Search the Community

I have posted a thread asking the question a while ago "which country is best?" It was meant to be a completely open question, and I received a lot of replies. Most emphasised the importance of NO GVERNMENT as a prerequisite for a moral society. So I have been doing some research and reading Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy to broaden my horizons. Here are the countries I have narrowed down my search to, and would like to get a few opinions on which is truly the closest candidate. Here are the largely undisputed data. Please add a few criteria if there are any. There seems to be 5 main requirements for an ancap paradise: (I deliberately used data only from wikipedia, as they have the lowest possibility of being controversial) 0. No government. Everyone fails this one, so I won't include it. 1. Freedom of education. This is pretty hard to quantify so I only gave them general rankings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_education 2. Economic freedom. This is probably the most important one. Sadly, there is only quite unreliable data out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom 3. Absolutist ideology. Sorry, so far any form of atheism is not one. Only contemporary powerful ideologies count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country 4. Moral population. Respect for the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index 5. Strong Population. Not gross strength, but strength per capita in the given geopolitical predicament . What good is a society if they can't defend themselves, amaright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

I found this in a book by Michio Kaku called ‘The Future of the Mind’. Fun read. Lots of cool facts. But he goes a little overboard with his predictions on the future of AI, etc. Anyway, the following is from page 220. ‘Where did we go wrong? For the past fifty years, scientists working in AI have tried to model the brain by following the analogy with digital computers. But perhaps this was too simplistic. As Joseph Campbell once said, “Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.” If you remove a single transistor form a Pentium chip, the computer will crash immediately. But the human brain can perform quite well even if half of it is missing. This is because the brain is not a digital computer at all, but a highly sophisticated neural network of some sort. Unlike a digital computer, which has a fixed architecture (input, output, and processor), neural networks are collections of neurons that constantly rewire and reinforce themselves after learning a new task. The brain has no programming, no operating system, no Windows, no central processor. Instead, its neural networks are massively parallel, with one hundred billion neurons firing at the same time in order to accomplish a single goal: to learn.’ Now read it again and replace ‘neurons’ with ‘individuals.’ Replace ‘network’ and ‘brain’ with ‘society’ and you’ve got yourself a pretty solid argument for removing governments (or as Michio words it, ‘central processor’) and letting individuals find their own ‘neural paths’ through trial and error. Perhaps the most important word in the above is the term ‘parallel’. The goal he notes (to learn) could be replaced with 'achieve', though both are virtuous enough. If this system of networking is good enough for the human brain, the most intelligent entity on the face of the earth to date, then why not try to emulate it?

What's the best way to spread anarchy? Adversarial arguments? Explanations? Discussions? Socractic interrogation? Blogs? Burning trashcans through windows(j/k)? What kinds of arguments do you find most convincing? Pragmatic or moral?

For anyone who's interested, Reason.tv did a small series about anarchy in Detroit. One of the focuses was Threat Management Centers, a successful private defense company operating in the city. You'll just have to watch for youself because the main guy gives some really good info on why their operation is superior/more effective than police operations.

I just finished listening to Stefan's lecture on the fall of Rome which enunciates the theory that Rome collapsed due to the internal pressures of bureaucracy, taxation and government oppression. This will be taken as a given fact for purposes of this discussion because I want to move beyond it to seek logical and practical conclusions from this premise, rather than question the premise itself. That said, my question is this: is there any other practical means to deal with the problems that destroyed Western Rome and the modern West than total collapse of the social system such that it can be rebuilt from the ground up? If not, it seems we should support and encourage the destructive forces which are collapsing the current sociopolitical and economic structures of Western civilization since resistance to these forces simply prolongs the agony of the decline rather than accelerate the painful, but necessary, process of social reform through devastation. What this means in practice for a person acting on this principal would be that he would actively promote the destruction of culture by means of mass, unregulated immigration. He would actively work towards the destruction of traditional monogamy by means of promiscuity (preferably interracial), polygamy, bestiality, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.. This person might also join the military, police, or black-op intelligence communities and actively murder noncombatants, brutalize innocent civilians, and orchestrate false-flag terror / psyops all in order to foment social upheaval. Such a person would do these things not out of pleasure but because they are the means to achieving a clean slate of total barbarism from which to build a fresh, young and vigorous social system free from the corruption and failures of its predecessor. What are your thoughts?

http://www.gafreeman.net/

How to find my work YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/MatthewDrake1 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IllustratedPhilosophy Twitter: https://twitter.com/philosophicart(@philosophicart) Support what I'm doing on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/illustratedphilosophy Shop the artwork: http://matthewdrake.storenvy.com

Is the Universe finite? Is it only so at the time it is measured? Is this dependent on the position of the measurer a sort of "condition of possibility" (Transcendental Idealism). If I was to try and measure the Universe and be Omniscient would I in effect have to be outside of time, a kind of 5th Dimension? or is the Universe infinite? or is it Both? (Absolute Idealism). Can Political Ideologies be Absolute Idealist positions? Can a "Classless" Ideology like "Communism" be logically consistent, would this be in effect Left-wing Anarchism, where the right to private property is not respected. Is Anarcho-Capitalism essentially the opposite of Communism? Can Nationalism be a logically consistent position? If so, is there a thesis and anti-thesis of positions?

I was talking to someone about anarchism and they brought up the scenario of a tower block that allows the use of drugs and a surrounding suburbs that is very much anti-drugs. The tower block has it in the contract that anyone within the tower block limits is allowed to own and do drugs but the surrounding people have drawn up a contract stating that you can't have drugs. Through a series of business deals and land purchases the home owners in the surrounding land have purchased all of the land apart from the road leading to the tower block. Under pressure from the surrounding home owners threatening to use a different road the owner of the one road that leads to the tower block caves into the pressure and bans all drug transportation on that road in effect creating a circle around the tower block. It's not inconceivable that a large group of people would get together to enforce something like a no gun zone basically cutting off people who don't agree. In the example given above the people can still take drugs in the tower block because they own that land but they can't get drugs in or out because the surrounding area + road company have forbid it. How does this get resolved?

With the relative success of crypto anarchist technology, such as bitcoin and the Tor nettwork, the individual now has power that the state can do nothing about. That's the point, the government literally can't stop this, even if they made up their mind to, which poses some interesting questions. When they lose their fundamental power to regulate the economy, because regulation of trade and minting have been taken away from them, what can they do then? On a second note, these technologies are beginning to leave their prototype stage, so shouldn't we be able to see the stress they put on the government soon?

I wrote a rebuttal to Austin Petersen's, editor for The Libertarian Republic, "5 Reasons I'm not an Anarchist." <http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/5-reasons-why-im-not-an-anarchist/> I tried to contact him with the rebuttal and have him publish it on his own site but obviously that was a long shot. I'm pursuing a career in writing and would love some input on it. Below is my rebuttal: “5 Reasons I’m Not An Anarchist” by Austin Petersen-Rebutted I stumbled onto this article which evoked a sense of curiosity in me. I have been a Libertarian since I started to form my own political beliefs. This quickly led to advocate Minarchism, the belief in a minimal state. I saw government as a “necessary evil” as Thomas Paine famously asserted. When I discovered Voluntarism, the belief that all human interactions should be voluntary and noncoercive, I realized the only way people can have freedom is when we abolish The State. It became apparent that the problem with contemporary Libertarianism is that they’re not willing to fully implement their morality. We cannot have freedom if the advocates of freedom are willing to compromise. Voluntarists are the consistent, honest, and fully practicing advocates of freedom. Voluntarists are the only people on earth who will never say, “I believe in freedom but, ….”. For years, pressure, propaganda, and ostracism was likely what held me back. Perhaps it was the sense of betrayal it made me feel. As a former U.S. Marine I, up until quite recently had an extremely hard time viewing the American Government, especially in regards to foreign policy, from an objective perspective. But, no emotional discomfort or desire for conformity can change the facts of reality. There is no good reason not to be an anarchist, unless you want to impose your will on others through the use or threat of force. I opened this article with high hopes, I have heard some very good arguments and questions about how a society free from government could organize themselves. Unfortunately, the arguments I found seem to originate from someone who has never dispatched any real sort of intellectual vigor to the subject. This is a normal reaction to the idea, when introduced to the notion that every Pledge of Allegiance, “Supporting the Troops” campaign, or assertion of the virtue of democracy is an outright lie, it is not surprising that this would evoke negative emotions in one’s mind. This is a blatantly obvious reaction seen in the author’s opening paragraph. He begins his writing by insulting anarchists, claiming they have “(a) complete misunderstanding of the basics of force, fraud, life, liberty, or property.”, but as I will show you below, it is the Minarchists who lack any sort of knowledge on the above stated subjects. The first reason listed for a minimal-state as opposed to no state is “Rights are Guarantees”. If the author’s statement was in any way resembling the truth, we would never have our rights violated. If rights were guarantees, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, kidnapping and imprisoning over 100,000 Americans for being of Japanese descent would’ve never been carried out. If rights were guarantees, The Patriot Act would’ve never been signed into law. Obviously, the Constitution is exceedingly inadequate at protecting people’s rights. It took only 10 years after the Constitution was ratified for The Alien and Sedition Act to be passed in 1798. This law which threatened fines and imprisonment against those who spoke out against the government was clearly a violation of the First Amendment that supposedly “guaranteed” rights to the citizens. Clearly, rights are not guarantees, but privileges that can be taken at the stroke of the pen of a politician. He also mentions the right to a lawyer being inalienable, something one is entitled to as an American citizen. But as seen in the case with Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year-old U.S. citizen who was murdered by drone strike in Yemen while attempting to visit family. Abdulrahman had no trial, no lawyer, and no due process. Any idea that these are natural rights guaranteed to us by our all virtuous government is simply a fabrication and wishful thinking. The “rights” afforded to American citizens are not rights at all and to think that an organization of people can protect said “rights” when it is built on the foundation of violating property rights through taxation is laughable at best. In his second reasoning, the author asserts that “An anarchic society is unable to protect it’s citizens from foreign invasion”. This is a completely legitimate concern, and one that causes alarm in the mind of any anarchist. What type of person would fight for a free society only to be overrun by a potentially more oppressive government? Anarchists are not against a military force by any means whatsoever, we just recognize that funding one through taxation is a violation of the non-aggression principle (NAP). We are also aware that government often produces less than optimum results for the money. The best way to have an efficient defense would be to have competing agencies attempting to provide the best service for the lowest price, a free market for defense. Being that these competing agencies would have to offer the lowest price, they could not afford to be on the other side of the world creating all sorts of unforeseen consequences all too common with the status quo. An obvious rejection to private defense agencies is that they could grow too large and inevitably become another government. Even if we accept the premise that a private defense agency could potentially become a government, why is that a good reason to reject the idea? If you’re diagnosed with cancer and upon the offer of treatment your doctor tells you that the cancer could one day come back, would that be a reason to not remove the cancerous cells? Of course this would be a silly rejection to remove the entity causing you harm, just as the fear of defense agencies one day becoming governments is no reason not to abolish the current system. In the free market, if potential customers of the defense agencies were worried about this happening, which any intelligent customer would, they simply wouldn’t buy the service. Private defense agencies would have to somehow guarantee to their customers that they wouldn’t start oppressing them. In contractual agreements, consumers could stipulate that the defense agency would have to keep precise records of exactly how many guns, soldiers, ammunition, etc. they had in their warehouses and allow for it to be audited at any time by a 3rd party entity. In the contract, the defense agency could be required to hold an extremely high amount of money in escrow to be paid to their customers if at any point the 3rd party auditors found that they had 1 more bullet than they disclosed. If that wasn’t enough for you, then you wouldn’t have to buy their services and you could take your money to a competitor that did offer you terms that eased your fears. At the end of the day, defense from invading forces is a vitally important requirement to a secure and peaceful society but it being so important is exactly why we cannot allow it to be monopolized by our “world police” that always seems so keen on perpetual war in foreign lands. Libertarians generally agree that government is horribly inefficient at completing assigned tasks like controlling drug use, reducing poverty, and providing health care. If you recognize the inability of government to do these tasks, why would one assume that government is the only entity responsible enough to have a monopoly on defense? “Anarchy means the non-aggression principle is optional” is listed as the author’s third reason why anarchy cannot work. I would object to the idea that in order to prevent people from violating the NAP we need a government that operates by violating the NAP on everyone in a geographical area. This, at the most basic level is a logical contradiction. An equivalent idea would resemble hiring a security agency to protect your home from theft whom, in order to provide said service, will steal up to 40% of your income for something to benefit you and all other “customers”. The best part about their service is that you can never opt out, you’ll have their security for life. Obviously no one would agree to this service so the only way to have others participate in the service would be to impose it on them. If when faced with the problem of people not abiding by the NAP, the only solution you can devise is to violate the NAP unilaterally, your proposed “solutions” to complex social problems shouldn’t be taken seriously. Government’s fund themselves through taxation and taxation is theft. It does not matter how “necessary” the taxation is to set up society, taxation still is, and will always remain theft. You cannot advocate the defense of the NAP by violating it. This would be analogous to an Abolitionist in the 19th century, enslaving blacks to help organize his rallies and protests. To an observer with any sort of integrity, it would be blatantly obvious that the said Abolitionist didn’t really care about emancipation, but some twisted and logically inconsistent ideology of his own. In the author’s fourth reason for the rejection of an anarchistic society he continues on the problem of others violating the NAP stating, “The Non-Aggression Principle, I didn’t sign Sh*t!” At this point, the author asserts that the NAP is a “social contract”. This is completely false. The NAP is a not a social contract by any means, it is simply a principle that we apply to our lives. It is by no means forced on you, just as the principle known as “Don’t rape” is not forced on you. But the “social contract” in regards to the existence of government, is forced on you. If you deny or want to opt out, you must leave your own property or face the use of force. If you want to leave, you can only do so after paying thousands of dollars and spending years trying to revoke your citizenship; and then you still won’t be free, just under the rule of another government that operates similarly by violating the NAP. Social contracts are invalid. A contract requires explicit consent, while able-minded, and lacking coercion or the threat of force. This social contract in regards to a government is imposed on you, as a result of the geography of your birth. Nothing changes the fact that no one has the right to impose their products or services on others without expressed consent, and being born somewhere is not consent. Just like a mafia has no right to come into my business and demand protection money, the state has no right to come onto my property and demand taxation. Whenever you hear someone mention a social contract, prepare yourself, they’re probably about to suggest using force against you in order to facilitate what they think is the best solution to a problem. If they truly had good reasons for whatever they’re advocating the government should do, they wouldn’t have to force others to fund it and participate in it. I cannot go to my neighbor and say they owe me 20%, or any amount, of their income to help fund things I deem necessary. I cannot round up everyone in my neighborhood, then go to my neighbor and declare he owes a percentage of his income. If I, or even a group of people, doesn’t have the right to impose their will on others, why does the government? I would argue that the government can’t justly behave in this manner; I cannot delegate a right I do not have to someone else, even if I give it the veil of the “social contract”. He continues to describe how people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Kim Jung-un wouldn’t abide by the NAP because they didn’t agree to it. The author claims that anarchists believe “someone pointing a gun at you is not a crime.” This is simply a ludicrous generalization and oversimplification of what the NAP actually means. If a mugger points a gun at me and tells me to give him my wallet, he is violating the NAP; just as the state is when they threaten me with kidnapping and imprisonment if I don’t pay my taxes. The NAP not only applies to the actual use of force, but the threat of force as well. The NAP also does not prohibit self-defense in any way shape or form. A proposed “failure” of the NAP is described as Kim Jong-un pointing a nuclear weapon at Los Angeles. What the author glosses over is the events that led to the maniacal dictator deciding to point said weapon at Los Angeles. It is not because he thinks Los Angeles is a cesspool of human evil or because good ol’ Kim doesn’t like an individual that lives there, it’s because the United States Government and the North Korean Government don’t get along. Wars are never between the people of two or more nations, but between the opposing governments. This by no means is suggesting the Kim is a good guy, or is in any way shape or form justified for his horrific behavior but, without the United States Government, the North Korean dictator wouldn’t be pointing a weapon at Los Angeles in the first place and many other countries would lack the excessive amount of loathing for our country. In a stateless society, no lunatic with a nuclear weapon would have any reason for aiming his arsenal at a community of peaceful individuals, minding their own business from thousands of miles away. If through some perfect alignment of the stars a homicidal madman was threatening a stateless society with annihilation; surely this society would first try to find a non-aggressive means to de escalating the situation. If all peaceful solutions could not alleviate the tensions then this free society could hire someone to defend them, or even defend themselves. Again, what the author seems to propose is that the only possible way to resolve such an issue is to set an organization that has the monopoly on the use of force. This is the most common logical fallacy in the world. Just because you lack the creativity to peacefully solve a complex problem doesn’t mean the only solution is The State. Next the author does bring up legitimate concerns regarding the intricacies of when and where pre-emptive force may be used and to what degree. There is no objective way to define how much force can be used in retaliation. If a woman is raped and sees her assailant the next day, is she justified in killing him? I don’t know. But, would she be justified in killing him to stop the rape while it was in progress? I would say yes, as I’m sure most people would. What about 30 seconds after the rape? Anyone who has explored ethics has been tortured by these impossible to answer questions. Every situation is going to be different. But yet again, this is exactly why we can’t have a government in charge of this. The matter is infinitely complex. There is no organizational tool that we can sort every possible scenario into. We need competing ideas working to deliver the best possible implementation of justice in a society, not a monopolistic government. To continue, in a stateless society, prevention would be key to developing the positive results we wish to see manifest in our society. While deciding how to properly administer justice to a rapist would be very important, a stateless society would focus just as much, if not more, on how to prevent the crime from ever occurring in the first place. Similarly, treating people for lung cancer is noble and needed for health, but a real solution to the occurrence of lung cancer cases is to stop people from smoking cigarettes in the first place. I would implore one to explore what in people’s past contributes to their disgusting and animalistic desire of rape. We can never take a crime away from a victim, so what any compassionate individual would do, is to do everything they can to prevent it from occurring in the future. In his final reason against a stateless society the author speaks about what defines private property and conflicting opinions on what people have rights to. What he skips over is the fact that his proposed solution to this issue is to create a government that operates by violating property rights. Though I would like to avoid sounding like a broken record, you cannot try to protect property rights by violating them. This would be similar to taking up the noble cause of rape prevention by raping someone claiming, “If I’m raping her right now, no one else can. See I’m preventing rape, aren’t I noble?” Though he proposed it as a reason why we can’t have stateless society, this is, yet again, exactly the reason why we must have a stateless society. The author claims, “In an anarchistic society, there is no commonly accepted definition”- referring to property rights. Though he thought this was a sound and prudent rejection of the idea the author assumed that the government somehow legitimizes private property. Under a government, you don’t own anything. Think you own your home? Try not paying your property taxes. Think you own the product of your labor? Say hello to the income tax. Under a government private property doesn't exist at all, only property allowances. Our government allows us certain property “rights” because it will make us happier and more productive, just as a farmer knows he can expect more output from his animals if he allows them to be free-range as opposed to caged. None of this changes the fact that the farmer owns the animals. As long as the cows rush to defend the farmer claiming, “Hey, he gives extra freedom compared to other farms, you should be thankful for that. If you don’t like it you should try to change it from within!” they’ll never be free. Obviously the cows can’t change it from within, it’s a system based on using the cows for food. We can’t change the system of government from within to make it only for protecting rights, the government was made to violate rights - clearly opposing this article's argument. Of course there are going to be differing opinions in any area where two or more people are living, this is simply a matter of reality. The great and revolutionary thing about Voluntarism is that we are allowed to disagree. Under the paradigm of statism, disagreement is never allowed. For example, if you think the best way to solve the problem of terrorism is to create a military funded through taxation and deploy them to kill the terrorists, I am not allowed to disagree if you get the government to do this for you. When the government decides to do something, you can voice your rebuttal all day but you can’t act on it; you’re still forced to pay for it. Similarly, a slave was allowed to disagree with the plantation owner’s slavery policy, but he wasn’t allowed to run away. No one would say this “ability to disagree” would somehow validate the morality of slavery. Beliefs like this, are the reason why the world doesn’t know freedom. Under Voluntarism, beliefs won’t be imposed on anyone contrary to the solution known as The State. Simply put, Mr. Petersen’s analysis of the possibility of anarchy does not align with reality. Just because an individual cannot develop a way to solve a complex social problem without government doesn’t mean that solution doesn’t exist. I don’t know how a free society will prevent and solve every plausible scenario that could develop; no one does. Even if I could solve every problem in the world, that would not give me the right to force others to go along with my plans. Minarchist ideas are a burning effigy representative of why we can’t have government. Even people who claim to embrace the Non-Aggression Principle are too easily tempted to violate it through the violence of government. If you’re a minarchist reading this, I understand where you’re coming from. For years I was stuck in the quagmire of minimizing the state to a manageable level. The simple fact of the matter is that you can’t contain power. When created, the US government was the most restrained in history, the most shackled. Very soon it grew to the most gargantuan government ever conceived. The founding fathers could have never dreamed of how large and intrusive their brainchild would inevitble become. No individual, no group of dedicated activists, no amount of vigilance, and no words on a piece of paper can hold back the growth of the state. The only way to hold back the state is to abolish it entirely.

I've written a rather long, 62 page paper (.pdf) on Individualism vs. Collectivism. I wrote this for a newsletter I have been providing for friends and family since 2013 (I was motivated initially by the Snowden Revelations). I've noticed recently however that most of my friends are leftists/progressives/Marxists and basically either say nothing in response or even get offended and I get a lot of snarky comments even from family although I have a few supporters too. I'd like to have my work read, reviewed and commented/edited by someone a little more "Anarcho-Friendly". The writing is designed somewhat for a more liberal audience (i.e. my friends and family) so there are some things I can't go into and I try to keep it up to date with current events (a few of Molyneux's videos are linked). I do my best not to rant on the left but there's a lot of stuff that clearly bothers me about them in my writing. Lots of stuff about race/gender/identity in the Anarchist vs. Collectivist view, economics and centralized planning, a huge section on mass human migration and capping off with R vs. K topics and even a little section on the connections between Buddhism and Anarchy. I am happy to email or share with others for free. I have more documents from the past too and I am interested in having someone, who has a moderate amount of web traffic, potentially host my writing (anonymously) if they are OK with it (of course withing some reasonable editorial flexibility). Shoot me a line if this interests you - the file is too big to upload... Thanks! V.A.

Introduction/rant: I'm going to start off by assuming that everyone who is a member of this forum would like to see the ideas portrayed here by the community propagate.. Probably naively, but I digress. My question is, why if our ideology of freedom is logically superior in all ways to a state, (provided you are moral) then it seems as if the only solution to this question, is that either the vast majority of people on earth are evil, or we as a worldwide distributed net of freedom minded peoples, all of them, have failed to purvey the argument to such a degree that it is not understandable by the public? Stefan for example talks a lot about how your parents growing up with an abusive parent doesn't give them an excuse to abuse as well.. Would this simple principle not expand to people using rational philosophy? It seems the dichotomy above must be true.. If we accept that the majority of people are evil, then we are a subject of deep nihilism for the future of humanity, neglecting some polar random shift in morality. This bleak future for our children is especially magnified if K reproduction strategists are really thriving. Since nihilism is no fun, (yes, that's my entire argument against it, deal with it) I'm going to suppose that the majority of people are NOT evil, and we simply do not lack the motivation, knowledge, or technology to reach the masses effectively. Therefore, we surely must fundamentally transform the way we do things if we ever want any kind of future. If you're losing against an enemy, the first thing you should do is analyze their tactics. (Thanks, Crysis) We usually refer to statists as using the initiation of force to control their subjects. While this is true at it's root level, like a fractal geometric equation, the result at the end user level after thousands of years/iterations of honing of said tactics is that to the average "citizen" the initiation of force does not even exist in the equation. If you debate a statist, they will not even know they are being stolen from on a daily basis! How can this be so effective? They use FREEDOM as the cover for their arguments! How can we let them use our own argument to discredit itself when the real deal is infinitely better and more moral? My actual Idea: People mostly talk about political action in the sense of protests, voting, or austricism. This community also includes child raising as a great way to forward the cause of freedom and philosophy. Those are great, especially the latter; but there's a problem: We are trying to get out of a master-slave relationship from the state, by acting as a slave. This will never, ever work. Genocide is just waiting in the mist of the future, for all of us anarchists slowly protesting an ever growing state, and this is not my opinion, this is historical fact. To end this quickly and righteously, I propose that we put ourselves on level playing fields with the masters, instead of attempting to pull the masters down to us. I mean EVERYONE. There is VERY LITTLE capitol left floating around in the free market, and people are getting less and less spending power by the day. The individual has less money than ever to devote to the cause of freedom, as I'm sure the owners of this site know too well. Can you stop for a second and imagine the amount of raw capitol currently being misallocated by states? Evil people at high levels of government will tolerate this huge reduction in economic output, in exchange for psychopathic power over military conquest and their own peoples.. However, greedy capitalists will not. Greedy capitalists just want another yacht, another ferrari, etc, even if we follow the main stream narrative here for a second.. You usually think about anarchic politics as bad for business.. BUT If people like Donald Trump can profit from stock going DOWN or businesses FAILING, WHY are no greedy capitalists tapping into this wealth the public sector is destroying? Why are there not lobbying groups to END public roads, funded by the largest construction companies ready to do the job? Why are there not armed protection agencies lobbying for reduced policing costs in order for communities to be able to pay for improved security and response time with private DROs? I'll tell you why: The majority of us are still partially in a slave mindset. We don't want to take responsibility for actually doing anything about freedom today.. How many of you actually own or operate within a business with freedom as an incentive? Even just scrap the above questions, why do we not fund a for profit joint stock company which exclusively lobbies to end government intervention in industries in order to privatize them and reap royalties from companies who take over? (The companies chosen freely by road consumers, not the lobby agency of course) This kind of freedom creates incentive for growth in sectors previously halted by state regulation from progression for centuries.. IE the road/car paradigm. It would put us on par with the slave owners of society finally, and start a self sustaining industry of profit from deregulation. Surely with guys like peter shiff, stefan molyneux, etc, around, there are people with the know how to do this, and we the people have the capitol. In addition, it's a sure business model because once the public sector is no longer in charge of the task, IE buildings roads, there will be huge vacuum in that sector of the economy for new road construction companies, since the state paid monopolies rarely do the job in a satisfactory way, and I think every american knows that. Lobbyists are a minimal cost for return on investment, as the private sector shows today.. Imagine the economic boom from ANARCHY LLC! Why are we not funding this?

I'll be going to a leftover crack concert in Tampa mid November. This is a popular anarcho-punk band and will likely have a large audience. I had the idea to hand out freedomain Radio stickers or flyers or something of the sort. I'm trying to discern how to go about this and don't know how to contact Stef or Mike or anyone who may have something I could handout. I know crimethink has lots of stuff I could print up but I don't wholly agree with a lot of their message. I'm also wondering if anyone has tried to reach out to the punk crowd before and how it went. I love punk music and I'm sure there'll be at least a few fans at the show that would be really receptive to hearing what Stefan has to say. Any help would be appreciated. I'm not on Facebook and really clueless about how to get some feedback on this but I'll keep digging. Thanks!

Ill be attending an anarcho-punk concert in Tampa early November a d would like to hand something out to promote FDR and Adam vs The Man. I've sent emails to operations here, Carl Green, and Adam so far. This will be an excellent opportunity to reach out to young minds whom already identify as anarchists or are at least distrustful of gov. Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. The bands are Leftover Crack and Daze n Daze. Thanks!

21, Inc is apparently building Skynet. Or so it would seem. They've raised the most money of any Bitcoin startup, and no one knew what they were planning to do, until recently. The implications are crazy. I'm still in the process of catching up with this news and wanted to put this in front of you for feedback and response, if you had any. If you're not familiar, 21, Inc. was founded, in part, by Balaji Srinivasan, founder of Counsyl Genomics. To get a feel for his worldview, check out this talk he gave in 2013 focusing on "Voice and Exit" and changing established systems. Balaji sounds like an AnCap to me. I'm putting the links to the things I've worked through below. On the relationship with Qualcomm, one of 21's largest investors: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/336f1w/its_not_about_21_inc_its_all_about_qualcomm/ http://www.qualcomm.com/invention/1000x http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2suMVsKow http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35m8df/qualcomm_21_incthis_is_whats_going_on/ The release from Srinivasan on the chip, and one of the more thoughtful comments: http://medium.com/@21dotco/a-bitcoin-miner-in-every-device-and-in-every-hand-e315b40f2821 http://medium.com/@elisklar/free-broadcasting-network-for-micro-messages-already-fully-deployed-and-accessible-61c00f52a6ca Leaked slides from 21, Inc presentation, and commentary: http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL#hkzYfyI http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/36j3lv/21_inc_investor_slides_embedded_bitsplitbitshare/ A discussion on Whaleclub and some really awesome commentary on the Bitcoin sub that follows up...check out the comments for elaboration from u/elux : https://soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/370rko/21_inc_engineer_everyone_assumes_humans_will_be/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/372bhf/not_science_fiction_in_case_you_missed_it_this/ If you get through all of that, I'd love to hear what you're thinking. I'm still processing it....but my mind's asploded....especially those last three links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIxSeiqyGXQ

A couple new videos. Enjoy! Popularity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ4lOmMirHE The Psychology of Pets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ3W8ru50sg

Hi, I've messaged on here before, but not under this topic. Anyway, if there was no government in the (former) United States, how would other nations with a form of government contact an anarchist society. If they needed to address the society as a whole, who would they contact?

Hey Everyone, This is my first time posting a subject on the board, but I think I'm posting in the right section. Please correct me if I am doing something wrong. So, I've noticed that a number of schools and colleges (abstract, I know), at least in the United States, have been at arms about the app Yik-Yak, which allows anyone with the app to anonymously post a short comment that everyone can see and rate. Do you think that apps like this help or hurt the human progress towards freedom? If you need me to supply any specifics let me know. Also, tangents relating to Yik-Yak are more than welcome!

A while back I had the idea to compile a playlist of songs with a philosophical bent and that had meaning to me. As the list grew I divided it into four parts: 1) Anarchy; 2) Atheism; 3) Defoo; 4) Virtue. Below is the first part, and I'll be posting the others before the year's end. I hope this music brings a tiny bit of joy into your day. https://8tracks.com/mdrake88/philosophy-playlist-part-1-of-4-anarchy "I started this playlist series because sometimes music can speak louder than arguments. The first part contains songs relating to power and anarchy. The progression from beginning to end is one that mirrors my own journey from self-described conservative to political libertarian to philosophical anarcho-capitalist."

Jeff Berwick has interviewed a man I have never heard about, Mark Corske, in the last Anarchast. The interview was mostly about a book he has written named Engines of Domination. It has also been turned into a documentary available on youtube: I have just finished watching and I think it was pretty decent, worth the time. It has a similar approach to analyzing state as Stef's True News 13: Statism is Dead but it also comes up with a couple of fresh angles - check it out!

I've been trying to bridge the gap between the ideas of minarchist libertarians with pure anarchists. I think both sides agree on the non-aggression principle and advocate for personal liberty in economics, social interactions, and so on. The argument that pure anarchists use against minarchists is that government is by definition, a monopoly of force. I'm wondering if government is still a monopoly of force if you have the option of opting out or seceding. Minarchists think that government has a legitimate role in protecting the liberties of individuals against theft and aggression. Anarchists believe that these protections should not come from a monopoly of force but from a free market. But what if people voluntarily form a collective band of defense with the option of opting out? Is that a monopoly of force then? We recognize that society should have a certain degree of common standards (like no muder, theft, fraud, etc.), and should not necessarily follow a standard profit business model (like charity, or the FDR donation model). So what about having a certain standard of protection in a given locality with a collectively financed model? You could have a voluntary society that includes a justice/despute-resolution system, a police system, and a geographical defense system, and those within that society will pay certain fees and elect certain leaders for living in that society. We can argue semantics, but to me that sounds like a government. The one caveat is that states, cities, or even individuals have the option of leaving that society without penalties if you so choose to. Now obviously, people recognize that 300,000,000 individual "states" would be impractical, so people would probably voluntarily choose to band into certain geographical systems. Again, if individuals have the option of opting out, is this really a monopoly of force? Of course, I do recognize that with the current mindset of the U.S. government, the country would never allow a group to secede, but my hypothetical situation is meant to apply to the minimal, constitutional system that many mainstream libertarians argue for. *Edit: I mean secession, not succession. My spelling is bad.*

My roommate told me about this.. Last night someone who I consider to be an acquaintance and possible friend broke the law. He was with a group of other teenagers looking for booze and they ended up at a store and many stole liqueur. The police came and arrested many people, including him on the suspicion of stealing alcohol. It turned out that he only stole a sandwich, so he spent three hours in jail and was released and has a future court date. This wasn't the first time that he has committed theft. My roommate who is his friend told me of his other exploits. Amongst them was wearing baggy pants into Walmart and waiting for the "coast to be clear" to cross into the Walmart bathroom with alcohol and then tape the booze to the inside of the pant leggings and walk out of the store undetected. Deposit the loot into their vehicle and then go and go back and do that as many times as desired. I asked my roommate his age; 18, and if he would buy the alcohol rather than resorting to theft if he could legally. My roommate said that he would, and that gave me a sense of okayness about the ordeal. (Drugs shouldn't be illegal anyways, this kind of thought.) The sandwich is a different story, it is not illegal to buy sandwiches at any age and he also had enough money on him to make a purchase. My roommate is also a thief, he steals traffic cones and then takes the remaining ones and spaces them evenly. He currently has two cones in our room that he is using as decoration, and I admit it looks rad. I find that these do not bother me as much as it maybe should. Same with kleptocracy, our government farmers taking the fruits of our labors. That does not bother me as much as my government murdering people overseas, especially the signature drone strikes in Pakistan, resulting in the deaths of children who have nothing to do with terrorism. I think that my tolerance for theft is one of the reasons I am not fully on board with anarchy. I have some questions that I wish for people commenting bellow to answer: 1. Is theft a lesser of the three evils? (murder, rape, and theft) 2. What are some arguments other than UPB that find theft disagreeable? 3. Can a thief make a good friend, would you be friends with someone who you know steals?