Self-Identifying as an anarchist

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Well that was my first exposure to anything from Roy Childs. I highly doubt that letter could be refuted by anyone. He probably just got frustrated and for the sake of his own mental state, lied to himself and said that anarchy wasn't desirable, simply because it wasn't going to be achieved in his time...

If you use his letter and someone says, "oh well he changed his mind," then that's simply an appeal to authority. With no documents of refutation, the arguments still stand. Minarchism isn't a serious position, because it's still statism, as he said.

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

Minarchism isn't a serious position, because it's still statism, as he said.

Agreed.

Does this mean that you have changed your previous opinion in defense of minarchism and specifically voting?

(as espoused here) http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,49.0.html

Just curious... Not casting stones

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Oh man, let's not even get started on that thread....j/k... I wasn't defending minarchism , I was making a statement against moral absolutism, suggesting that a non-violent political message could in cetain times work as a means to an end. At the time of that thread, I was still definitely not minarchist. The only thing that has changed is that I no longer think some of the specific methods outlined in the thread would "work," not so much that I am morally opposed to them. Specifically I think that Ron Paul's campaign building too much steam would be disastrous for the the road to anarchy. If I thought that it was worth it to make a low-cost advertisement with zero-risk of a violent outcome, I would do it. I just no longer see it as effective AT THE MOMENT...if ever in NH there is a group of people who get together and announce personal secession en masse, I'd join them. Sure, telling the state we're doing it is acknowledging it's existence, but the state does exist...so....

Each of us has a niche. My job is converting people and sowing the seeds of doubt in the state. All non-violent means are open for me, but some of these methods I'll only resort to in situations where it's of the utmost importance.

I mean, is Napolitano evil because he hides the fact that he's anarchist and pretends to support constitutionalism? No, he's an infiltrator and getting between the gears of the machine. Should we question people like Tom Woods' commitment to the cause simply because he writes books about the Constitution targeted towards a conservative audience? No way... I'm less likely than some to criticize people for their methods, I think that we each have particular abilities and should apply them how we see fit, since each of us knows himself better than anyone else.

Formerly Brainwashed, I know you still disagree, and that's fine. I won't initiate violence against you, even if you think I would.

Edit: Every time you pay any taxes at all, you deny yourself the moral superiority over my position, because you acknowledge the state and help it survive. Every time you USE a FRN, you help sustain the state a little bit, so let's just give up on the idea that there is a "morally" perfect way to do this.

Edit 2: If I recall correctly, your criticism was that my means and ends are in tension. This isn't true, because I do not advocate taking over the state to impose my will on others. Throwing a wrench at the state when you know it won't be "taken over" is not something that is consistent with the minarchist position. Minarchist position has the means of reform and a completely different end in mind. My will would not be imposed on anyone, and no violence committed. But, like I said, I wouldn't vote any more on utilitarian grounds, but I'll still defend rare cases as being morally satisfactory if it's insisted that we talk about morals at all.

[helio]

Every time you pay any taxes at all, you deny yourself the moral superiority over my position, because you acknowledge the state and help it survive. Every time you USE a FRN, you help sustain the state a little bit, so let's just give up on the idea that there is a "morally" perfect way to do this.

Is it your position that a victim is morally obligated to always choose the greatest of all possible predations when the attacker offers a choice? 

I am not immoral for paying taxes because there is no outcome where I do not lose.  The state coerces me into choosing to transfer a lesser value of mine in order to keep a greater value being taken by raw, overpowering violence. 

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

Formerly Brainwashed, I know you still disagree, and that's fine.

You're right, I disagree, and that's fine.

As to the rest, and in particular, your edits... Helio is correct.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

As to the rest, and in particular, your edits... Helio is correct.

No one else, including helio, has addressed the "rest." Only my edits were addressed. No one has even responded to the body of the text.

@ helio: you're getting closer to the point I'm trying to make. You can't always tell what to do, and if you try to come up with these absolute rules it won't work....Is it immoral to use a google search engine and help a company that acts as a spy agency for a murderous gov't??? You have alternative search engines, but they aren't as good....(I know you use dukgo, but there are anarchists who don't, are they "immoral"?)...My answer is that in cases like this the lines you try to draw for morality turn to mush. How many degrees of separation do you have to be from the violence that is caused by your actions to consider it okay? No lines, sorry. Would it be okay for people to use Google, but not okay to actively endorse gov't wars? All of these actions can cause violence indirectly...

But at least I'm fine with accepting the idea that morality isn't absolute. Is freedom a goal to be achieved, or a religion with dogma?

Ultimately we have to make strategic decisions for achieving and sustaining anarchy

All non-violent efforts are fine with me...

PS: when I started writing this I didn't want to explain the taxes thing because I'm tired, but I'll just go for it or I'll regret not trying.......So imagine that you owe X dollars in taxes. If you pay X-.01 , then there's some chance, let's say 0.0001% that they'll do find out and do something. If you pay X-.1 then there's some chance, let's say .001% that they'll find out. And so forth.....So how do we judge the value of someone's decisions? We weigh the probabilities and the values of the outcomes (whether we want to admit this or not). What if you could pay less and be almost guaranteed to not have violence initiated against you? Is it possible to achieve our radical goals without taking chances? So by paying taxes are we giving up? Or can we stop paying taxes later when the time is right? If so, then it isn't morality that's changed, it's the cost-benefit analysis.

Let's use the forum as a tool of not just education but study. Try to figure out what works and what doesn't. If you disagree with someone, explain why, in the real world, it isn't a good idea, instead of playing god and saying it violates the commandments.

(I expected the objection "oh then why do you rule out violence?" My response is that my goal is a free and peaceful society, so using violence is like suggesting we can elect libertarians to dismantle the state. It won't work, it's the opposite of the goal. I judge it on the fact that it CAN'T work...note that I'm not playing god, just my opinion that it can't work.)

[Seth King]

Freedom is like infinity. You can keep getting closer, but you'll never reach it.

As freedom activists we should realize that there will never be a day where we can all exhale and stop working towards the goal. Our job is never done. Even after humanity abandons the state there will still be threats and projects to work towards.

Likely, we will have big successes in the future, so big that many freedom activists will stop their full time devotion to the cause and go back to the lives they would like to live absent of any great threat. I know I will. Eventually I will be done with this blog and other things and will get back into physics and space travel and other scientific ventures.

Being content with the world is a matter of the mind. Some slaves are far more content than other freemen. The level of one's activism is totally a matter of how discontent they are. A person who does absolutely everything in their power to destroy the state is really just far less content than the activist who donates a hundred bucks now and then and calls it a day.

As the state ratchets up their violence more and more individuals will see it for a greater and greater threat, which will heighten their malcontent, which will cause them to become greater activists. Force breads resistance.

[helio]

Hey guys. I really want to chime in as this is a very good topic that is very important.  I'm sick at the moment so I can't think straight, so forgive me if I don't make any sense.

  I think this division of whether to work inside or outside of the political arena is one of the biggest schisms in the broader liberty movement. 

If the view is taken that trading with, or utilizing any resources provided by the state, or its supporters, then there is almost no way we can survive as human beings.  We drive on roads, consume electricity, fuel, use the internet, eat food, ad infinitum.  All of these things are in part provided by the application, or threat of violence by the state.  I cannot practically take the stance that surviving should make me feel guilty. 

One question I have is this.  Do you think it is aggression when a person verbally condones the aggression of another?  Case in point. If a group of politicians write some words on paper, and the cops are the ones that apply the truncheon, are both parties guilty of initiating violence?   I've never been threatened by a politician, but always by a cop.

I want to know what you guys think.  How is the non-aggression principle applied to people who agree with the violence, but do not commit it themselves?

[helio]

I really do not believe that surviving within the legal structure of the state is a moral quandry, because we have no alternative of peaceful non-cooperation.  Our principle moral rule is that a person must not use aggression to get what they want.  Is it aggression to pay taxes? No. Drive on roads? No. Does using software provided by a company that is protected by IP law aggression? No. 

The point I am trying to make is that it is a leap of logic to ascribe moral responsibility to people who are under duress.  The state is not legitmized because the only choice we choose the lesser predation.  Is the slave master legitimized because the slave accepts food from him? No, the slave master is guilty of aggression, no matter what action the slave takes in response. 

I am a firm believer in choosing one's battles. I don't vote because it gives me the benefit of righteous indignation when confronting statists about 'their pal'.  'Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him' kinda thing.

The politicians can scribble down edicts all day long, but if there aren't any cops, there isn't any aggression.

I think I'm ranting =(

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

JustSayNoToStatism:

No one is suggesting perfection… No one is suggesting that individuals will always know what to do, nor that they (we) will always make the right decision. What is imperative though, is that we strive to live consistent to our rational self-interest. If it be acknowledged that central to human morality is the non-aggression principle, then our actions ought to be such that we do not knowingly live in a contradictory state of existence.

You can talk about Google and whatever other ‘what-ifs’ you want… The goal is moral consistency insomuch as you are aware of the potential consequences of your actions. When a specific moral compromise is discovered, a simple choice needs to be made. I seriously doubt much more needs to be said to describe what I am talking about. IMO – principled consistency should be a primary goal in our day to day lives. Moreover, if we recognize the validity of the non-aggression principle, even if we choose to act contrary to our own self-interest we have NO moral legitimacy to impose our irrational decisions on others. Again, when such aggression on our own part is identified, there is no justification.

Helio:

Good rant!

As I said earlier, it’s what people do with the specific knowledge they have that matters. A good read/listen is The Myth of the Innocent Civilian – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18271.htm . My only question to people who claim to understand the law of causality (ergo, the law of identity applied to action), then choose to blank out the reality of their choices is: Why? How do they arrive at the point to where they place reason on the shelf, in spite of knowing the truth? This is not a question for you… I’m just thinking out loud.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

helio:

that wasn't a rant. I appreciate hearing about your point of view on this, and I feel that your position is perfectly reasonable.

FormerlyBrainwashed:

The bit about perfection would make more sense if you think about this from my perspective. You said I'm defending a minarchist position, a statist position, when this absolutely is not the case. I really think you just don't understand what this argument is even about. It's not about defending voting "per se" because I won't ever vote again, and I don't think it's a particularly valuable option. 1) If we had the majority, then the state would collapse anyways 2) if we had the majority then we would control gov't, which is violence, which I oppose. I hate the state. But because I reject moral absolutism which I believe borders on being religious dogma, you think of me as being "less" of an anarchist, and so name call and refer to me as a minarchist (which I don't think you really believe)........and then in explaining that the NAP is "central to human morality" you turn around and say that the ignorance of the potential consequences of our actions makes our behavior excusable. 1) So some people don't understand a concept that is somehow "central," and 2) good intentioned ignorant politicians are still good guys....see how this morality stuff gets messed up. But anyways, I don't care so much about this morality discussion as I do clarifying what my position is on political action. For all statistically significant possible outcomes, I can say that I won't ever vote again. But what if the expected dollar crisis didn't happen, but there was still a lot of tension between the states in the US, and all it would take is a spark to set off a string of secessions. Say we end up in that situation, and you get everyone in your community to personally secede and set off a wave that topples the empire. Sure, you have to acknowledge the state's existence to tell it you're leaving. But no violence is committed, and the outcome is positive. Is it likely that situations like this will come about? No. I discourage everyone I know from voting, and won't vote myself. The reason I gave for believing it to be acceptable to vote is because if you had a situation where the pros outweighed the cons, in some strange hypothetical situation, then voting would be the right decision. I used to think that such a situation would be for Ron Paul, since I knew he couldn't win (so no violence committed), and because it would spread the libertarian message (positive outcome). But now the reason I wouldn't vote for him is NOT because I bow to your stone tablets, but because I think political libertarianism in too much strength is dangerous to the liberty movement. My "position" is still the same, but my calculations of costs and benefits and risks has changed.

Okay, I really need to study, I'll come back in a few days if I can find the time.

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

The bit about perfection would make more sense if you think about this from my perspective. You said I'm defending a minarchist position, a statist position, when this absolutely is not the case. I really think you just don't understand what this argument is even about.

I certainly understand what you specifically said in the “voting” thread. That I may have misinterpreted your intended meaning may very well be true.

It's not about defending voting "per se" because I won't ever vote again, and I don't think it's a particularly valuable option.

My point in the first place was only that I do not find it merely to be without value, but specifically a moral compromise in that the act is synonymous with sanctioning that which is stated to be an evil institution. The act of voting is unlike coercive taxation for the very reasons Helio clearly pointed out.

I am not claiming to know you better than you. My initial comments were based off of your initial presentation. Your comments in this thread seemed to switch gears a bit so I was interested in knowing if you bridged the gap. Again, perhaps a misinterpretation on my part; or maybe poorly delivered on your part?

My aim is not to get into ad hominem attacks or character assassination; rather, it is to invoke useful dialogue with an interest in arriving at the truth. If my comments have been delivered and likewise received in a different light, hopefully you’ll understand that I regard anyone whose hope is true liberty, to be an ally and friend. 

2) if we had the majority then we would control gov't, which is violence, which I oppose.

This is precisely what I was getting at in the first instance.

But because I reject moral absolutism…

Out of a genuine interest in NOT misinterpreting your statement, would you care to clarify? What does such a statement mean to you in a practical sense?

...and then in explaining that the NAP is "central to human morality" you turn around and say that the ignorance of the potential consequences of our actions makes our behavior excusable.

This is not my view at all. I in fact do not believe that ignorance translates into justification or any sort of valid “excuse” for individual actions. I wholeheartedly subscribe to a world of personal accountability for ones actions. My point was that anyone claiming to have a specific awareness of such principles ought to covet them and live by them insomuch as their awareness permits them to as this is most conducive to their existence. 

My response to the rest of your post is simply that: I too would certainly not stand in the way of any non-violent methods employed that would reduce the state, so long as those methods do not require violating principle. From a personal stand-point however, the path I prefer (for me) is to gain incremental liberty for myself. If success could be achieved at a personal level, then the (realistic) potential exists that others may also want to gain incremental liberty. As more and more people do, the more the state is starved. If they do not, I am primarily concerned with myself in the first place and will live as it seems most conducive to my own well being. I think it is an error, and even self-defeating, for people to think they will change the hearts and minds of the collective and turn the gov on its back. I find it to be much more practical and realistic of a goal to set my sights on securing liberty for me, in my lifetime… I believe the tenets of agorism are coherent and practical to achieve that desired end.

[helio]

I believe the tenets of agorism are coherent and practical to achieve that desired end.

I agree with this.

Just curious, what area of agorist activity interests you?  Specifically, if you could do it right now, would you specialize in a trade or craft, say for example having a small machine shop and make tools for other agorists, or would you generalize, like growing your own food, making your own bio-diesel, making your own clothing, etc.

The reason I ask, is economically speaking, the division of labor makes abundance of wealth possible, but since the state has declared war on interpersonal trade, how specialized can an agorist economy really be before it is violently attacked and shut down?  Perhaps that's a topic for another thread.

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

What kind of agorist activity interests me? Anything and everything that bleeds the state, and simultaneously gains incremental liberty.

I know that sounds vague, but really, there are so many things that can be done to avoid things like taxation and regulation of voluntary exchanges.

Acquiring goods via barter networks, via cashless transactions. This can even be done with services for goods and visa versa. Purchasing things via tax-less processes such as online via eBay, etc (although I think barter networks are much closer to true market anarchy as it doesn't even rely on their fiat currency system, and [can be] untraceable).

With all the mainstream hype about illegals; one only needs to look to those who exist within the alleged borders which live completely under the radar, yet right in the midst of the rest of us, just blending in. There is no justification for those who seek welfare and thus, benefit from stolen loot (this is not to suggest that they all fall into this category)... Nevertheless, if individualist-voluntaryist's would do what they can to learn from folks like that, I think we could very easily find those incremental liberties I am speaking of.

Ever go to a swap meet/flea market? Where does a lot of that stuff come from? Ever go to yard sales? Ever notice who are among the greatest buyers of bulk, seemingly useless stuff?

Ever watch shows on TV where people go around buying junk for pennies then turning around and selling it for a tax free profit? There are plenty of people that have no "lawful" employment to speak of, yet they have vehicles to get around in, food to eat, roofs over their head, and more.

The real question is - what is the goal of the individual? Personal liberty that can be realized NOW, bit by bit? Or - trying to find ways to have a broader impact on society at-large? Or - a combination of the two?

It seems to me that people in the freedom movement often tend to lose sight of the "individual" part of individualism. When things don't happen as quickly as they'd hope, they become disillusioned and begin to second guess whether or not such things as minarchism are valid. This, because their aim was perhaps unrealistic to begin with.

Konkin did a wonderful job in An Agorist Primer of laying the ground work for a reasonable, rational, and realistic approach to achieve life in the Agora. I find no fault in the method he espoused, and firmly believe that tactical utilization of the counter economy is the most realistic tactic we have in our arsenal.

[helio]

(although I think barter networks are much closer to true market anarchy

I respectfully disagree on economic grounds.  Barter works fine when trading partners both want what the other is offering, but on larger scales it causes an economic calculation problems as it becomes more difficult to determine profit/loss from a balance sheet of disparate items.  Currency solves these problems and is the reason that currencies always arise in a market. Currency allows an entrepreneur to reduce to a single unit of account all transactions and ascertain whether a profit has been made which illuminates whether wealth is being destroyed, or created.  If we are going to build diverse counter markets of any magnitude, currencies must play a part. 

FRN won't disapear from our lives until that currency is destroyed by the banking cartel, since high order economic goods like new industrial products simply won't be available in the counter economy unless we can start producing them ourselves.  Unfortunately, I don't see a couple of guys in a backyard shop making things like integrated circuits for quite some time.

Personally, my thought is that when confronted by a threat, such as being robbed in perpetuity by statists, the rational thing to do is focus on reducing the threat, not ignoring it.  Individual liberty in the current construct is only possible when it is allowed by the violence dealers, or when it can be hidden from them.  With the technical capabilities of the modern surveilance state, Konkin's approach, conceived before the digital revolution really got going, won't be effective in my humble opinion.

My personal strategy is to focus on attacking the ideological foundations of the state to effect mass abandonment, rather than simply trying to hide and be left alone as much as possible.  Because, they aren't going to leave us alone.