Those Darn Anarchists

[anotherfreeman]

Those Darn Anarchists!

   I have been quiet for some time now… Well, that’s all over with! Given the recent actions of a few mislead people in Ohio, who share some political identity with myself, I have decided to come out of  vacation and back into activism. You see, I’m also an anarchist, a market anarchist to be exact. Mind you, it wasn’t an easy thing saying that for the first time, but that’s what I am. It goes against everything I was taught growing up; in my home, in my church, in my school, in baseball stadiums, on the news, in my textbooks, and as far back as I can remember. You see, I was raised believing in the “american dream” and the government that supported it. I was raised to believe that we are the best country in the world, the strongest, the most powerful but most moral, and the list goes on. Long story short, I accepted this dream like all the others around me accepted this dream. Two or more years ago I began to wake up from that dream, and once I did my life was never the same again.
   I was and currently am in the food industry. Food and eco-systems that create and support it are my passion and calling in this world. As I was losing my first big attempt at making it in the food industry, I began to come across legislation that was surely not in the people’s best interest. I began to recognize this pattern across the board. This led me to study our history and eventually our constitution. This is where major life change began to happen, and I knew that the information I held REQUIRED a life change along with it. I saw that my entire history was full of blood at the hands of my government. Not only were we responsible for brutally taking the land we so proudly call ours; killing and enslaving the entire way, we quickly got into peoples affairs with a selfish and bloody vengeance. The seventh calvary of the united states army slaughtered 300 helpless men, women, and children at Wounded Knee in 1890. Only nine years later the united states government killed 200,000 men, women, and children civilians in the Philippines. We did this for a better location to exploit China, as well as the islands being a profitable part of the old spanish empire. Around sixty years later we drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds and thousands of men, women, and children civilians and leaving years of cancer and other illnesses directly related to the nuclear fallout. The excuse for this action was surely a calculated move to scare the soviets and rise to the top of the power chain in the world. Then we have Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Laos. These I suggest you take a look at for yourself. There are plenty of soldiers and politicians that have told the truth about the millions of lives lost in those bloody pictures of american history. Regardless what you believe about why we are fighting in the places we are today, I strongly believe that we will look back on the “wars” of today much like we do the bloodshed from our past…with shame. (More locations of direct united states military involved murder include but sadly aren’t limited too; Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Russia, France, Germany, Thailand, Indonesia, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia… Plenty of info on all of these as well)
Our government also incorporates another little trick to try and keep the blood directly off their hands, and it includes propping up dictators who maintain control in extremely immoral ways or sponsor terror for the benefit of few in our government. Some examples of these fruitful american tax payer funded dictators are stunning and should get your heart pumping. Some of the people who accepted money from the united states government to ultimately use as they wished or received weapons and others such things to control people in some way are… the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Ayub Khan, Yayha Khan, Musharraf, Suharto, Osama Bin Laden, Joseph Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Castro, Quaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Robart Mugabe, and the list goes on and on. Mind you, you can put any one of these names in a google search and get a list of sickening actions commited on their part, most made possible by american tax dollars. These actions continue to take place at this very moment and there is no end in sight.
I do not support or take part in theft, torture, and murder in this country and I will not willingly take part in another country. But as a taxpayer, YES, my money goes to steal, murder, and torture. This is why I have chosen to opt out of all government interaction that isn’t forced by use of violence…like taxes and obedience to laws that violate my rights. I disagree with taxes for many reasons starting with the fact I think it’s stealing right on down to how and what they are used for. I choose to live by what we anarchists call the NAP, or the non-aggression principle. This means that I believe that I have a right to my life, liberty, and property and you have a right to yours. I have a right to defend my life, liberty, and property and so do you. Violating someone’s life is pretty self explanatory. That’s when you take part in the murder of another. Violating someone’s liberty is when you take their freedom away or when you enslave them. And violating someone’s property is when you steal from them. I’m of the impression that I can in no way willingly support my government and not support the violations of another person’s life, liberty, and property at the same time. It is un-debatable that our government is in the business of bloodshed and it cares little about what the people think about it. I no longer respect the government of this or any country due to the willing participation in so many horrific events on all people from the beginning of our history to the present day. There is no moral way to control people through government and I think it’s long since been time that stop trying, and move towards a voluntary society based on choice and contract instead of force. Force creates resistance and its no way to organize people…Maybe animals, but not people. People are capable of so much more good in this world. All I’ve ever seen on behalf of any government is not only evil and immoral but holds back to the initiative and creativity of its very own people. The government operates at the expense of people, not for the benefit of them. Think about it… Everything the government has is because of you. They have nothing of their own, except what they can take from you and others.
 I am a proud anarchist. I don’t willingly take from anyone anymore. I don’t desire that force be used on anyone at all. I don’t pretend that this or any government has my best interests at heart whatsoever because they don’t. Anything that the government does, private industry can do better with MORE oversight directly from the people. Study the free market and REAL capitalism. Don’t let the actions of a few men who made a terrible decision give you a false idea of what it means to be an anarchist. Violence is the opposite of the heart of anarchism. Freedom comes with some major consequences, most are good and some are scary, but nothing is as scary as what we have now. We have a group of people who claim ultimate power and control of your entire life for no apparent reason and with no oversight. I don’t need a babysitter and neither do you. They do have the guns though, and they WILL use them as history has shown… So here it is. The questions I’ve been dying to ask. Will you open your mind to an honest look into libertarian thought? Will you put aside your preconceived notions of black hooded bandits and bridge bombers? Will you take an honest look at the reality of government, regardless of what you begin to find? Will you ignore the above info and continue a partnership with a bloody government despite all the dysfunction and evil found in them? Will you honor the lives of those lost by turning your back on those that took them? Will you vow to do what the generations before us failed to do, and make a change for our children and theirs? It’s their future that is the most at stake and the same old changes are going to get us in the same old mess. Don’t put anarchists into the same old box and close your mind to a truly good and moral stance. You only have education and understanding to gain and it’s a truly important time for change in our society. It’s up to you and no one else. Thank you for taking the time to hear out the anarchist. And please keep your heart open to change, because we sure need some kind of it.


…The ultimate and only AUTHORITY of this world is its AUTHOR…   
   

[Seth King]

Was this a letter you sent to friends and family or something? Because your being an anarchist is nothing new to us. 

[anotherfreeman]

just posted it on facebook. Ive been off the book for months now, but it seems anarchism needs its logical thinkers and peaceful expamles now more than ever. Back to beating my head against the wall i guess.

[Rothbardian]

I take issue with the way a lot of fellow right wing anarchists use the term "authority."

I'm only against power, not legitimate authority. =P

Perhaps it is just semantics, but I think a man has authority over essentially three things: (I) the authority over his own person and property; (II) voluntarily granted authority over others; (III) the authority to proportionately punish criminals. I don't see why anarchists of my stripe should be rejecting authority, hierarchies, or natural arisrocracies; these are just natural results of human life. Social authority is particularly important, for I think voluntarily granted authority over others is exceedingly necessary and often good. It's necessary in many things: teaching, leadership, family, &c.

To say that one rejects authority, broadly speaking, creates the wrong impression. Sure, go ahead and say that you hate illegitimate political authority (power), but be sure to distinguish this from social authority. Conflating the two is disastrous.

[anotherfreeman]

It's hard to take anything you say seriously with Ron Paul staring me in the face from your banner, but I see where your coming from. I obviously disagree but I see why you would think that none the less. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty?

[Rothbardian]

I'm of course a Rothbardian and I believe in the Non-Aggression Axiom, yes. (No assault, theft, or slavery). And I believe that every man has a right to his own person and property. So, if that's what you mean by "philosophy of liberty" (which is a reference to a youtube video, I think), then, of course, I agree 100%.

What's wrong with Ron Paul and political anarchists like myself? Why is it hard to take seriously? Some of us believe in using politics as a means to destroy the state.

[PS= Just as an FYI, if you are interested in my stance on legitimate authority, I highly recommend reading Robert Nisbet's "Quest for Community." It's a great book, which has led me down a lot of avenues of thought].

[anotherfreeman]

But aren't you violating the philosophy of liberty and the NAP by voting your leader onto another that dosnt accept their authority? That's un wanted force. I don't want Ron paul and neither does the Obama supporter. Your violating the anarchist and the socialist all in one! Go you

[Aegidius]

But aren't you violating the philosophy of liberty and the NAP by voting your leader onto another that dosnt accept their authority? That's un wanted force. I don't want Ron paul and neither does the Obama supporter. Your violating the anarchist and the socialist all in one! Go you

    If it were a choice between Ron Paul and statelessness, you'd be right.  It is, however, a choice between Ron Paul and other politicians; a vote for Dr. Paul is a vote to mitigate aggression.  You may not accept Paul's authority, but I'll bet you don't accept Barack Obama's any more readily, and Paul'd use it on you a hell of a lot less.  Not voting isn't going to make the state disappear, but voting to weaken it could help.  (So could counter-economics, but I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.)  It's not a perfect solution, and we won't have a flawless paradise the day after he's elected, but at least we're trying.

[anotherfreeman]

If you want to violate the nap... You can do it all you'd like. Your vote is aggression, it dosnt mitigate it.

[Aegidius]

Agression against whom, how?  I am not voting on whether there shall be a state; I am not voting on whether it shall agress; these things are decided without me.  We are offered a (usually trivial) choice of who is to be in charge of our subjugation, not of whether or not to be subjugated.  My vote does not establish the office, it only may (but almost certainly will not) decide who inhabits it.  A vote that tips the balance in favor of a less agressive candidate than the one who would otherwise have won has effectively prevented the difference in rights violations.

When I was a minarchist I used to get mad at people for voting because I thought that there was a just state in the realm of possibility and people were dragging us further from it by settling for non-ideal candidates.  Now, I realize that states are evil as such, and influencing how they're run in order to minimize the damage they do makes a lot of sense, at least until you're able to abolish them and especially if it helps you work towards abolishing them.

I'm really interested to know why you think I'm violating the NAP here.  Whose rights do I violate, and how?  

[derick]

The state fears low voter turn out. If you vote and your guy loses, you have no right to complain about who or what the winner does with his power, you entered into a contest as a voter, you accept the outcome with your stamp of approval no matter where the chips may fall.

[Aegidius]

The state fears low voter turn out. If you vote and your guy loses, you have no right to complain about who or what the winner does with his power, you entered into a contest as a voter, you accept the outcome with your stamp of approval no matter where the chips may fall.

    Sure, I can see how you could think of it that way.  I disagree, but it's a matter of interpretation.  I'd say it's just as easy for the statists to perceive nonvoting as consent as it is for them to perceive voting as consent, not because it legitimately is, but because they're going to believe whatever they wish.  If we take as given that voting does indeed create that impression among our masters, and we actually care, (I'm not sure we should), then it does follow that voting is a bad idea.

    What freeman is claiming, though, is a NAP violation.  This is a very serious accusation.

[anotherfreeman]

It's very simple. Your voting at it's very core perpetuates the very system in which it can never change for the better. That validation and willing participation in an evil made up criminal organization is participation with all it does. Your playing along with a made up violent group and that makes you a partner in crime. Now the most blatant violation of the nap is putting your ruler over others who don't want one at all or that one. You say it creates LESS aggression but I say it is aggression. Your hiring my slave master. Thanks! I don't want a slave master and you say you don't either, so why pick one. It's aggression my friend. I hit this wall too. Let completely go of the state. I promise you it's better. You'll know it's right. You can't fully embrace anarchism while your hands are still full of the state. 

[Aegidius]

It's very simple. Your voting at it's very core perpetuates the very system in which it can never change for the better. That validation and willing participation in an evil made up criminal organization is participation with all it does. Your playing along with a made up violent group and that makes you a partner in crime. Now the most blatant violation of the nap is putting your ruler over others who don't want one at all or that one. You say it creates LESS aggression but I say it is aggression. Your hiring my slave master. Thanks! I don't want a slave master and you say you don't either, so why pick one. It's aggression my friend. I hit this wall too. Let completely go of the state. I promise you it's better. You'll know it's right. You can't fully embrace anarchism while your hands are still full of the state. 

    If you believe voting perpetuates the state, then it makes sense that voters are aggressors.  I disagree.  To my reckoning, the possible effects are at worst neutral and at best positive (with Ron Paul, at least).  My hands are only full of the state because I'm trying to throttle it.  I can fully embrace anarchism once it's dead.

    Only time can tell which of us is right.

    I'd like to make clear that I have no problem at all with nonvoters, and even find many of their arguments compelling.  I love the ideas I've read for achieving victory by circumventing the state rather than directly attacking it.  I just don't see them as mutually exclusive with voting.

[anotherfreeman]

Only time will tell