When I share critiques of anarchist/voluntarist philosophy nearly every reply I get from its adherents is the same parroted, “that’s a sweeping generalization!” almost as if they are reading from the same script. To clarify, I have been chatting with anarchists for over two years now. I have fought alongside of them, argued with them, and heard their arguments. I didn’t talk to three anarchists, and then start making generalizations. I have interacted with hundreds of anarchists, representing a pretty good cross section of what they think and how they behave. I side very heavily with anarchist/voluntarist philosophy, but I see some pretty big chinks in their armor that they refuse to even acknowledge.
If you have never visited the tropical, Central American paradise that is Costa Rica than I highly recommend that you make it your next vacation stop. I have been twice, once with my wife, and again with my wife and infant child. I felt completely safe the entire time I was in the country, and was treated with kindness by the locals. The landscape is beautiful, the people are peaceful, and there has been no standing army since 1948.
One of the most common objections to a stateless society is “Who will provide the defense?” Doesn’t any nation with a weak military or no military suffer the same fate as Poland in WWII, subjection to a larger force bent on looting wealth, and enslaving the native population? It turns out the answer is “no.” There are a number of examples of states (just to be clear I am talking about sovereign nations) with no military. These are places that exist today in the 21st century, and many have been around for quite a while. They happily go about their lives with no standing army.
Is that title too provocative? Well, my intention is to provoke, not because it’s my style but because it’s his. In some circles he is known as “He Who Shall Not Be Named,” in part because when people discuss him by name he apparently demands equal time, or so I’ve heard. I invite such demands. Chris is free to comment, and also to submit a rebuttal, or a clarification if I’ve got the facts wrong. As the editor of Daily Anarchist I can say with relative certainty that we will publish it (No special treatment. It would have to meet our submission guidelines). But before there can be a rebuttal there must be a proposition, and I would put forward that according to Chris Cantwell’s ethic (not mine), Chris Cantwell has already committed a capital offense, and it may well be time for him to put a gun in his mouth to prevent his own future aggression.
As a species we have arrived at the crux point. There are two parallel paths before us that will soon veer off in totally different directions. One leads toward Heaven on Earth, the other toward Armageddon. We stand at the cusp of either apotheosis or extinction, and we each have a choice to make. I do not speak specifically on behalf of any particular race, creed or ethnicity, nor any political, social or religious sect. I’m speaking on behalf of all humanity and feel no presumptuousness in doing so.
I just got back from a highly successful east coast tour which included both speaking at Bitcoin In The Beltway, and vending at the eleventh annual Porcupine Freedom Festival, both of which were highly lucrative. I’ve said many times that Bitcoin is a tool for personal freedom, and I’ve also said that freedom requires personal responsibility. So, when Bitcoin goes missing while I’m at the helm I have no one to blame but myself.
In my day to day contact with people I tend to trust those that are decent, honest, upright and pure, while I do my best to shun the creeps, murderers and thieves. Psychopaths, sociopaths, pathological liars, and narcissists aren’t on the list of people I’d like to sit down and have a drink with. So why would I let such Evil people assume positions of power that influence the society I live in? It would be absolutely ridiculous, completely contemptible, absurd and asinine!
The best agreements leave two happy participants. Good agreements leave one or more participants feeling that they have made an honest effort at fulfilling wants or needs. But far too many agreements leave one or more participant holding the bag, unhappy about the exchange, and not knowing how to remedy it.
You can’t debate online for long before tripping over a specious little adage that anyone who makes a comparison to Germany under National Socialism has automatically forfeited the argument. This is often referred to as “Godwin’s Law” or “playing the Hitler card.” Some people even refer to it by the mock Latin, “reductio ad Hitlerum,” as if it qualified as some kind of formal logical fallacy. Quite the opposite is true. Godwin’s Law, when used as an argument, is dangerously fallacious, and using it to break down legitimate bulwarks against fascism can only escalate totalitarian trends in the modern era.
In this world of spiritual blindness and decadent madness, the dharmic path of the individual can become muddled by the mediocrity of the mob. The mindless masses, however, are not representative of a true societal movement. It is the forward-thinking entrepreneurs and innovators that spur evolution. The voice of the majority, despite what the advocates of democracy may try to persuade us into believing, is never the be-all end-all of any meaningful discussion. In fact, the screeching sound they make is naught but noise pollution generated by an unthinking, scared herd. It is critically important to pierce through the static of the status quo and realize that the stagnation it represents is not worth saving.