Anarchy – By Definition – Is Voluntary

‘In light of a conversation on Twitter today, I wanted to make this point.

Anarchy means “no rulers.” This is key.

It is key because if your brand of anarchy requires you to dismantle, or take, or otherwise forcefully remove from me that which I voluntarily acquired as mine (i.e. – property) (and regardless of whether or not you see it that way – your p.o.v. is irrelevant) without my approval, you have placed yourself and your philosophy above me as a person. I am now a serf, and you are my ruler.

So any brand of anarchy that claims that moniker, while simultaneously attempting to take your stuff, via force, is unequivocally anti-anarchy. These ideas are diametrically opposed on a basic and fundamental level. No amount of logical twists and turns will make this anything other than what it is. You can be against property. That’s fine. But as soon as you make a violent move against me, or seek to take my property without my permission, you are destroying the very foundation of what it means to be an anarchist.

Which brings me to my next, congruent point – anarchy without voluntaryism or voluntarism is not anarchy. Again, if you do anything to me without my permission, you are placing yourself and your desires above me. You have sought to make yourself a ruler over me. This is no anarchy. And there are no two ways about it. Voluntary interaction is a cornerstone of the anarchist philosophy, necessarily.

Anarchy, in order to be anarchy, requires voluntary interactions, and egalitarianism (in the form of rights). These are necessary and sufficient conditions in order to meet the demands of anarchy.

Remember – anarchy = no rulers. No rulers = everything is voluntary, by matter of definition, fact, and necessity.

Why Aren’t You An Anarchist Yet? Questions and Suggestions

In light of yesterday’s bombshell revelations, I have two questions and a suggestion.

Question 1: In the last 20, 30, 40, or however many years you can go back, how many times have you said “because of “thing a,” I am thankful or grateful that we have government?”
By contrast, how many times have you said “Freaking government…always finding some new way to screw us over”?

Question 2: If you have found yourself saying the latter statement more times than the former statement, I ask you – why are you not an anarchist yet? What more do you need? Government isn’t just impractical, ineffective, inefficient, and dangerous in theory. If nothing else, it becomes demonstrablymore true by the day. So why aren’t you an anarchist yet? What is holding you back? Some sort of divine reverence for your country’s founders, or founding documents? The ironic belief that, somehow, regular people needrulers, corrupt as they may be? Or perhaps, like the vast majority of people, it is simply how things always have been, and you have never given it much thought. Does one of those sound like you?

It is my hope that in light of yesterday’s, and the subsequent, revelations from WikiLeaks, that more and more of you begin to awaken to your awful situation.

But for those who may not yet be there, or ready to accept – I offer a suggestion. No, not to read a book (although, depending on the literature, that is a fantastic place to begin) or some other long, and drawn out deep intellectual exercise.

Instead, I ask that you watch a documentary, subscribe to a few YouTube Channels, and have a willing mind that is both open, and teachable, yet questioning.

The Documentary is called “Sirius: The Disclosure.” (It’s primarily about UFO and E.T. cover-ups, but the implications surrounding liberty and the nature of government are incredibly relevant. There are other subjects touched on too, like the FED, and 9/11.)

It is 2 hours long, and is worth it.

One of the YouTube channels is High Impact Flix. The videos are insightful, hard-hitting, asking the real questions, and are entertaining. And if you aren’t pumped up to fight for the cause of liberty (or at least against leftist hypocrisy) after each one, then nothing (but my blog) will do it for you.

I also want you guys to check out a relatively small YouTuber (whose videos betray an astoundingly high production value) by the name of Mouthy Buddha. Again, great conversational videos that should get people questioning the world around them, and he deserves way more subs than he currently has. (As do I!) His video “Why I am a Spiritual Agnostic” explains me down to the genetic level. Notice his use of the Tao, which is something I’ve mentioned quite a bit on my own Twitter, and a topic you can expect an exploration on regarding its intersection with Anarchy soon. 😉

Lastly, but not least(ly?), I want you guys to check out my guys over at Bring Your Own Anarchy. Loud, in your face, always drinking good stuff, and never without an astute thought regarding the world around us – these aren’t your 60’s anarchists. This duo is smart, engaging, insightful, and their twitter account is in point. If you’re new to anarchy, or a hardened vet, these are guys you should be listening to. This is another channel that has way less subs than it deserves.

So why are you not an anarchist yet? There is every reason to be, and the statists are running out of legitimate reasons to not be (if they ever were legitimate in the first place).

The Infinite Regress of the Victim Mentality

I recently watched a rather painful video from Stefan Molyneux entitled “But It Wasn’t Real Communism!” In it, a caller tried to (rather pitifully) make the claim that property isn’t a real thing, and that his example of injustice illustrates this fact. The claim was “If I stole a painting from you (Stefan Molyneux), and when I died, I passed it on to my son, who does the painting belong to? You, or my son?” For communists, or general proponents of the idea that property doesn’t exist, this is a slam dunk argument…I guess? The answer is quite simple, and it is “No. If Stefan is still alive, he can claim his property back. But if Stefan is dead, then we might have a different story. If generations have passed, and none have tried to reclaim it, then ultimately it is not Stefan’s anymore. But while Stefan was claiming it, and you aggressed against him, and he is still alive, the painting still belongs to him.” Simple. Just a few sentences, and even that can be condensed. I just wanted to be clear. But the caller’s “point” was that land “taken” by “whites” doesn’t actually belong to them; it belongs to the people they stole it from, and they should give it back. Of course, this all presupposes the whole concept of property in the first place, but let’s continue with the primary point for now.

We’ve all likely heard the claim before. White people owe black people reparations – usually in the form of money – for the injustice of slavery. Men owe women for the injustices of sexism and patriarchy. When conservatives make claims regarding borders, national security, and illegal aliens, some leftist, predictably, brings up the idea that Native Americans were here first, so “white” Americans should leave, or go back to Europe, or something.

Now aside from the fact that nobody living today has gone through the injustices of their ancestors, nor has anybody alive today perpetrated those injustices on any living or deceased person today, and therefore, they do not owe any so called “victim” anything, there is another problem with this line of victim based ideology. Namely, there is always another victim further back, to which a claim can be made for “justice.”

This isn’t to say, of course, that great injustices have been wrought against various peoples the world over for one reason or another. In fact, it is to say precisely that. Human beings, throughout history, if nothing else, have shown within themselves the capacity to enact great harm on each other. And for little reason, no less. Whether it’s something as small as “personal offense” or “dishonor,” or for want of power, humans beings, as seems to be our collective history, has been to perpetrate amazing amounts of injustice on other people. And so to claim that because one injustice in the distant pass occurred, future and completely innocent people should pay for it is absurd.

For instance, take the argument that modern “white” Americans have no claim to the land on which they reside, because it was “stolen” from so-called “native” Americans. As it turns out, Native Americans aren’t so “native” at all. In fact, there are two theories that argue that a Proto-European group first came to the Americas 25 thousand years ago (one theory says it was by boat off the coast of Spain, and another says it was by the Bering Strait land-bridge and its associated islands), a good 10 thousand years before the Bering Strait land-bridge migration of the ancestors of the native Americans. That group is believed to be an ancient Asian group, perhaps Chinese, which would later evolve into the Native Americans we know today. But what happened to those Proto-Europeans, those people that claimed these lands first? According to one theory, they either assimilated, or were “physically obliterated.” They may have also died out due to stiff competition for natural resources, from these newcomers.

In other words, the so-called “native” Americans massacred them, stole their resources, and bred with the true native’s women, and bred them out of existence. In fact, there are some genetic markers left in modern Native Americans that support this, as well.

So what’s the point of this brief bio-archeological lesson? No, it isn’t to create some new race debates of who did what first, or anything stupid and pointless like that. But it serves to illustrate one very simple thing – This is what humans do, historically. We fight over resources, land, or whatever is needed for survival. And then property itself falls into new hands. And if we want to claim that modern people need some sort of reparation for the sins of the fathers, then we can always go back to even more distant victims of injustice, and just claim “Well, I’ll pay you once you pay me for the injustices my ancestors went through from your further ancestors!” There’s always a more distant victim that we, as humanity, can claim.

At some point, we have to the bigger person, and only charge that true injustice happens on the individual level. Did I attack, beat, and lynch you? No? Then I don’t owe you anything. Were you the victim of something that I actively inflicted upon you? No? Then you aren’t a victim of mine. I am not going to sit here and tell you that you owe me something because something happened to my ancestor by some ancestor of yours. That’s preposterous. You are an individual, and so am I. You did me no harm, and therefore, I am not your victim. If you yourself tried to steal my property, then we have an issue. But if your ancestor stole something from my ancestor, you don’t owe me a thing. Victimhood isn’t inheritable. Neither is sin.

If that is the claim, then we must admit an infinite regress in the logic, as there is always another distant victim, whose injustices must be addressed. And at that point, then we are just trading one injustice and set of reparations for another, ad infinitum. And it is utterly pointless, and just a waste of time.

Tl:dr – Did it happen to YOU? No? Then you are not a victim. You are not owed anything.

Are YOU the perpetrator? No? Then you are not an oppressor. You own nobody anything.

It’s that simple. And to suggest otherwise is to indicate that you are terrible at forming a coherent thought, and should be ignored.

A Brief Response to the Critique that Capitalism is a “Zero-Sum Game”

I was recently reading a post by Adrian Iliopoulos over at “The Quintessential Man” blog entitled “The Game Theory Mindset – How to Make Better Decisions”. It was a great blog post, and it got me thinking on the concept of zero-sum games, capitalism, and capitalism’s critiques. And while there are some more valid, or well-thought out critiques of this economic system, the claim that capitalism is a zero sum game is not one of them. In fact, it is intellectually lazy, and the claim is based off of a very basic misunderstanding of capitalism, often conflating it with some kind of mix of corporatism, nepotism, or just all-around corruption. This response will be brief, as that is all that is warranted.

So firstly, what is a zero-sum game? In his book, “Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,” Hungarian-American mathematician John von Neuman and Oskar Morgenstern defined it like this:

A zero-sum game is a game where if the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Poker and gambling are popular examples of zero-sum games since the sum of amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of the others.”

So does capitalism fit this definition? Is capitalism little more than poker, or general gambling? The answer, which should be immediately evident, is no. In the capitalist system, people trade something of value, for something else they see as having more value. In a way, it’s bartering, 2.0. In basic bartering, if I want John’s milk, I go to him, and ask what he wants for his milk. John is cold, and would like to make a new sweater, so he asks for my cotton and threading. If I value having some milk to drink more than I value my cotton and threading, I will give it to him, in exchange. Capitalism makes this process more efficient by introducing another a 3rd element into the equation that allows me to purchase his milk, and keep my cotton and threading. This 3rd element is money. And I receive that money via the very same bartering technique – a job worked, a product produced, or services rendered, for money. Then I use that money to go to John, and I give him the money to buy his milk. I get the milk, and John goes to my employer and buys the sweater I knitted. The employer gets paid, and Johns gets the sweater. So not only has everyone gotten what they wanted, we’ve actually grown our sphere of influence and participation. More people benefited. Basic bartering, at the end of the day, is a simple trade between two people. But capitalism streamlined the process, allowed more than just the original two to gain, and all of us ended up with exactly what we wanted. Does that sound like a game of poker? Sure, more than 2 people can play. But with poker, there is a pot. And there is only one winner. The end result isn’t someone gets the money, while the other players get something of more value after having lost. At its core, capitalism is so far removed from the concept of a zero-sum game as to be a laughable as a critique. It is ignorance of the highest caliber. Capitalism allowed all involved to get exactly what they wanted. None were in a state of loss, at the end. And not only that, it involved more people, and all of those involved profited. That is how an economy grows.

And that’s why the critique that capitalism is a zero-sum game is fruitless, immature, and intellectually lazy.

I hope you enjoyed it, and got something from that.

The Pendulum of American Extremes


This isn’t supposed to be a detailed analysis of historical events, situations, or circumstances. I am one 29 year old guy experiencing some of these things, learning about others, and just touching on them to make a general point. Your likely criticism of “well, here’s the full context of [insert any thing I’m talking about here], you moron!” is probably valid, and reasonable. It’s just not the main point of this. So chill – thanks. 


The American Political sport is a unique beast. Something wholly original on the world stage. No, I’m not talking about “The American Experiment” in constitutional republics. That experiment has failed to produce lasting results, although it was a worthy try. No, what I mean is that unlike the rest of the western world, American politics grows more and more extreme at an increasing rate – a rate that should be alarming to most rational and peaceful people.

The media is largely to blame for this, but it goes without saying that American Presidents (as well as any matching houses of congress) get more extreme as time goes on. If I were a better historian, I could likely trace this back from George Washington to now, but I’m not. So I’ll start with JFK. JFK wasn’t extreme, mind you. At least not by today’s standards. Although, to the modern American left, he would be closer to a “Reagan Conservative.” I suppose that kind of makes him extreme. But to some, he was an adamant classical liberal, and that may very well be what got him assassinated. His replacement, Johnson, was a serious racist – not an unheard of quality in the democratic party. Especially for that time. They do a much better job of hiding it, and pretending they’re not these days. Aside from that, his presidency was pretty mild. But then we get Nixon. Of course, by today’s standards, Nixon wouldn’t be really extreme. The Water-Gate scandal, notwithstanding. Again, that’s the point. But after evidence surfaced of illegal election activities aimed at helping him win his 2nd election, Nixon became the first president in history to resign. Nixon’s vice president Gerald Ford took over, and once again, things return to a semblance of normalcy. Then we get Carter, and this is where things begin to pick up steam. Combine his far-left (for the time) creation “The Department of Energy,” sky rocketing gas prices, the Iranian hostage crises, and we see a weak-kneed liberal in way over his head.

The pendulum swung hard back to the right.

Ronald Regan is elected in a landslide, the Iranian hostage crises comes to an end, Communism is defeated once and for all and the cold war ends, and taxes are substantially lowered. At least, that’s official policy. (The reality is that Reagan raised a whole bunch of taxes…) Reagan’s presidency was replete with far right (again, for that time – not by today’s standards) ideas – strong military spending, significant military involvements, overthrowing governments in South American and elsewhere. The presidency of Ronald Reagan is a neo-con’s utopia. In the end, the growth of government, in scope and power, made this presidency a disappointment for Anarchists and libertarians. George H.W. Bush ran on largely the same ideals. His campaign slogan “No New Taxes” was followed by exactly what we should be coming to expect from statists (but still haven’t)…more taxes. Plus, a new, overt, and unpopular war in the gulf. But after 16 years of a hard shift to the right in America, the pendulum would swing back hard left.

Enter Bill Clinton. The savvy, energetic, young governor from Arkansas enjoyed a massive win over GHWB, and became the first democratic governor since FDR to serve for a full two terms. And, as was common to the historical leftist ideology of the time in America, America saw itself engaged in more overseas wars and military engagements. Also common to leftist politics, taxes were raised. Friendly economists will be quick to point out that the deficit fell, employment was high, yadda yadda. I like economics, but most Keynesian economists are not well known for principles, but whatever they can do to artificially inflate numbers. Paul Krugman immediately comes to mind. But with the Monica Lewinsky scandal of the late 90’s, and Clinton’s subsequent impeachment by Congress, his popularity by the end of his presidency lessened. With the Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich, much of Bill’s leftist policies had to be curtailed. Dick Morris coined the political phrase “triangulation,” a strategy of encouraging a more extreme point of view, with the intent to bargain your way back towards a more desired policy, while looking like you were willing to negotiate. A solid strategy, but a mix of republican and democratic ideals only leads to watered down versions of either, and nobody wants that.

George W. Bush easily defeats – via the only voting mechanism that matters, anyway (The Electoral College) – Al Gore, Clinton’s Vice President. Which shouldn’t be surprising for anybody at this time, right? Is the pattern beginning to emerge? And it is with this election that the media begins to actively fight a president in a way America has yet to see. Yes, the media could be antagonistic towards a President before Bush. But it was nothing like this. With the constant personal attacks, the media began to influence culture. Saturday Night Live saw a revival in ratings thanks to Will Ferrell’s portrayal of an idiotic Bush. It didn’t help that Bush couldn’t pronounce more complex words like “nuclear,” very well *Snicker* But here was a president who actually wanted education reform and policy to be the primary focus of his administration see the attack on 9/11 become what he was known for, instead. America now at war, and with Bush now a war-time president, we see many favored neocon ideas become policy. Strong Military presence (again) in the Middle East, the passing of the patriot act, a renewed interest and distrust of the NDAA, NAFTA, and the coming housing crises, all fed into the media’s portrayal of a President not only wildly unfit for the job, but possibly doing a worse job than his predecessors in a myriad of areas. But it isn’t just an objective worse. There is a political worse, too. The media hates this man. No President in history (up to that point) had been as vilified, ridiculed, mocked, and attacked on a personal level from everyone from the mainstream media, popular culture, and news outlets from overseas as George W. Bush was. Songs were written about him, or extending his “cowboy policies” to all of America in general. Senators and Congressmen were vitriolic in their criticisms, as were people like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, or notorious race pimp provocateur, Al Sharpton.

And it all changed once Barack Obama got into office. The pendulum, once again, swung so far back to the left, that Barack Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, with almost no real political experience – aside from being “community organizer” and a “present” voting Senator – plowed his way to the white house on the fact that he was black, and said “hope” and “change” a lot. That was literally it. Oh, and he was pushing for as far left policies as Bush pushed for on the right. The only people standing up to Obama were labeled racists. And they were called racists for 8 years, even during the increasing number of scandals during Obama’s presidency. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the continuing presence in the Middle East, new engagements in Syria and Libya, the creation, funding, and training of the terrorist organization that would become known as ISIS, rampant shootings all over the country from crazy leftists who were seemingly over-prescribed medications that they subsequently ignored, police brutality…and on and on. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange from Wikileaks, and Chelsea Manning would reveal even greater horrors. Rampant spying on the American people, which started under Bush II, but continued and ramped up under Obama, became a major focal point for almost 4 years. Obama, the president who ran on the idea that the Executive branch needed to be more transparent, continued to push for the extradition of Edward Snowden, with the likely intent to try (and find him guilty) Snowden for treason. All that despite claiming to support whistle-blowers. And if you criticized Obama for any of that, you were called a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe, a truther, an Alex Jones or Glenn Beck supporter…And people were called that for 8 years. Good people with legitimate claims of injustice. And so the pendulum swung again, only this time, it would go for a candidate that many had written off. Too few saw the writing on the wall. Too few recognized the patterns. This is true even now.

So Donald Trump wins – landslide win, I might add. Forget the pundits. Trump dominated. It was an easy win. And this despite the protests, the marches, the violence – all coming from the left and other Trump detractors, mind you – Trump wins. Solidly so. And within his first two weeks in office, America pulls out of the TPP, a 70 day ban on refugees entering the United States from certain countries is enacted (opposition being just as fierce as it was supportive of Obama when he did the same thing, but for longer – but again, criticism of Obama is racist), and a bill enters congress with the intent to shut down the EPA. Trump brings in a pro-school choice (the horror!) candidate to head the Education Department. He nominates a conservative judge to fill the seat by the recently deceased Antonin Scalia. And what do we see from the combined efforts of George Soros backed power brokers? The MSM suddenly grows a spine, and decides to go on constitutional watch duty, as if they ever cared about that document in the first place. Celebrities call for marshal law, or Trump’s assassination. Whichever makes their feelz more fuzzy, I suppose. The SNL mockings resume. Hell, they don’t even stop at Trump. They go after his kids, his wife…the man’s family is fair game, apparently. At least if you’re a gay Jew on an airplane, anyway.

So what’s my point with this brief American Politics recap?

Where does the pendulum go from here?

America was 2 rigged elections away (Democratic Primary, and then the General Election) from “electing” a socialist….er, sorry. A “social democrat.” A “social democrat,” I might add, who has never read an economic text in his life.

So where does the pendulum go after Trump? Protests over the right to free speech abound in this country. “Anti-fascist” fascists are attacking people with differing views. Bloodying them, punching and macing them in the face. Leaving them in the street to bleed out. These loons have even shot their own people at these events. A whole bunch of “women” decided it would be a good idea to wear pink hats and vagina masks and march around D.C. and other places, because that somehow teaches Trump what’s what or something. I don’t know. I don’t think anybody does. All I know is that a bunch of gross women got up, talked about things most people don’t talk about in polite company (it’s common – leftist women typically aren’t very classy), somehow “reasoned” that talks about blowing up the white house could be taken out of context in a negative way, or were “just joking,” or something. Again, I don’t know. Reason isn’t a common denominator with these things. But again, I ask…

Where does the pendulum go from here? Can America survive the next swing? Are we even going to survive this one?

I don’t know. But I do know it’s people we’re talking about. People are notoriously irrational, hateful, spiteful, and generally, pretty stupid. The odds aren’t good.

So I guess my last question is – Which country are you moving to? 🙂

I like Malta. What about you? Let’s talk about this in the comments section below, or on Twitter.



Why Anarchy?

In part 1 of this series, exploring the question “Why…?” I will be explaining my own personal reason for the question “Why Anarchy?” The series is intended to illustrate my own personal and individual reasons why I subscribe to the various philosophical schools of thought regarding a particular belief, or position I hold. Later “Why…?” segments will look at Capitalism, Voluntarism, Agorism, Trans-Humanism, and other philosophies. As a mortal human being, I reserve the right to change my mind regarding various beliefs and philosophies, especially as I receive new insights, or become privy to new facts. The only principles I am ultimately wedded to are Truth and Liberty. Anything else is welcome to change. That said, these essays, as much for myself as for anybody else, are really just an exercise in determining my own philosophical underpinnings and foundations for my own beliefs. Think of it as my own version of Descartes’ famous epistemological reductionism where he coined the famous conclusion “ergo cogito sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.” In a previous essay, I added one line to it, which was “I am, therefore I am free.” It is from this point that I begin this exploration. If you enjoy this, please leave a comment below. Also, please consider doing a similar exercise for yourself, if you haven’t done so already. I think it’s of the utmost importance that people who have subscribed to certain beliefs examine the philosophical foundations of those beliefs. As Socrates himself once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
So let us live.
In the few years since deciding the label “anarchist” most accurately represented my own political philosophy, I’ve learned of other, powerful, confirmatory and congruent philosophies as well, that have helped to grow my own anarchism further outside the political realm. In other words, I may have started as a political anarchist, but ultimately, my own brand of anarchy has stretched beyond solely politics. It has rooted itself into the very core of my being, and it has branched into other areas of my personal beliefs, such as religion and theology, metaphysics, and even science itself. And what I have found most profound is – and I freely admit this – while I was already an anarchist when I discovered these other things, I wasn’t trying to read anarchy into them. What I mean by that is, I am not working from a position of confirmation bias (at least not knowingly), but rather, I’m an anarchist, and I found some other things that sound awful anarchistic as well. And if they are more comparable, rather than contrasting, then I adopt those beliefs too. And in that fashion, I have built for myself a suitable and satisfying web of truths. I liken this journey to a spider’s web because a spider builds the web one strand at a time. That one strand is enough for the spider to traverse, but incapable of catching flies. It is only after more strands are added that the spider has a place to live, grow a spider family, and catch some dinner, too. When that one strand becomes a web, it can carry more weight, contain more flies or spiderlings. That web becomes a foundation with the strength to prosper.  This is how it was for me when I embraced anarchy. I realized that anarchy is that first string. And that with the addition of other strings, or philosophical schools of thought, I could create a web that could catch more truth and understanding, hold greater weight, and withstand greater winds of critique. I want to reiterate, this is how it has worked and continues to work for me. This may not be anyone else’s path, or method. Nor is my way the best or only way. It’s just simply my way.
Also, and for a better understanding, it’s not only that I adopted other beliefs that seemed to cohere with anarchy, but that I saw some of the very truths of anarchy itself being presented elsewhere too. Think of it as philosophical diffusionism, to borrow a term from Archaeology. And those other philosophies add strands to my web of truth, as well. And like a web, these strands flow in and out of another, connecting at various points to other strands. These connecting points represent some of the more interesting places that anarchy and these other philosophies intersect, complement one another, and give strength to the overall web. And I’ll explain what these other beliefs and philosophies are in other “Why…?” explorations.
So why anarchy?
The etymology of the word has changed over time, but I subscribe to the view of anarchy in its most basic, and original form. The word anarchy comes from the Greek word anarkhos, meaning “rulerless.” An, meaning “without,” and arkhos, meaning “leader.” So anarchy means “without a leader,” or “no ruler.” For me, the original and basic definition is critical. I am not born into this world with a leader, or ruler. There may be leaders or rulers. But they weren’t born leaders or born rulers. They were people who later became them, either through involuntary conquest, or voluntary support. But if there are no natural leaders, then it is our very nature, from the moment we take our first breath, to be leaderless. It is our state of nature, so to speak. So when I say I am an anarchist, one way I mean that is in a very naturalistic, and metaphysical kind of way. It is our state of nature. It is the nature of reality, for me. And I believe this to be so for others, but I’m not going to argue on behalf of anybody else.
Because of this, literally every form of governance (except one, which I’ll explain) we’ve seen in the history of mankind is the antithesis to this natural and metaphysical view that we get from anarchy. It doesn’t matter if it is monarchical rule with a king or queen, or democratic rule by “the people,” or communistic rule with a strong centralized government – these are, at the end of the day, rulers of me minus the natural right to be so. So as an anarchist, there is one – and only one – kind of rule that I accept – self-rule, or self-government. That is rule of me, by me, for me, and explicitly none else. Just as none are my natural ruler, so too am I no such thing for anybody else. So I can, in no uncertain terms, advocate for the rule for anybody else, be that through the involuntary conquest of violent communism, or the voluntary support of a constitutional republic. At the end of the day, no matter what political system or style of governance you are using, you are either being ruled, or acting as a ruler. This goes against our very nature, I believe. And against the nature of reality itself. To do this is to invite great unhappiness, suffering, and destruction. Granted, unhappiness and suffering are not reasons to be anarchists. It is simply the effect of going against this cosmic nature, and something to be aware of.
And I believe history to be on my side with this, too. Small government conservatives must concede that no government in the history of governments was ever small. Certainly, none have ever ended small. The nature of the leviathan is to grow, always, until its inevitable collapse. It doesn’t matter which empire you speak of, either. It has always happened. And it will always happen. Again, to go against nature is to invite destruction, unhappiness, and suffering. Sure, governments have paved the way for good things to come about – new technologies, medicines, scientific discoveries, etc…but that isn’t the nature of government. That is simply something it has allowed to happen because the discovery either fortified it, or helped it to grow. No, much like the terrible argument that says you can have a lot of regulation and still have functioning capitalism, like in many European countries, these discoveries didn’t necessarily happen because of government – but in spite of it. Remember, the function of government isn’t to reveal new truths, or discover, in and of itself. Only to grow itself, in power, size, and scope. So any good government may have done, or seems to have done, has occurred only as a means to an end. Which was not the discovery itself, but to create trust in government. Thus, allowing it to grow more.
The only true “small government” is self-government. And as Henry David Thorough so famously quoted, “the government which governs best, governs least.” And the least governing entity, that which is smallest, is the self, or the individual. We are our own “communist dictator,” “our own king or queen,” or “our own constitutional republic.” And none else. And we for none else. Our lack of justification doesn’t come from a lack of capabilities, or qualifications, or divine heritage. Our lack of justification is simply the result of nature. We are not born better or worse than anybody else. We are all the same in our rights. My anarchy is egalitarian in nature. And if none are better or worse, then none are fit to rule, or fit to be ruled. This is my anarchy. This is my answer to the question “why anarchy?” And it works for me. It is my path, my way…There is much more to this idea, but I think this will suffice for now.

What is your way? What does your Anarchy look like, and why? Please leave a comment down below, or on Twitter, and let’s discuss.

Questions for Anarchists That Are More Difficult To Answer Than We’d Like To Admit

One article type I’d like to spend time exploring are those questions that people commonly throw at Anarcho-Capitalists as critiques of their system. Sometimes those “critiques” are invalid, or based on ignorance or mistakes in logic. Questions like “Isn’t anarchy chaos?” These are not very good critiques, and with the most minimal of effort, even the most ardent of critics of Anarcho-Capitalism (or Anarchy, generally) can find satisfactory, factual, and well-reasoned responses. And I think it is because of the commonality and persistence of these kinds of questions that Anarchists often end up brushing them aside with simplistic (not necessarily a bad thing, but if “simple” comes off as “platitudinous” or “high-horse,” we do a disservice to ourselves, and our philosophy) answers, perhaps not even willing to consider the points made by the other sides in the discussion.
I’ve noticed these types of responses too, ever since I got involved in politics, with every ideology I have ever subscribed to. It isn’t just Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists, but that’s the ideology I am subscribed to currently, and because of my faith and belief in it, I think it’s important to take some time to answer these kinds of questions. Also, I think it’s important for me here specifically because my intent is to illustrate how a real Anarchist society can be built and ran. Questions pertaining to justice (another post on that coming soon), law, persecution “under the law,” etc…are real issues that need responses. This post – as are most others – are my attempts at wading through waters that are a bit murkier than Anarcho-Capitalists give them credit for. So, on to some context!
Germany Considers Law Invalidating Underage Marriages With Refugees
The link above is an article from FOX News describing how Angela Merkal’s government is looking into a law that would invalidate marriages of refugees to those who are “underage” – marriages to children, to be blunt. It is a CDR response to the growing alt-right movement in Germany (and Europe and the United States and elsewhere…) to try and (too little, too late…?) assuage Germans who are angry at a government seemingly more concerned with foreigners than its own people.
I posted the article to an Anarchist FB page I am a part of and have been active on for years. These are people I respect, admire, and in some cases, even work for (kind of). When I post these kinds of things, they, more often than not, go ignored by the majority of members, but occasionally I’ll catch the attention of one or two, and this post was no different. The post itself, and their answers were the catalyst for this article.
In the post, I asked the question “Wicked punishing the wicked? Statists interfering with freedom of religion? Tyrannical religion oppressing children? Thoughts?” The page is filled with active LDS, former LDS, inactive LDS, and LDS of all varieties, and the line “Wicked punishing the wicked” is taken from the Book of Mormon, and infers that God’s justice sometimes comes by wicked peoples destroying, or raiding, or somehow assaulting other wicked peoples. In this way, good people have no need to go to war, and it is seen as a valid way for God’s justice to be had. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword, after all. Similar concept. So I posed this question, and without naming names, here are some summarized versions of answers I received.
–          Not my marriage, not my problem (word for word)
–          No sweeping laws fix things
–          What about other marriages?
–          What if the girls are conditioned to obey?
–          Use social shaming and education for the men and women instead
–           Cultural differences – Mary was married to Joseph at 14
–          Cultural differences justify a non-universality of application of principle
–          Abuses of liberty to one may not be so for another; culture determines that
Keep in mind, the thread is ongoing, so answers from people may change, and new ideas could be put forth. But as it stands right now at 9:47am Pacific time, those are the answers I have received.
I can’t speak for anybody else, but none of those answers are satisfying, and are full of the platitudes (at least in my mind) that I spoke of earlier. These are girls – children – being married off to much older males, who have every intent of having sex with (i.e. – in this case, raping) these girls. So I would like to go into the broader issue at play here, and maybe try to find a reasonable, non-statist, answer to these questions, and maybe even respond to these answers along the way.
Of course, the broader issue is immigration. In America, the phrase is “illegal immigration.” I know of no one who is against immigration, only the kind they view as “illegal.” Statists of the conservative and alt-right persuasion view it as a property rights issue. America is their home. The people voted on certain laws to protect their boarders, and by extension, their homes from people who want to come here and live off of the government, or commit crimes. If you don’t want to do those things, do it legally. (My wife – from Germany – is a legal immigrant.) Like the immigrant crises in Europe, Germany especially, the issue also revolves around the concept of entitlements. Illegal immigrants in America are some of the most well-treated and taken care of in the world. According to some estimates, Texas alone spends 1.9 billion a year in for Medicaid and other healthcare programs. College campuses across America are declaring themselves “safe-zones” for illegal immigrant students, in a deluded response to Donald Trump’s presidential election. E.U. nations are well-known for their lax attitude towards immigrants – illegal or otherwise – even to the detriment of their own populations and peoples.
Illegal immigrant crimes are often reported with the line “…was deported 8 times….” Or some such idea. The American media has made a habit of, when reporting crimes of “illegals,” making the tagline “was an illegal immigrant.” Citizens often call for harsher penalties against illegal immigrants, but those calls are often ignored in the interest of not exceeding in punishment the crime, which is a constitutional mandate. Citizens argue that the constitution was meant for citizens, not illegal immigrants. The back and forth, and confusing media narrative serves only to divide (and conquer), and stir hatreds in people that likely wouldn’t have existed otherwise. Of course, that’s the whole point, but it is also all the more reason people should get a straight and reasonable answer on this issue. And while I do not believe the answers above from some of my fellow Anarcho-Capitalists are good answers, I do believe the philosophy of Anarchy I embrace here can provide those answers, and does, and I think it speaks to the heart of how I would like to see an Anarchistic society come about and be sustained.
The Foundation for Economic Education has done a fantastic job at describing the economic benefits of immigration, and economic penalties of stricter laws. For Anarcho-Capitalists, there is no such thing as “illegal immigration.” Immigration is a fundamental human right. And immigration is more of a net good than it is a net bad. I want to be clear from the get-go – I believe this to be true, myself. Period. No “but.” I just believe this to be true.
The existence of a state, however, makes this position difficult to sustain if you have laws which limit immigration in the first place. Especially if there is some sense that the government wants to enforce those laws, which people then depend on. And when those laws are no longer followed, or well-meaning Americans who simply wish to see those laws respected, see the same government call them racist for demanding that, we can see the beginnings of a major culture war brewing. Which is why education must first happen before hard anarchy principles can be fully adopted. But liberty, always, must be protected, first and foremost. If people are dead, they don’t have liberty. Protecting liberty protects lives. This must be first.
So, in regards to the article I posted in the beginning, let’s go over those answers.
–          Not my marriage, not my problem. This answer is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly, it falls into the trap that many Anarcho-Capitalists fall into, and it serves to give detractors ammunition. It tells the world that Anarcho-Capitalists are cold, and don’t care about anybody else. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and this article and the philosophy I espouse are proof of that. More than that, an attack on the liberty of one is an attack on liberty, period. And an attack on liberty attacks the liberty of all. It may not be your marriage. It may not be your problem, but the attack on liberty via the forced marriage and rape of a child is. Liberty is congruent to natural law. And there must be a response. Those who are innocent, and have their liberty violated must be protected. Violations of liberty demand justice and that justice can come in a variety of forms, but seeing as we’re currently relegated to a world of Nation-States, our options are limited. In this case, let the wicked (Government) punish the wicked (Pedophiles). We keep our hands clean, and justice is served. But in no way is this “not our problem.” In my anarchist-society, justice would be (especially if the liberty violation was rape) up to that given society to decide, but no doubt it would be swift, and market-determined.
–          No sweeping laws fix things. What about other marriages? What if the girls are conditioned to obey? If children are being forced into marriage, sexual or otherwise, do we protect them by making laws dissolving them immediately, or wait to educate? When does protecting those who are innocent come into play? If education (which we support here) comes AFTER someone’s liberty has been violated, do our principles really support or sustain liberty? Sweeping laws may not fix things. Especially man-made laws. And it is true that education must happen. But how can we educate about the greatness of liberty when we do nothing to protect and sustain it simultaneously? At that point, our “education” is just lip-service. Protection of and education of liberty must happen simultaneously. If we educate about it, but don’t protect it at the same time, we come off as platitudinous. Liberty is real. Not a platitude or a nice word we can just throw around.
–          Use social shaming. I am a big proponent of this tactic. It has worked wonders for the left in the last few decades. But while I do see it as a valid method of winning in the market place of ideas, it’s not sustainable as the only method, as the American Left seems content to believe, especially in the media. It needs to be backed up with exposition on our principles. Contrarianism is not the goal, especially if no intellectually honest descriptions of our own beliefs are given as a valid alternative. Progressivism has failed. Progressives know this. But they have nothing left but ridicule. And their time has come. They are losing the political war. Let’s not follow in their footsteps. We can use the tactic, but we cannot stop there. Our ideas must be backed up with intellectual honesty, and an insistence on being critiqued, so that our ideas can come back stronger, and more solid than before. In other words, we cannot be the “progressive” American left.
–          Cultural differences – Mary was married to Joseph at 14. Cultural differences justify a non-universality of application of principle. Abuses of liberty to one may not be so for another; culture determines that. Should culture supersede abuses of liberty? The principle of gravity applies everywhere. If it is a true principle, shouldn’t it be universal? Liberty is a true, universal principle. When it is violated, something stirs within us to defend it, and right the wrongs done to it. There is a natural response to violations of liberty. Also, one thing I am specifically dedicated to is defining liberty, and detailing specifically when its abuses have actually occurred.  Cultural ignorance does not supersede the universality of liberty, just like ignorance of gravity does not save the life of one who jumps off of a cliff with no rope. Liberty is to Anarchists what gravity was to Newton. Like the apple that drops when it is tossed, a natural response happens when liberty is violated. The market of a given liberty-based society determines that. In a society where liberty is not the prime virtue (such as in a Nation-State), justice still demands a response. In this case, allowing the wicked to punish the wicked may be our only recourse. All the more reason to educate about and defend the principles of liberty, to hasten that society’s creation.
Liberty is not merely a buzz-word. It is a real principle, with real reactions when it is invoked or attacked. Liberty always has a response. It’s our job to focus that response into something that is just. When there is no anarchistic society to do that, justice will take what justice can get. Sometimes, that is the wicked punishing the wicked. But make no mistake – justice and liberty will claim what is theirs. We can either live according to that, or we can fight it. But if we fight it, we are essentially saying that we can jump off of a large cliff with no rope, and walk away from it. This is absurd. It is as contrary to natural law as pretending gravity doesn’t exist. Living in harmony with the principles of anarchy will allow us to thrive. But if we cannot protect those of us still innocent, then teaching them about the virtue of liberty after theirs has been violated is dishonest, demeaning, irresponsible.