge that men are instinctively more inclined to be the scouts and protectors, going out searching for food & exploring new territory with their testosterone making them more driven for competition whereas women have maternal instincts to nurture and care for the home. I know I would get myself in hot water for suggesting some of these things as it’s very un-pc, but it doesn’t mean I’m saying that women aren’t necessarily capable of some of the other things or vice versa with men. However,as a cross-section of the entire spectrum, that is how you are more likely to see things emerge spontaneously in a free market world absent any social engineering from a State
Besides that,men obviously are the phsyically stronger sex. No one argues that one because it’s more easily seen as borne out in what can be physically measured and seen,but when it comes to more abstract parts of our nature, beneath the skin, is where arguments arise because it lacks the simple physical nature the eyes can easily measure. Of course there are always exceptions, but that doesn’t mean generalities don’t exist. Women’s brains are wired to exhibit their emotions more and not control them whereas men tend to be more analytical and control their emotions. Yes I know, saying that kind of thing brands one a sexist, but what’s so wrong with pointing out certain proclivities that each sex is more suited towards? Women are generally considered to be better with language and communication and empathy whereas men are more wired for spatial reasoning and mathematical abilities. I know it’s debatable as to what individual differences there are between men and women and there are gradations,but what doesn’t seem debatable,is the simple fact that men and women are different. If gender roles are something that arises naturally and not coerced as from a State, then why should it even be an issue so as to have a movement called feminism? As the French would say, Vive la difference!
In the mating game and breeding is where things get interesting. What men and women subconsciously desire and seek out, stems from evolution and speaks to the true nature of the sexes and potential problems that arise from it. Men are driven to spread their seed and find a youthful, healthy looking woman who can give birth, to continue the survival of thes species and women are instinctively driven to seek out dominant, aggressive, alpha-males who they feel can protect her and her cubs, and successfully go out and acquire resources to provide for her as she chooses to submit. Young women tend to be more often attracted to the bad boy image, alpha-males whereas when they get older and have an uptick of that evil testosterone surging through them, they become more willing to seek out and settle down with a “nice guy” beta-male family man.
This gets me into what I want to address about women being just as culpable and responsible for the State and violence. Unless it’s an arranged relationship like a shotgun wedding, women are responsible for the kind of men they’re drawn to and choose. The long history of the formation and maintenance of the State could be said to have its roots in the men and women who have more success in mating and achieving their primal urges, which all get extended to the State.
Women want the resources too and she’ll pick a dominant male who can go out and conquer other males and extract resources to provide for her home or community. Ever see a woman choose a guy whom she thinks is beneath her? They just about always choose a man who is equal or moreso superior in terms of power and wealth. They will secretly desire a strong, authoritative male even if that male tends to be unethical and aggressive. Women will tend to fantasize about a man with power and wealth such as a glamorous lifestyle of a mafioso wife who is turned on by the power and gets rewarded with the protection,riches and amenities provided for her. Women will love the idea in her mind of a man taking charge and throwing her up against the wall in a heat of passion. Whether it be a powerful CEO, a burly Harley Davidson motorcycle rider,a mafia leader,or a president or any powerful politician who will have a fling with her and stain her dress all so she can lap in the prestige and status of making it with such a top dog, women are deeply driven for these desires. Of course I’m speaking in generalities, but all across the spectrum, it is an evolutionary desire that is in all women at some level and generally holds true as it leads to the worst of both sexes being propogated and propping up support of the State and violence. Women desire the cavemen and support them
Yes,women can be violent too,whether directly or indirectly by using their chosen men as free agents for violence. Just think of how emotion and hysteria leads one prone to abandoning their reason as they flip out emotionally. That’s women for you. It’s not just that evil testosterone. Ever see a woman irritated and angry with some other man and tend to be an instigator of a fight by trying to manipulate her man into starting a fight with the man she’s pissed off at? That happens oftentimes in situations where a hysterial woman in a fit of rage, tries to get even, by sicking her boyfriend on the man she’s angry at whereas the men will cooly and calculatingly try to stand at a distance and wisely avoid a fight.Women can be conniving.
Women are also oftentimes guilty of violence in domestic violence. It’s just not as widely heard and reported on and they tend to not have as much physical strength to inflict as much damage. Still,it exists & they can have a propensity of violence too as the fury of a scorned woman demonstrates and they can also use tools for violence that act as equalizers for their physical disadvantage such as a knife or gun or do it in more subversive ways such as poison. Lorena Bobbit anyone? Of course society gets a giggle out of that, but something done to a woman & it’s frowned upon. Just as some men will cheat, so too will a woman, perhaps because in her shallow, superficial wonts,she’s not getting enough attention or wants to feel desired and young by having a fling with a young buck. Beware men on business trips or out on sea in the military.Your wife could be in Vegas. Her inner child isn’t pleased and she needs a reward to settle down
It’s also a common refrain that’s often repeated,that men being labeled as the violent ones, are the ones responsible for war and all the worlds evils. First of all, if women had the physical strength as men, they’d probably be just as likely and dangerous to directly use violence as men,if not moreso,especially when PMSing. It’s not that women are any better than the evil men and that they’re clean and pure as the wind driven snow and lack the desire to use violence,but rather that they’ll use violence in other more indirect and subversive ways or morally support it by proxy through men.
Remember,women in large measure,cheer on their glorious warrior males,morally support them,vote for them mate w/ & procreate w/ them,all so that she can have her praetorian guard do the dirty work for her while she benefits from wealth extraction of the State. Men are perhaps more apt to climb up the corporate ladder of the State because of their aggression and testosterone and will more likely serve as the coercive apparatus of the State, but women stand by their men on this and lust for those alpha-males as they are the enablers. Remember, water seeks its own level in relationships & women choose their men and have the power to say no
Yes,most of histories wars are dominated by men, but it’s not out of a lack of desire on the part of women for this violence.It’s just that either men are perhaps better at rising through the ranks of the State,better meet the upper body physical strength criteria to fill the role of a warrior,or women just didn’t have the opportunity to rise through the ranks of the State. Regardless,a woman in power can be just as dangerous, violent, and susceptible to the corruption of power as a man
When one reads between the lines of what some of these feminists and anarchists say about men, women, patriarchy,war,the subtle implication they seem to be saying is that women are purer sex to be worshiped whereas men are a plaque on the world, responsible for the root of the State,the wars,violence & all other injustices under the Sun. It’s reverse sexism which is also perpetuated by bitter women and leading feminists in liberal arts womens studies classes at colleges. They try to shame us men as being inferior and more immoral than women. It’s a collective guilt trip and is misandry so any appearances of misogny that one sees now,is like a backlash against that
Remember,men are more authoritative as the daddy and women are more paternalistic and in their intermingling with each other,they extend their nature to the State. Women en masse,unknowingly provide aid & support to the select,elite alpha-males who grab reign of the State,as they are the upper class brutish alpha-males ruling over the “nice guys” & her sisters,all so those brutes can provide the fruits of their conquered land and further extract and redistribute the resources to appease her. The “nice guys” really do finish last here. Women will pass them over. It’s the seedy under belly of our nature. Feminism becomes used as a tool to expand the plantation, extract resources, and also subjugate the “nice guy”. The State is the tribal family unit and the soldiers serve as the protectors, the warrior scouts. Mommy knows best. It’s likely no coincidence that women’s suffrage in the U.S. coincided partially with the Progressive Movement.
There are also plenty of good examples in our modern day world and in history of women directly involved in war and combat,as rulers of a warring nation, or indirectly supporting violence by supporting and encouraging the men to fight
With the Israeli’s,they uniquely have conscripted service for both men and women in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force). They’ve had a history of women serving in the military when women served in various non-combat positions of the Hagana, precursor to the IDF before the formation of the State of Israel and during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Over time eventually various women and women’s rights groups started pushing for equal rights for women in all positions in the military, including combat positions and they won that right. G.I. Jane wanted her equal rights to kill alongside the evil male. Just as well for American women in the American military
Sure,that can be considered as gallant and noble by some if it’s thought to be a just war, true defense of the homeland. However, though men have the superior physical strength for combat, it goes to show, that it’s not just men who are willing to serve and support the war machine. They just so happen to represent it in greater numbers because of their superior combat ability in physical conflict.
There was also the Women’s Army Corps in WWII, which provided administrative, logistic, industrial support to the men going off to fight. “Free a man to fight”.
Prior to that was World War I, where there were some instances of both women actually serving in combat as well as women participating in propaganda campaigns to shame their boys into fighting.
In Russia, women have participated in combat roles in the military which during WWI, several units of segregated, all female women battalions were formed such as the “1st Russian Women’s Battlion of Death”. They were formed in response to a growing movement by some women and the Russian government and its military in 1917 as a propaganda tool to further encourage demoralized soldiers and to shame those who were reluctant to continue fighting.
Interestingly enough,over in Britain when the first World War was getting started, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded an organization called the “Order of the White Feather” with the additional support of various women and prominent feminists. It was used at the start of the war to name and shame certain men by presenting a white feather to any man who was not in uniform serving in the war. The white feather in Britain was considered a symbol of cowardice. So it was like a Scarlet Letter treatment. Women were recruited to distribute these to any man who wasn’t in uniform and fighting the war as a means to shame those who weren’t fighting and pressure them to enlist and go fight. Granted, this was done by these women at the height of their suffrage movement in Britian when they didn’t have equal rights so it was also possibly seen as a political move by some of the feminists doing this. Still though, shaming and pressuring others to go fight and die in a war, is a pretty awful thing to do.
Catherine the Great is a notable woman leader in world history who presided over the Russian empire after the death of Peter III. During her reign, Russia expanded its imperial borders, annexed territories, put down the Pugachev rebellion, fought against the Ottoman Empire, among other things. Sure, she was a product of the times as it was an age of empires, all fighting for dominance, but neither sex is immune from the seduction of power and all its trappings. I’m pretty sure we’d be worried about a Palin or Hillary presidency being war like after all.
Mary I of England, otherwise notoriously known as Bloody Mary, was no peaceful woman either in this supposedly exclusively patriarchal system. She was responsible for the Heresy Acts, which were used to persecute Protestants who dissented with England’s reunification with Roman Catholicism in Rome during her brief reign. She had nearly 300 Protestant heretics burned at the stake and others fled and went into exile. She also established herself as Queen of Ireland as she strengthend the bonds between the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of England in having monarchical rule over Ireland.
There is also evidence of real life counterparts to the Amazon women warriors of mythology. There were some nomadic groups, some of which were dug up from archaeological ecavations where some ancient cultures were such as in the southern Russian steppes.
There are more examples, but I’ll leave it at this. Nevertheless, this illustrates how women can be every bit as bad as men if granted the keys to the kingdom,so to speak. People have this vision in their head that men are more immoral & violent just because history is filled with men dominating rulership of the State. Even outside the State,it’s clearly shown that men don’t hold a monopoly on aggression and violence. To use this domination to be able to point the finger and say…’Hey, see,men are the problem. It’s all a root of the violent,aggressive male and patriarchy’…is a gross over simplification
Would matriarchy be any better? That’s the air of superiority I seem to get from feminists who trump women as angelic and better than men. First of all, the suffix archy, which from Greek origins “archein”, means to rule or have rulers. Now of course anarchists are against having rulers, period, at least if they’re rulers not consented to anyway. However, if it’s a standard feminist suggesting this who isn’t an anarchist or if we’re talking about a consensual hierarchical relationship, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a hierarchical unit that is voluntary and certainly, matriarchy wouldn’t be any better when it comes to the State. What we constantly hear though is that patriarchy is evil, is responsible for all the world’s problems, with the hidden implication that the alternative of matriarchy would be better and that women are more moral and peaceful. It seems in that lack of moral equivalence between those two archies, some animals are more equal than others. Whether it’s patriarchy or matriarchy, it’s just simply a social order. It’s only when it mixes with a State, that it becomes bad.
There’s also of course no denying that women have had it bad in history and that men can be brutish jerks. I’m not arguing against the reality of that and I don’t think anyone else is. That’s not the issue here though. What this is though, is a reaction against constantly being attacked by feminists who want to blame everything on us and knock patriarchy as if women and matriarchy are somehow not involved at all in any of this. When women act like victims here and play this blame game, they’re just further making it appear as if they’re the weaker sex themselves when they wallow in this pity party. It’s similar to when other ‘groups’ have acted like they’ve had it rougher than everyone else, such as blacks and Jews. I can think of people in the Soviet Union who suffered on a larger scale with the Russian Gulags than Jews with the Holocaust in comparison. Everyone has suffered through history and stop acting like your precious ‘group’ is somehow uniquely persecuted and pointing fingers at others. Humans will always target any other human and try to submit them if given the opportunity, regardless of race,sex, and religion. Women have become whiny and seeking privileges over males. No wonder more men are running away from marriage as an institution.
If any anarchist says I’m using a strawman because they’re not talking about the State, well first, I haven’t just talked about the State in my post, and secondly, if the State isn’t your issue and you have equal rights and I’m an anarchist myself, then you’re kind of making my point for me. With liberty in equal rights for Natural Rights and especially with a stateless society with no mandated rulers, all of this becomes moot. With equal rights, comes responsibility as well. If you don’t like marriage and see it as slavery to a patriarch, then fine, don’t marry. End it there. Why go on and moan about things here? Somehow, I get the feeling equal rights aren’t enough for these people.
Flip the roles around through history and with women running things, do you really think it would have been any better? Just for me to take a jab myself and perhaps exaggerating a bit, I don’t know if we would have gotten modern sanitation. If it’s a level playing field with equal rights, then there’s no problem in seeing competition sort out the best men and women. Oh wait, is competition somehow a patriarchal trait?
Behind every violent man, there’s a violent woman
By: JDenigma | Oct 21, 2010 Anarchism
For convenience, I have a sequence of links here corresponding to each section of this page, in order, so you won’t have to necessarily scroll through the entire length of this long page. I have my own little introductory summary here in giving my two cents, which you can skip straight to the sources on anarchism, if you don’t want to read through my highfalutin nonsense
- Free Books Online
- Anarchist Books For Purchase
- How Anarchy Would Provide Law, Courts & Security
- Historical Examples of Anarchism
- The Roads
- Watch Videos on Everything Anarchism
- Miscellaneous articles
- Radio shows/Podcasts From an Anarchist Perspective
- Web Sites Dedicated to News and Commentary With Anarchist Themes
This is my one stop source for all things anarchism related that I created primarily with the intent of showing those who are receptive to the message, where they can turn to for learning more about this philosophy. There’s plenty of introductory material here for beginners to start with & some sources would be useful for the already converted who are more advanced in their understanding of anarchism. I compiled a collection of relevant web sites, articles, books, videos & podcasts so there’s something here for everyone. I have some FAQ’s at the top here for beginners. I didn’t include any wikipedia links as that’s already self-explanatory. Just do a search on libertarianism, anarchism, agorism, Austrian economics,libertarian socialism,anarcho-capitalism,market anarchism,mutualism, etc. if you’re interested.
Update: Since I first created this and wrote the above paragraph, I have updated this page to I hope, significantly improve upon it by cleaning it up and adding much more relevant and persuasive material from a variety of sources. I wasn’t satisfied with the first amalgamation of sources that I threw together when I first created this. Though I have my biases in terms of the camp of anarchism I belong to, I’ve tried to be fair,even moreso now, in including a variety of explanations of anarchism from all the major strains of anarchist thought, on this page. For anyone new to the concept of anarchism and openly exploring it, it’s perhaps i.mo., not advised for beginners to jump into the nuances of disagreements between the different schools of anarchist though, as that can perhaps seem needlessly confusing to any beginner. Start off first with the core fundamentals of anarchist philosophy that all the schisms of anarchism hold in common with respect to abolishing the State as we know it & the fundamental agreements on non-coercion and consensual behavior. IMHO though, any anarchist worth their salt would not coercively mandate their blueprint for what a stateless society would look like, as long as the interactions and relations amongst people are consensual, hierarchical in nature or not.
To the average untrained person, hearing of the word anarchism tends to cause a visceral reaction of fear in which they shut their mind and assume it’s a big no no that is not to even be given the respect of being heard. Thus they will tune it out. It conjures images of the distorted meaning of it in the perjorative, that being destructive nihilistic bomb throwers, chaos, the Anarchist Cookbook and the Mad Magazine comic strip characters Spy vs. Spy. That image is also further fueled by the vandalism reported by some would-be European anarchists during any protests and riots or as may be the case in some instances, agent provocateurs pretending to be anarchists. This pop culture image though, is not at all what the real anarchist philosophy is about and true anarchists vehemently reject that kind of chaos and violence. Anarchists however view the monopolistic State as the antithesis of peace and order, that is an aberration of human evolution. Anarchists instead want humans to evolve to a world where the initiation of force and violence isn’t institutionalized and legalized with a monopoly, but instead promote market behavior with peoples voluntary choice as the means to create an environment of peaceful, consensual behavior in cooperating with each other and coordinating social activities. All violence is rejected except for that of self-defense in the heat of the moment. No person has a moral right to petition another person with a special title,hat or uniform, to initiate coercion upon others by proxy, no matter what the cause is, which is what the State does. Anarchism, is about the means, not the end. PEACE.
To the more sophisticated, informed statist however, their opposition to anarchism isn’t as much founded on that popular image, as much as it is on more sophisticated arguments pertaining to human nature, leaders and followers, and mainstream economics. Much of the people who would be labeled as minarchists, would likely tend to fall into this camp. What seems to be the major barrier for most minarchists, tends to be the issue of providing law, courts and defense in a stateless society, to protect people’s natural rights from predators looking to cause physical harm against a person or property. So in that light, I’m determined to present here, plenty of hard hitting material that directly address that specific issue head on, in order to show these people how a top-down structure with a State monopoly is not only not necessary for, but also harmful to providing justice and safety from predatory criminals. Monocentric law as we humans have been predominantly accustomed to through much of modern history with the advent of States, is in itself predatory, corruptible and harmful to a harmonious order. Just look at all the problems we have with courts,lawyers,police and prisons, and ask yourself if you feel satisfied with how this SERVICE is doing for you. Instead, much like anything else that spontaneously emerges in a marketplace, law and defense are also subject to the very same ironclad laws of human behavior and economics. What is needed instead is a decentralized market of polycentric law that emerges in a bottom-up manner in the marketplace. There have in fact been some anomalies in history that serve as proof of concept examples of the efficacy of such systems, which were quite successful until they were taken over by co-existing state authorities acting in parallel or external threats. In fact some of the early English history with some libertarian roots steeped in Anglo-Saxon English history and the Common Law were derived from such private provisions of such services. So, to those of you small, limited government and minarchist types out there whose one reservation, is on this issue and you know who you are, I would highly recommend you jump to my sections on providing law in a stateless society and the historical examples of anarchism.
As for us anarchists who want to realize this dream, as much as we would love to see a State collapse just to get it out of our lives, we must also be careful about how we get from here to there, as in all likelihood, a literal collapse would lead to a temporary vacuum with chaos as commonly understood, ensuing, and the masses pleading to a new leader and the formation of a likely worse government. We need to plan for a transition period whereby we also undermine support of the State by increasing the proliferation of and support for anarchist ideas in the general population so that a post-State vacuum will be prepared for by a willing population which would perhaps lead to the State withering away and dying as opposed to an abrupt collapse.
A problem that occurs when there are examples of mass disorder and chaos in the immediate aftermath of a collapsed State, is that statists see that and use it to say that’s proof that anarchism can’t work and that a State is necessary. That argument has a populist appeal to those who won’t give further thought to it, but it’s a fallacy.
It’s a fallacy for the same reason that you wouldn’t say a duck can’t be responsible for feeding itself just because you’ve accustomed the duck to depending on a regularly scheduled feeding by you and then abruptly stopping and for the same reason that you wouldn’t say a person can’t be responsible in not being an alcoholic or not smoking just because there might be a high recidivism rate amongst those who go cold turkey. It’s confusing the causation/effect relationship in the events that ensue from a particular action. When you have a human race that has been accustomed to and dependent upon government in their lives and it’s all they’ve ever known through centuries and centuries of human affairs and have been inculcated to support it through generations of indoctrination, you just can’t expect liberty to come about via an abrupt destruction of the State and for the population to suddenly go, ‘Oh wow, liberty is a good thing now and I want it’, just because the State collapsed overnight. That’s putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Unfortunately, statists use this to their advantage to proclaim that anarchism can’t work, but in that sense, we might as well say that we can’t wean people off of welfare, for the very same reason, because they’ve become so dependent and accustomed to it. Somalia is a classic case of this, which gives anarchism a bad name. It also didn’t help at the time that external influences like the U.N. and CIA were helping to also instigate and inflame things in Somalia in promoting warlord factions.
For a stateless society to be ready for acceptance and to be possible, it requires that the concepts of anti-statism and liberty must be in the Schelling (Focal) Points of the collective consciousness of the population. The Schelling Points in Game Theory, being the effective commonality, agreeable focal points held in common by different parties in the absence of communication. Humans by nature, are born into this world as anarchists,but the emergence of the first states in early human history as a means to control others,corrupted that which came naturally to people. Corrupted that Blank Slate, as it were. I know it’s not entirely accurate for me to use the blank slate term here,as in reality it’s not completely blank at birth, but let’s say, the emergent cancer of the State, kind of rewrote what was on that slate and rewired us, co-opting our natural tendencies to be independent beings interested in property and mutual exchange. So since then, the concept of having coercive leaders, is deeply ingrained in our nature and that chalkboard of the tabula rasa needs to be wiped clean of that. The lack of common Schelling Points in understanding of property was likely a cause of the conflict between Native American Indians and European settlers. A Schelling Point that is considered like an unspoken agreement amongst people can be that of two people crossing paths with each other, instinctively both choosing to step to their right in order to pass by each other. Statists will often incorrectly use Game Theory in mainstream economics to justify the need for a State to create commonly agreed upon focal points amongst the population, to prevent conflict. The State itself, just being individuals with power, creates a conflict of interest among those in power with their own vested self-interests with that of the ruled class, eternally at war with each other. The State itself becomes like a self-reinforcing closed feedback loop. Only an open market of free exchange without a coercive authority, can provide the proper feedback and signals. The false application of Game Theory to government, is negated by this and misses the fact that humans will naturally on their own seek a common agreement for harmony and cooperation out of self-interest without the need of a State to delegate that. So what is needed, is to push out the concept of the State from the populations Schelling Points by reversing this ages old indoctrination, which is why it is of the utmost importance that we spread this knowledge to change hearts and minds and make this go viral. It is that process of planting these seeds, that would make anarchism possible in the future. It really is our only hope. Just think of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and spreading this information like brushfires in our interconnected world. Eventually, given the exponential increase in knowledge and our interconnectedness, over time there would reach a point of critical mass where I would think an epiphany moment, a punctuated equilibrium as referenced in evolution, would occur with a rapid shift, an awakening, making us primed for a leap to anarchy. At least that is my hope though I’m very pessimistic, which I shall not go into here. We need to exorcise the demons of Romulus and Remus to reverse the foundational support of the modern State. Be like the new Lewis and Clarke exploring new, unchartered territory and cross that Rubicon with me. The challenges and responsibility that tend to come with having liberty, can act as an environmental stimuli to pressure and evolve the human race whereas right now, one could say this world is sort of devolving in a way.
Lastly, those who argue for the State on the grounds that it’s supposedly what we’ve always had, are arguing from ignorance and using the logical fallacy of argumentation by tradition and the is-ought problem. Obviously yes, the State in all its various permutations, has existed through time immemorial, but so too did chattel slavery for a large portion of human history. Ask yourself how did coercive governments come about in the first place in antiquity and if there are not better alternatives by which humans can cooperatively organize society, much like how people cooperate during a power outage or the people in the French Quarter peacefully helped each other out in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, all without any electricity and law and order around. We’re still a primitive species that’s only been around in a blink of an eye on this planet and in the infancy of our evolution, while going through some growing pains, made the mistake of accepting the early State, which grew like a cancer. Now’s the time to admit to that mistake and correct it. The human race learns through trial and error through the course of time and evolution, what works best for people to progress on this planet and cooperate. Morality is a byproduct of that evolution and the formation of the early State was an aberration. It came about because of a twofold problem stemming from surplus agriculture which was used to gain control of villagers by violent marauders to extract resources and from early humans weaving fantastical tales of gods in the sky, proclaiming to be demi-gods speaking on behalf of the gods and using the beginnings of organized religion to stoke people’s ignorance and fear into accepting the indoctrination of religion as a means to rule over and control people. From there on, it was a slippery slope, as the ancient relic of the State has still been clung to like a security blanket by the human race. It’s time we let go and extract that cancer once and for all. I wouldn’t expect a highly advanced civilization on another planet, far ahead of our primitive civilization, to have these things called governments still around. In order to survive and not kill each other off for the interests of all carbon lifeform, they likely would have left the relic of coerced governance in the ashheap of history as they evolved. I don’t expect us to either.
You may argue that a State is inevitable given the nature of leader, follower relationships among human beings, but there’s a stark difference between a business leader,an opt-in relationship that’s between private parties, from that of collectivized leadership enforced upon those who never hired that leader for themself. We humans have the capacity to reason ethics, not blindly follow authority and not to just operate on the base instincts of the reptilian part of our brain unlike the wildlife of the Serengeti. We’re better than that or at least have the potential to be. It may be that humans are destined to eternally be at war with each other and the dream of a stateless world forever out of our reach like that of the streaming water and the hanging fruit forever out of reach of Tantalus in Greek mythology, but this current world with states and all the litany of problems that come with it, is not acceptable and we must strive for the dream. Anything less is unacceptable. So, you may call me a dreamer, but are you gonna go my way….
“Most people are more comfortable with old problems than with new solutions” ~Author Unknown
Intersubjective Morality (The reason why it is indisputable that morality is an emergent trait of humans which is not intrinsically relative and thus supports the moral argument for individual sovereignty and non-coercion and shreds the whole notion that a “necessary evil” is even relevant and acceptable. Personal autonomy, proxemics and property as an extension of human action is from whence comes morality and Robinson Crusoe economics.)
The above video, the course on introduction to anarchism as presented by Gary Chartier of c4ss.org can be found here to view the rest of the lessons
The following is a list of books that are available free online to read
The following video below is a Youtube excerpt of the introduction from “The Market for Liberty” as read by Ian Bernard a.k.a Ian Freeman
What would any overview of anarchism be without going down this road?
The Sopranos has a thing or two to say about its real life counterpart
By: JDenigma | Aug 8, 2010 Featured
Excerpt from “Anarchy and the Law”….
I have now described anarcho-capitalism as I believe it would function in a modern society. What are Cowen’s reasons for believing that such institutions would be unstable?
Cown (1992) writes:
…the argument is that Friedman’s scenario is not an independent alternative. Competing law codes are stable only if they evolve into a dominant agency or arbitration network…
Agencies might eschew warfare in favor of arbitration and interagency cooperation. Agencies would agree in advance how interagency conflicts will be settled. Common standards would be applied for criminality, punishment, and criminal procedures when disputes occur….
A systematic arbitration network would arise to encourage the orderly application of law. Although intra-agency conflicts might be settled differently from interagency conflicts,society would possess effectively a single legal code….At the very least,agencies abide by higher-order arbitration….
So far I agree with Cowen, provided that the accent is put on the final sentence and that it is recognized that what is described is an equilibrium, not a constraint. Firms almost always abide by arbitration because it is almost always in their interest to do so. Describing this as a single legal code is, however, somewhat misleading, since there may be as many legal codes as there are pairs of agencies.
The distinction between a market equilibrium and a constraint is not merely a verbal one. Consider the analogous case of an ordinary competitive market. Economic theory tells us that firms selling identical goods will all charge the same price. That does not mean that firms are not free to change their price if they wish, nor that a change by one firm will somehow force every other firm to make an identical change. On the contrary, the analysis of what the price will be depends on the assumption that each firm is free to set whatever price it wishes, and deduces both the existence and level of the common price from that assumption. Similarly, protection firms under anarcho-capitalism will agree on arbitrators to settle disputes between them, but that is a consequence of their profit maximizing behavior, not a constraint upon it. The fact that they are free to refuse to agree to arbitration is one of the elements that determine what the actual terms of arbitration will be.
Cowen then writes:
Unlike Nozick’s ultraminimal state, the network consists of more than one firm….The presence of a network gives rise to contractual relations that induce firms to behave cooperatively, as if they were one large firm. Whether the common arbitration network is “one big firm,” or “many cooperating smaller firms” is primarily a matter of semantics. The network can just as well be considered a single firm with separate divisions that compete to some degree. Each division has its own set of residual claimants, but the behavior of divisions is constrained to favor the interests of the entire network.
So far as I can tell, this final assertion is nowhere justified, and I believe it to be false. What Cowen describes as a “network” is simply a set of private firms-protection and arbitration agencies-linked by a large number of contracts. Each pair of protection agencies has a contract specifying an arbitrator for disputes between their customers, and each protection agency has contracts with one or more arbitration agencies specifying the terms on which they will arbitrate its disputes wiht specified other protection agencies.
Nothing in this situation requires or implies a single firm controlling the whole, nor anything analogous to one. The network as I have described it has no decision-making body. It’s “decisions,” the set of legal codes it enforces, are the outcome of independent profit-making decisions by the individual firms and bargaining between pairs of firms. Nothing in the logic of the market for protection and arbitration implies that the outcome will maximize the summed profits of the firms,as Cowen seems to assert. Indeed, ordinary economic theory suggests that in equilibrium this market, like any competitive market, will yield zero profit to the firms that make it up.
Consider Cowen’s argument applied to a less exotic industry-groceries. As a practical matter, any grocery that wishes to stay in business much have contracts with a number of large suppliers, such as Kraft and General Mills, either directly or through distributors that function as intermediaries. Thus all grocery stores are linked together by contracts with common intermediaries. The whole collection of firms-grocery stores,producers,wholesalers-could be described as a network in the same sense in which Cowen describes the protection agency as a network. Does it follow that, in the grocery industry, “contractual relations…induce firms to behave cooperatively, as if they were one large firm?” Is there any reason to believe that the behavior of the separate firms “is constrained to favor the interests of the entire network?”
Grocery stores and protection agencies are indeed constrained, but it is not their own interest that they are constrained to follow. Grocery stores are constrained to follow policies that maximize the welfare of their customers, and protection agencies are constrained to enforce legal codes that maximize the welfare of their customers, for essentially analogous reasons. In both cases the constraint is only approximate, due to the familiar problems of imperfect competition, imperfect knowledge, externalities, and the like. But nothing in the logic of either market leads to maximization of the interests of the industry.
By: JDenigma | Aug 8, 2010 Anarchism
Many libertarians are familiar with the system of private law that prevailed in Iceland during the Free Commonwealth period (930-1262). Market mechanisms, rather than a governmental monopoly of power, provided the incentives to cooperate and maintain order.
In outline, the system’s main features were these: Legislative power was vested in the General Assembly (althingi); the legislators were Chieftains (godhar; singular, godhi) representing their Assemblymen (thingmenn; singular, thingmadhr). Every Icelander was attached to a Chieftain, either directly, by being an Assemblyman, or indirectly, by belonging to a household headed by an Assemblyman. A Chieftaincy (godhordh) was private property, which could be bought and sold. Representation was determined by choice rather than by place of residence; an Assemblyman could transfer his allegiance (and attendant fees) at will from one Chieftain to another without moving to a new district. Hence competition among Chieftains served to keep them in line.
The General Assembly passed laws, but had no executive authority; law enforcement was up to the individual, with the help of his friends, family, and Chieftain. Disputes were resolved either through private arbitration or through the court system administered by the General Assembly. Wrongdoers were required to pay financial restitution to their victims; those who refused were denied all legal protection in the future (and thus, e.g., could be killed with impunity). The claim to such compensation was itself a marketable commodity; a person too weak to enforce his claim could sell it to someone more powerful. This served to prevent the powerful from preying on the weak. Foreigners were scandalized by this “land without a king”; but Iceland’s system appears to have kept the peace at least as well as those of its monarchical neighbors.
The success of the Icelandic Free Commonwealth’s quasi-anarchistic legal institutions has been used by David Friedman, Bruce Benson, and others as evidence against the Hobbesian argument that cooperation is impossible in the absence of central authority.
But during the Sturlung Period (1230-1262), the Icelandic Free Commonwealth did eventually collapse into violent conflict and social chaos, and the King of Norway had to be called in to restore order. Doesn’t this show that Hobbes was right after all?
Not necessarily. There is another possible interpretation… more
By: JDenigma | Aug 5, 2010 video
By: JDenigma | Aug 2, 2010 video
By: JDenigma | Jun 3, 2010 Featured
Stefan Molyneux on the BP oilspill
Michigan Considers Law to Register Journalists
First they came for the workplace and your medicine cabinet. Next..your canon of knowledge? Why not? Surely, if the safety of the workplace environment & your medicine is to be trusted to the government regs, then something as important as knowledge and truth should be regulated too. So many books out there as well. How are we to glean the truth without the help of big brother?
Flotilla Raid News
Here is a roundup of varying perspectives on the Flotilla raid and the propaganda warfare in overdrive from both sides. Decide for yourself what the truth is. Regardless of who is more responsible for this tragedy, the unfortunate reality is both Israelis and Palestinians are needlessly suffering because of emotions flaring up in confrontations and the innocent being exploited by heavy handed & terrorist attacks from both the State of Israel and Hamas. Plenty of guilt is to go all around with the boundaries of States & religion causing deep seated hatred in this long standing conflict. It’s a mess over there with no immediate, easy solutions for either side. Violence begets violence.
C4SS: Israeli Raid: Statist Logic to its Deadly Extreme
Supposedly the raid had to be done, because the flotilla challenged Israel’s control of Gaza. When a mindset is adopted that the state must control everything within a certain area, then anything the state does not have a hand in is seen as a threat. But transporting medical supplies and “luxuries” like toys and unapproved foods really only threatens a government’s control.
Diamondbacks game draws immigration protesters
Several hundred people, many from the SEIU, use a three-game series with the Dodgers to voice opposition to Arizona’s controversial law.
US Senate rejects exit timetable for Afghanistan
The 80-18 vote nixed a bid by liberal Democrat Russ Feingold for a detailed troop timetable, which he argued would avoid future “emergency” war spending bills such as the $33 billion one now before the Senate.
“Wearing a marijuana leaf on your shirt is not a crime,” Corry said. “There is absolutely no reason he should have been contacted by mall security and Aurora police. There’s absolutely no reason he should have been kicked out of the mall. This is America.”
While some may understandably not like the mall’s policy here, it is private property.
Rand Paul equivocates on strategic policy with Iran. Politics is after all the art of compromise. Even the seemingly staunch pro-liberty politicians can let their platform be co-opted and watered down by the siren song of living to fight another day. This though is a rather significant compromise.
By: JDenigma | May 28, 2010 Featured
Punk Johnny Cash put a post up exclusive at Break The Matrix The Militarized Police State Is Here, so go check that one out.
Canada decided that U.S. tyranny with their own Patriot Act Style bill, C-29: The Anti-Privacy Privacy Bill.
Deportations have risen under President Obamas watch: Immigration detention reforms a distant promise as deportations rise drastically.
The President sent 1,200 troops to the border. President Obamas’ plan is starting to look a good deal like President Bushs’ plan.
Libertarian Party & Libertarianism:
Rand Paul really stepped in it. But despite the common claim that the self declared “conservative constitutionalist” is a libertarian, the Libertarian Party is talking about running a candidate against him so they can see an actual libertarian choice in the state of Kentucky.
In regards to Rand Paul & those libertarians who accept the state there is a wonderful article at C4SS you may want to read: Libertarianism and its discontents It’s hard to have that principle while you cling to a state.
What is the underground economy? Mises has The Underground Economy in One Page
There is a wonderful article re-surfacing online from Anti-State.com Libertarian Property and Privatization: An Alternative Paradigm
. It caught my attention on Twitter this week when Jesse L. Stewart posted it.
Break the Matrix posted a wonderful Introduction to Austrian Economics By Murray Rothbard.
The President is ready to start another war in Korea now. I think Obama will top Bush in how many wars he can get into: Obama tells military: prepare for North Korea aggression
The U.S. Expanding Secret Military Activities in Midle East The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.
There is a wonderful article at Anti-War.com: Being Muslim Is No Crime
How convenient that there are Muslims in America. How much harder it would be for the government to increase its power, while abridging more general liberties, if they didn’t exist. A radical Islamic preacher, who also happens to be an American citizen, is now hiding out somewhere in Yemen inciting violence against this country. What’s the solution? Simple: add him to the CIA’s “kill list,” send in the drones (though we are not at war with Yemen), and execute him. Better yet, call that act a “targeted killing” and you don’t have to worry about the legal niceties associated with the word “assassination.”
We are going to give the New Roundups another go here at Gonzo Times. We haven’t done one in months, so hopefully we will keep up with it.