Anarcho-Capitalism Is Dead

February 27th, 2014   Submitted by Michael Hendricks


“Those who assume (often unconsciously) that it is impossible to achieve their life’s desires-and, thus, that it is futile to fight for themselves–usually end up fighting for an ideal or cause instead. They may appear to engage in self-directed activity, but in reality they have accepted alienation from their desires as a way of life. All subjugations of personal desires to the dictates of a cause or ideology are reactionary no matter how ‘revolutionary’ the actions arising from such subjugations may appear. ”
The Revolutionary Pleasure of Thinking for Yourself by Anonymous

Anarcho-Capitalism died January 7, 1995 with the death of Murray Rothbard. Since then this semi-revolutionary ideology has stagnated in a maze of consciousness (self evident, universal, and objective axioms). It’s been diverted from action by the subjective, and become bogged down in semantics. The ideas presented as new are merely old ideas restated, but evolution in thought is slowed when the infusion of new data is halted. This is the case with Voluntarism (Anarcho-Capitalism through axiomatic justification), and also true with Consequentialism (Anarcho-Capitalism justified through efficiency). Ultimately Voluntarism and Consequentialism are ethical theories, which are important to individual decision making, but are not strategies in and of themselves.

Lost in the maze of consciousness, the mind wonders and begins to fail to distinguish reality from the models and values an individual holds dear. AnCaps cry, “In an AnCap world things would be different!” Yes, if things were different they would be different, but they’re not different. This is the world we live in. Property is a matter of control. It’s not a matter of rights. It is easy, and comforting, to assume axioms to be universal, but they aren’t, and whether or not something is a “law” is more about custom than about “natural” rights.

AnCaps avoid action with the subjective argument, “voting is bad because it shows support for the State.” But they pay taxes, which not only shows support, but actually supports the State. It’s a non-argument. The idea that voting is bad in and of itself is a subjective value judgement, and has zero bearing on reality. So, instead of acting to improve our position through voting with what little efficacy it can have, AnCaps don’t, leaving less opposition in the process. Voting can be a form of obstructionism, giving us time to come up with meaningful solutions. The State doesn’t need you to vote in support of it. The government goons are ready to take what they want. We shouldn’t pretend like they need a reason. Reform, abolition, and obstruction are tools available to us, and if we want to get off of the tax farm we need to be willing to utilize those tools, even if we find them distasteful.

Bogged down in semantics, people constantly argue over what real property is. Property, says the rhetorician, is acquired through homesteading. No. Property is a matter of control. The methods used to achieve that control do not change. The specific plan may vary, but strategic planning is always required to achieve control. Questions of “legitimate” property, and property “rights,” while good to ask, are merely one step in the process. What you think is “legitimate” is a guide, but it is not an action. More important than personal value judgements are the social implications of one’s ideas and practices.

Most stories of AnCap conversion begin with the individual being a Statist of one variety or another. Then, for one reason or another, they realize the horrendous nature of the State, and through investigating other ideas find Anarcho-Capitalism, see that it is so much better than the State, and stop looking. Education stops. If the AnCap continues researching, great, but if they stop looking outside their frame of reference they get stuck there. Without another frame of reference with which to examine their beliefs they become stagnant, and uncritical of their own philosophy. Education is reduced to indoctrination, and an ideologue is formed. Similar things happen within traditional schooling, and within scientific communities.

The difference between indoctrination and education is that with indoctrination one stands within the body of the cannon and absorbs its teachings, while with education one stands outside the body of the cannon and examines it critically. How does one examine anything critically without having a set of ideas, and a body of knowledge for comparison? In public school not only are critical thinking skills brushed over, but the children are given one single perspective with which to attempt to find themselves. It’s no wonder that society at large is made up of drones. It was designed to be.

For a philosophy to continue evolving, and adapting, it needs new information, and new ideas. It must let go of the cannon. It is time to move past ethical arguments, and the ideal, and to begin looking for solutions. Crying, “I have my rights!” and “You don’t own me!” will not stop the master from imposing its will.

So, where should we look for new ideas? We should look to the Left. We should look to the State. We should look anywhere men struggle, and ask “What are the lessons to be learned?” By knowing your enemy, you make it possible to defeat them.

Rights are concepts. If you want them realized you need to take action. In Fascism it is said that the individual finds meaning with the collective, that the State is a means for the individual to achieve results, and that the purpose of the State is to establish and maintain the nation. In Fascism the nation is a cultural identity. Nations are not States. The State is the means of actualizing the national identity. By learning about Fascism (an ideology that achieved results) perhaps we can learn things to help us in our struggle.

Insurrection can be summed up with the invitation, “The revolution has already begun. Will you join us?” Individualist insurrectionary anarchy is about attaining freedom now, today. It rejects the notion that we need to wait for the rest of society to achieve liberty. Admittedly insurrectionary anarchists act in isolation, whether solo or as a member of a small team.

“Let us take the hypothesis of a ‘minoritarian’ subversive practice that refuses the Leninist model. In a libertarian perspective one either abandons all insurrectional discourse (in favour of a declaredly solitary revolt), or sooner or later it becomes necessary to face the problem of the social implications of one’s ideas and practices. If we don’t want to resolve the question in the ambit of linguistic miracles (for example by saying that the theses we support are already in the heads of the exploited, or that one’s rebellion is already part of a wider condition) one fact remains: we are isolated, which is not the same as saying we are few. ”
At Daggers Drawn with the Existent its Defenders and its False Critics, by Anonymous

Platformism is a tactic of organizing for specific purposes and then disbanding. The Platform arose out of the strife of the Russian revolution and the resulting civil war. The Platform was a set of suggestions about how libertarian communist organizations should be run. One such suggestion is ideological unity. An organization, say the Platformists, that has 200 members and half believe in class struggle and the other half doesn’t, would be better off as two organizations working towards their ends, rather than as one constantly bickering over what it should do. The Platform was not a manifesto, it was a document aimed at discussion, and the authors never claimed to have all the answers. This is the fundamental reality. There is no panacea. There is no single set of solutions. Each problem requires a unique solution.

In order to solve the nuanced problems of the real world we have to look beyond the black and white. Things in life are rarely all or nothing events, and the more complex the situation becomes the more this is true. It is said that one is either “part of the problem, the solution, or just a part of the landscape”. A fourth option is that one is both a part of the solution and a part of the problem.

This is not to say that no one is working towards solutions. Such a notion is obvious hogwash. But it is necessary to analyze the methods being used and figure ways to improve them. Where did these methods succeed, and where did they fail? What unforeseen consequences arose out of action?

“If we refuse centralisation we must go beyond the quantitative idea of rallying the exploited for a frontal clash with power. It is necessary to think of another concept of strength—burn the census lists and change reality.”
At Daggers Drawn with the Existent its Defenders and its False Critics by Anonymous

Strike the root, they say, but how can the root be struck when it is unclear what the root is? The root is the State and the government! Okay, but what is a government? Is it enough to say that a government is goons and papers? No. It is not enough to say that government should be opposed. For while this is true, government is an effect as well as a cause. The government is the result of a demand in the market for power.

“Being against government is also being against what Proudhon termed ‘external constitution’, which is the manipulation of a collective or individual by means of something external to those collectives and individuals. A legislated law is a form of external constitution because the law is imposed and not something mutually agreeable, even if the act a law forbids or necessitates would be under normal circumstances (i.e. we don’t need a law that says not to murder people, because it’s not a mutually agreeable thing to murder)” – Anonymous neo-Proudhonian anarchist

In Proudhon’s work external constitution is the phrase he uses to mean hierarchy or archy.

In November 2011 Davi Barker wrote an article called “The Law According to the Somalis“, a review of a book in which the distinction between “law” and “custom” is made. Any attempt to formulate a legal code by definition becomes an external constitution and is governance according to Proudhon. The difference between an Anarchist and an AnCap is a difference of opinion on the legitimacy of outside control. The Anarchist rejects this control out of hand. The AnCap rejects this imposition in so far as the nation-State decrees it. An undeniable, fundamental fact of human existence is the social nature of the species. The problem with implied consent, or social contract is that these things are not mutual (reciprocal, equal, and agreed to by all parties involved). Customs, are not contracts or laws. So, the question one needs to ask is, is capitalism the best property custom? Or is it just the one that AnCaps are used to, and therefore support?

Ultimately, it seems that a common problem between Anarchists and AnCaps is that both groups are attempting to write a universal law. If we accept that people are individuals, who can and should make their own decisions, than we need to expect the results of action to be diverse. The world as it is today is one possible world, but it is not the only possibility. The global hegemony is at odds with individual freedom.

“Relations of affinity do not exist on the basis of ideology or quantity, but start off from reciprocal knowledge, from feeling and sharing projectual passions.”
At Daggers Drawn with the Existent its Defenders and its False Critics by Anonymous

The point, if there must be one, is to draw your own conclusions. Analyzing reality from multiple perspectives is good praxis.

Tags: ,

113 Responses to “Anarcho-Capitalism Is Dead”

  1. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    Look to the state for new ideas to promote Anarcho-Capitalism? Really? Platforism? Really? Uh, organizations don’t disband after achieving their original purpose, they continue in another form. i.e. March of Dimes. The March of Dimes was created to collect money for Polio research. A cure was found but the March of Dimes didn’t end after the cure was found. Uh, AnCaps are Anarchists. That is what Anarcho represents in Anarcho-Capitalist. In fact AnCaps are perhaps the epitome of Anarchists. Many so called Anarchist “groups” are not really Anarchists.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      There is a post-left critique of the Left which brings up this vary point about Organizationalism. I might write something about it.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        Oh, there might be a few examples of such organizations disbanding but there are groups that continue to exist long after their purpose has been achieved or they become something else. Another example is the NAACP. The NAACP really isn’t about advancing the interests of Black people. What they are today is another leftist and statist organization promoting statism.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      I wrote an article called Basic Intelligence Gathering where I take a technique used by the military and show how it can be used in activism.  /

      • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

        Great expose.
        I used to try to stay off the radar, now I view Hiding in Plain Sight to be my advantage. Time will tell if I’m deluded or not.

        Some of us will fall because of our beliefs. It is the way of things. I don’t wish to be a martyr, just a guide, but guides are often martyrs.

        C’est la vie.

        Life and Death are both illusions.

        The Boot-Strap Expat

    • RanDominoNo Gravatar says:

      Anyone who sees no problem with authority so long as it’s not a “State” is no Anarchist. Nor is anyone who clearly has no clue how coercion or manipulation work.

    • Alberto DietzNo Gravatar says:

      Merely wishing the irrefutable to vanish won’t suffice.

      Real Anarchism and real Capitalism continue to provide the only ethically justified system of social cooperation, i.e. radically uncompromising Rothbardian-Hoppean Anarcho-Capitalism.

    • SethNo Gravatar says:

      Absolutely false. Anarchy, though a stateless ideology, has structure, points, tenants, etc.. Just like any other political ideology. ‘Anarcho” capitalists need to stop smearing the name of anarchism by attaching capitalism to it. Capitalism violates scores of human rights as defined by anarchism. ‘An’ cap is, at it’s very best, a childish, polarized, axiomatic social narrative.

  2. Ethan GloverNo Gravatar says:

    Joining the real world for about 5 minutes might help this ridiculous (probably Reddit inspired) perspective.

  3. DonnaNo Gravatar says:

    I have read the article and it has many well articulated points. What I do not understand is the responses so far. They are critical of the article but do not show any critical thinking. If you don’t like the information before you, get off your ass and help with solutions.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      In my case it is not a matter of not liking the information. I simply don’t see it the way the author does. I stated my criticism. Btw, what are your solutions Donna?

      • DonnaNo Gravatar says:

        In reality I do not have any solutions. I read this site because I find it informative and interesting. I am in no way an ANCAP, I like to keep an eye on the various perspectives out there. I read all different point of views.

    • Chris BeamisNo Gravatar says:

      My idea for a solution to the problem of the state is to cheat with money.
      Fix the US dollar so that instead of the word dollar meaning nothing as it has since 1971 it means a certain mass of oxygen that has been exhaled by the plants on your land. Just change the definition, which is what presidents FDR and Nixon did in the past. It eliminates the state because the oxygen/dollar ratio can be sized so that the national debt can be paid off in an arbitrary number of years without an income tax. If no income tax is needed then all tax and legal tender laws can be repealed with no pain for those dependent on that revenue. No tax man == no state. This solution also quickly and permanently eliminates poverty and environmental degradation.

      • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

        I like the concept.

        Unfortunately fiat dollars are already as real as fairy dust.

        Your idea is already a reality. And Al Gore invented the internet when he wasn’t writing Love Story.

        The Boot-Strap Expat

        • Chris BeamisNo Gravatar says:

          I don’t understand what you mean. The fiat dollars are only fiat, meaning forced on us by the rules of the governments, because of the legal tender and tax laws. The idea is for We the People to make a change to the definition of a word in such a way that the FedGov can get funding without borrowing and without taxing and without harming the land. In fact by making it so all us money users pay all us land owners for doing something good for us all.
          That way we the people can eliminate the legal tender and tax laws without causing harm to those of us who depend on the FedGov for their livings.
          Eliminating the tax laws gets all of us more money because they don’t take it from us.
          Using the oxygen produced by your land as money gets the new money into more hands faster, reducing the poverty causing effect of the new money rippling outward into the economy from the central spigot of the USA treasury and the Federal Reserve banks.
          Eliminating the legal tender laws allows the new money to evolve, in what ever way it will in this complex economic system.

          • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

            Check your premises.

            Why do “we” have to fund the government that no longer represents the people?

            “Legal Tender” is not money, any more than “currency” is.

            “Legal Tender” is not money, it is a “debt note.” Every dollar not connected to Silver or Gold is a “promissory note” for a debt neither you or I incurred!

            Taxes are theft. You got that right, the rest of your comments I’m not so sure about.

            You want to save “oxygen?” Stop breathing. Those of us with half a clue will not mourn your passing.

            The Boot-Strap Expat

            • Chris BeamisNo Gravatar says:

              Check your premises.

              > Okay.

              Why do “we” have to fund the government that no longer represents the people?

              > As you’re well aware, because we get caged or shot if we don’t.

              “Legal Tender” is not money, any more than “currency” is.

              > A. I don’t know what you mean when you say “Legal Tender”, but what I meant above is laws, or more properly statutes, that instruct government courts to consider debts satisfied only if $US bills were used. They are collectively known as legal tender laws, and combined with tax laws, are what creates a demand for $US bills.
              B. Money is whatever you use as money. Things as diverse as sea shells, salt, cattle, cigarettes, silver and gold have been used by various people at various times as money. Money isn’t a thing, it is a property of a thing. The property that gives something “moneyness” exists only in your mind, and it is the property that will cause you to accept it in a trade for something you value, not because you value it, the thing you’re using as money, but because you think/hope you can later trade it to someone else for something you do value. Gold, which has almost zero industrial usage compared to the above ground stock, and $US bills are prime examples of this property.

              “Legal Tender” is not money, it is a “debt note.” Every dollar not connected to Silver or Gold is a “promissory note” for a debt neither you or I incurred!

              > Okay.

              Taxes are theft. You got that right, the rest of your comments I’m not so sure about.

              > Exactly. I’m proposing a pain free way to permanently eliminate them. A way that even those who depend on them, such as government employees and contractors, will support.

              You want to save “oxygen?” Stop breathing. Those of us with half a clue will not mourn your passing.

              > What did I ever do to you to deserve a mean spirited remark like that??? I’m trying to think of a way out and you attack me? Are you one of those spooks hired to go around the internet and interfere with dialogues?
              BTW, did I say anything about saving oxygen? The idea is to use the oxygen that’s already getting exhaled by plants as a new way of creating new $US bills. Instead of just making it up by having the FR banks “loan” something to you they don’t have and then charge you interest on that loan of nothing, we can instead use all those millions of trees on private and federal lands to get debt free money, and get the banksters off our backs!

              • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

                We don’t “have” to pay for tyranny. I don’t. If you do, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

                I’ve been caged. Have you?

                There is no “pain free” alternative. Either you have a pair, or your don’t. The Reset will not be painless. Man up.

                Please forgive my aggressiveness,”You want to save “oxygen?” Stop breathing. Those of us with half a clue will not mourn your passing.” My point and conviction is that many sheep bleet about matters they know nothing of. The greatest threat to Earth is nekkid monkeys with half a clue. Like me. And you.

  4. Travis MaddoxNo Gravatar says:

    I like your perspective. It’s probably pretty close to mine. Would like to read more from you about this. Ancaps need this sort of challenge and hopefully it’s causing them to think.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      That’s the hope. I have more stuff in the works and if you’re interested click my name on the side bar to read more of my stuff.

  5. MarginalSanityNo Gravatar says:

    “Those who assume… that is is futile to fight for themselves-usually end up fighting for an ideal or cause instead” I’ve often worried that anyone who spends much time thinking about AnCap stuff (or any politics for that matter) must have other life issues; i.e., people with jobs, friends, money and partners pursue these earthly pleasures and get on with life.

    But at the same time this post is a call to action!? ~“Don’t debate the merits of voting but rather quit paying taxes” I’m sure most of us have pondered this. The problem is that rebelling like that entails self sacrifice. Most employment opportunities require many levels of compliance with the state. While possible, even driving without all the documents is a rather risky venture.

    How do we balance these goals? We’re wankers to just think about anarchism, but also we’ll end up bashing our life away against the state system if we really do rebel.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      Right now we can’t out right rebel, especially in the United States the military industrial complex is too strong, and I don’t think enough people are aware of us.

      We’re an underground.

      I’m saying that since we’re stuck paying taxes anyway we might as well try to obstruct the system by fighting the Orwellian advance. Meanwhile we hopefully gain time, time to prepare for Orwell and time to come up with better solutions.

      • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

        I have other articles in the works to work on the parts of this that could be expanded upon. But this is a blog and I’m just not clever enough to work it all out in advance so I have to take it in stages you know?

        And I don’t have all the answers that’s the point too. We need discussion or it’s hopeless.

        • MarginalSanityNo Gravatar says:

          Bummer on not having all the answers… (I look forward to reading more) But really, it’s a testament to your post that it was exhilarating and at the same time caused some reflection on how I’m not doing much towards living the revolution.

          I’m not looking for answers. But I wonder if there is a division between those here who think living without, and basically ignoring the state ( a la, peaceful parenting and agorism) is the best path for both living the revolution while not self sacrificing. Versus, those wanting action which throws a monkey wrench into the state system in an “offensive” way?

          • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

            There is the gulch approach and the political approach. I think a liberty “movement” should be big enough for both approaches. The Blue Ridge Liberty Project is a type of “gulch” approach. The BRLP wants like minded people who are very like minded in that they are open only to those who don’t engage in politics and agree with their views. The FSP is open to both camps of people and wants a large following.

          • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

            I think you have to do what you enjoy and are comfortable with. If you’re miserable being an activist, you’re probably hurting the cause more than helping it. You know the old saying. If you’re not having fun you’re not doing it right.

            This is one of the reasons why I try not to criticize people too hard for doing that they think is the best form of activism. Like people who run for office and vote. I never give them a hard time. If they grill me on why I don’t vote I’ll tell them.

            I see a lot of infighting. People knocking civil disobedience. Others knocking voting. All of that seems counter-productive to me. Do what you love to do. Do what you do best. And let others do the same.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        Contrary to popular belief, the US government does not govern everyone on the planet. There are many governments and many in which people are actually less free than people are in the USA. Imagine that, there are governments around the world ( Theocracies in the Middle East and parts of Asia for example) in which people are less free than people are in the USA. So in that regard there is nothing special or especially unique about the USA. Btw, given that mass numbers of are still immigrating (or emigrating?) to the USA, it must really suck bad where they are from.

        • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

          Well I don’t think the US government is all powerful nor do I think it governs everyone on the planet, however it’s the big bully right now.

          As far as worse places than the US go, I’m aware of quite a few. But there are also places that are better. But of course both those assertions are completely subjective.

          • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

            Well I suppose the people living on Sealand are not taxing themselves. There are also people who own islands.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Unless one takes up residence in a cave or on Gilligan’s Island they are not going to be able to avoid not paying taxes. In in The Village people were probably taxed on their work units. There are taxes charged in just about everything you purchase. If you drive when you buy gas you are paying taxes in the price of the gas for example.

      ” In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

      – Benjamin Franklin

      • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

        I’m not convinced that taxation has to be certain. Though I agree that at this point it is certain. But isn’t figuring out ways to change the game part of the struggle for liberty?

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          What is new about that approach? I thought you were in favor of creative approaches.

          • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

            I am in favour of evolution of thought.

            Davi came up with a good analogue: It’s like new life forms not new amino acids.

            • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

              I also don’t believe in the idea of completely original ideas. I think it’s absurd. Each evolution builds on the previous version, and eventually the end looks very different from the beginning.

              • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

                Well that is true. The American Revolutionaries of the 18th centuries did not have original ideas. They got the ideas they held from philosophers and people from their past (I realize it’s our past too.) such as those of the Levellers and as far back as some acient Greek philosophers.

  6. Nick FordNo Gravatar says:

    Bravo! I enjoyed this article and am looking forward to hearing more.

    Are you familiar with left a libertarianism? And by that I mean the left-wing market anarchist sort. Center for a Stateless Society and Alliance of the Libertarian Left, etc.

    I think you may find these things interesting.

    Anyways as that sort of anarchist this piece ws refreshing to see on here. You seem to be influenced by post-left anarchism broadly speaking which is cool.

    Like I said, looking forward to reading more!

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      I’m vaguely familiar with them. I think market anarchism can incorporate left and right anarchists (and should team work is good). We’ll see if I’m too optimistic thoug

  7. DanielNo Gravatar says:

    Michael, are you a member/former member of the Libertarian party? If no, then I might have mixed you up with another individual with the same name, if yes, then how does that relate to your main points in the article above?

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      Nope never was a member of the LP.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        Did you ever support either of the two oldest political parties in the USA?

        • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

          I’m pretty sure I’m a democrat.

          • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

            So do you support the Dummycrat Party?

            • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:


              I don’t think voting on people is a worth while endeavour.

              • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

                Do you vote on issues?

                • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                  Some, not all. It’s a cost benefit analysis.

                  Honestly the argument that voting supports the State bothers me.

                  I’m not gonna be harsh to someone who just doesn’t vote. We’re all just trying to get the boot off our necks here. And my point about voting is simply about slowing down Orwell because when the shit hits the fan people are going to die. I might be one of them.

  8. Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

    Blah, blah, blah…

    I am an Anarchist who lives as such.

    Your mental constructs and such are so much mental masturbation.

    I haven’t paid income taxes in in seven years. (see the bull’s eye on my back?)

    I’ve lived off the grid.

    I only engage in voluntary transactions.

    When YOU, any of you claim that any form of Anarchy is dead you’re engaging in apologetics for failing to live according to your values.

    I’m not impressed.

    The Boot-Strap Expat

  9. VanmindNo Gravatar says:

    This is good stuff, Mr. Hendricks thanks.

    Voting, like anything else, has an opportunity cost. To me that cost outweighs any unlikely obstruction profit.

    Also, fascism is neither a political ideology nor an economic system. Fascism is a martial & paramilitary tactic that both top-down command planners (e.g. Bolshevists) and zwangswirtschaft-style planners (e.g. Nazis) use to force compliance with all the planning. The term isn’t summed up by saying “a marriage between government and business.” The term is summed up by saying “bow down or bleed.”

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      Fascism is a nuanced deal.

      I’m not sure the Bolshevists were Fascists. They were authoritarian though.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        They were Communists. National Socialists were/are Fascists.

      • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

        They sure were. The more authoritarian a government becomes, the more it resorts to fascist tactics as a way to manufacture obedience.

        There’s a reason why the fasci symbol is prominent at places like the Lincoln Memorial and Congress. It represents a willingness to do anything for absolute control.

  10. Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

    The USSA is a Fascist state in the pure sense of the word. Do your homework.

    The Boot-Strap Expat

  11. Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

    Yeah, like it matters.

    You can have all the “models” you want, but what matters is what exists.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      What do you think we use models for? To understand reality!

      • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

        Reality doesn’t require models. Fashion does.

        The Boot-Strap Expat

        • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

          What do you think science does? Models reality.

          You’re using models right now. You just don’t realize it because you use them without thinking about them.

          You have your knowledge and your expierence you use it to determine what you think the best choice for you to make at a givin time is.

          Reality doesn’t require models. But to understand reality Humans have to model reality.

          • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

            Experience, or Gnosis to use the ancient Greek term is not based on models, but experience.

            “The finger that points to the Moon is not the Moon.”

            The Boot-Strap Expat

            • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

              So you’re saying that all you use is your own persona’ experience and that you’ve never used another perspective than your own to help get you through a tough situation?

              • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

                No, what I’m saying is that personal experience trumps all models.

                Models are fictions, just as borders and governments are. They may offer value in terms of cognitive mapping. But a map is no more the land than a portrait is an individual Human Being.

                Study all you want. Your models won’t matter when you actually enter the waters of Life. Take the plunge.

                The Boot-Strap Expat

                • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                  Actually I’m studying because I’ve already experienced some awful aspects of the “waters of Life” and I know that studying doesn’t make you ready for events, but there is a reason why people train their bodies for sport and war, the mind is no different.

                  • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

                    The world is full of PhDs who don’t have a clue, or an income.

                    Take a chance. Take the plunge into Real Life.

                    It’s far greater than “studies” might suggest. You’ll learn more about your passions by engaging in life than studying it.

                    The Boot-Strap Expat

                    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                      “Real Life”

                      I’ve experienced violence and death is that “Real Life” or the reverse “Fake Life”

                    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                      Your Real Life arguments make you look like an elitist snob. Just sayin.

                    • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

                      Experience tends to be that way.

                      I look forward to your tales of “violence and death.” Feel free to enlighten me.

                      The Boot-Strap Expat

                    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                      I could bore you with my life story, but I’d rather not. For a number of reasons one of which is that I just don’t care enough about you to justify myself to you.

                      Suffice it to say that your experience in life is no more “real” than anyone else’s. When you level that attitude at people on a forum, that you know nothing about, it weakens anything you say.

                      Don’t look down your nose at people, especially ones you don’t know. Doing so makes you a jackass.

                      It’s okay though, I’m sure we’ve all been there.

  12. Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

    I understand Michael’s point, but Fascism and Marxist class struggle inspire little confidence. “We’re struggling to liberate a class! By the way, you belong to our class. Here are your marching orders.”

    I’m a big fan and regular supporter of Scott Horton, but I’ll differ with him to make a point here, even if his other fans then call me “troll”. Scott advocates “secession to the last man”. He takes “natural” property rights for granted, and he imagines these rights respected civilly (for the most part) after every man has seceded from existing states.

    The problem with “secession to the last man” is that people in reality differ on standards of propriety. To imagine other individuals respecting his property rights, Scott must imagine Rothbardian proprietors with guns defending whatever they declare “property”, according to Rothbardian standards.

    In my way of thinkin, Scott only imagines a Rothbardian state established and enforced by Rothbardian proprietors successfully imposing Rothbardian standards on any dissenters. I generally reject the concept of “natural” rights. Practically every right we call “natural” is an artifact. Artifacts can be wonderful things, but we shouldn’t lose sight of their origins. What men construct, men can deconstruct.

    Rothbard begins with self-ownership and “derives” other property rights, first along Lockean lines but ultimately along his own lines. He rejects the Lockean Proviso for example. Most libertarian philosophers (the academics), even his sympathizers, reject Rothbard’s claim to “deduce” irrefutable standards of propriety this way.

    Countless community standards are consistent with self-ownership. Free individuals own nothing other than themselves without the agreement of other free individuals. In my way of thinking, rights other than self-ownership exist only within intentional communities, so the most fundamental agreement between individuals is a community charter.

    Members of a community agree to organize resources subject to rules specified in the charter. These rules could be Rothbardian property rights, entitling homesteaders to govern resources as Rothbard imagines, but Rothbardian standards are only one possibility. Membership in a community is voluntary. An individual may join a community subject to its charter, and an individual may exit any community at will. Communities compete for members.

    In this way of thinking, “secession to the last man” is nonsensical. The last man has no property rights, because he can expect no one to respect any rights.

    “Community charter” is similar to Michael’s “platform”, but a charter is more than a set of suggestions, and it never applies to organizations (plural). A charter governs only the individuals freely accepting it, and from the state’s perspective, it governs the community’s resources (like its land). An individual exiting a community takes resources, other than his own person, only subject to the charter. A community’s charter may entitle an exiting member to transfer land from the community to another community, or it may not.

    A community is not a nation or a state. It is where people find other people voluntarily respecting specified rights. A nation is a collection of people sharing a language and culture. Members of a nation may constitute any number of communities. A state imposes rules on every person within specified boundaries, regardless of anyone’s agreement. Every person within a community’s boundaries accepts the community’s rules voluntarily.

    A charter codifies the community’s organizing principles, its “internal constitution” or “social contract”, but this contract is explicit. Individuals shop for a community in a dynamic marketplace in which the price of membership in a community is adherence to the standards spelled out in the charter.

    But a community charter is a legal code, so “a legal code by definition becomes an external constitution” seems incoherent to me. The rule of law necessarily requires a legal code, clearly specified and consistently applied. Liberty does not rule out a legal code. It only rules out a monopoly provider of a legal code.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      Those were just examples I used, because I think there are things we can take from each of them and use.

      I’m going to keep introducing “new” ideas to the AnCap movement and see what happens.

  13. Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

    Go ahead. Bore us all with your pitiful life story. I’m sure it will brighten a few souls.

    My experience is the only “reality” I know, so feel free to regal us with your history! I’m sure we’ll be enlightened.

    I’ll put experience, or gnosis up against opinion any day.

    Move out of your mom’s basement if you want respect.

  14. Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

    BTW- have you noticed that I’m the only commentator with enough balls to include a pic?

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      You could literally be anyone. A pic proves nothing, frankly you’re not believable.

      • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

        You’re a trip.

        Here are some links for your retarded ass.
        7th Pillar Services

        What have you done with your life?

        • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

          Come on!
          Bring it Mr. Big Man.

        • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

          Well, I’ve travelled across the USA, I’ve dove in the ocean and touched a shark (a wild one it was awesome).

          I’ve hiked and camped, and I have ambitions to become a survivalist.

          I’ve been a volunteer fire-fighter.

          I’m young though. I still have alot of life in front of me and alot left to do.

          I looked at your site and alot about you and the shit you say became alot more understandable.

          Good luck with your latest project. I think I’ll start tuning in. Where are you btw?

          • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

            I’m really curious about how you intend to get through Mexico.

          • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

            “touched a shark”
            you da man!
            Big fuckin’ deal Poindexter.

            “What have you accomplished? Anything? Inquiring Minds Want To know!”

            • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

              I guess we have different ideas about what life should be. To me I should enjoy life and things I’ve done. To me diving in the ocean and getting close enough to touch a shark was an amazing experience. It’s nothing like going to the Aquarium where the things are trapped for you.

              Like I said I don’t feel like I need to justify myself to you. I was nice enough to provide you with a short and humble list of things that I’ve done. I don’t need your approval to validate my existence. Sorry.

              • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

                No justification required.

                As an Anarchist I bless and condone any actions that individuals experience.

                I’ve also pet a shark, ray and rattle snake. Were they the brightest actions? Not so much, but life challenges us to move beyond our comfort zones.

                Live your life.
                You are the architect of your existence.

                The boot-Strap Expat

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Balls enough? It doesn’t take balls to upload as pic. Anyone can find a pic and use it. I don’t believe that pic is a pic of you. The reason why is because the name you use. I doubt your last name is simply Z. It takes no balls to use the name Z. Your first name might not be Alex. I really don’t care if it is your name or not but seriously it doesn’t take balls to use a pic.

  15. Alex ZNo Gravatar says:


  16. Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

    There is no Mexican Drug War.

    There is a US Drug War.

    Never-mind that Human Beings have altered their consciousness as long as they’ve had half a clue.

    The greatest irony of the Drug War is the destruction it has inflicted on Human Beings.

    Hemp and poppies are the greatest medicines the world has ever discovered.

    Fuck your war on drugs!

    The Boot-Strap Expat

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      “There is no Mexican Drug War.

      There is a US Drug War.”

      Both are happening. You come on here screaming about experience and Real Life, and you’re planning a trip to Mexico and don’t even know about the Mexican Drug War.

      Because I don’t like it when people die I’m going to implore you to look into it. If you try to do a road trip through Mexico you need understand the risk you’re taking. Mexico is NOTHING like the US. If you think the USA is bad but don’t realize Mexico is WORSE you are really fucking clueless.

      • Alex ZNo Gravatar says:

        Ohhh, pobrecito, su hermanos are being thrown in the clink because of drug laws.

        I’ve been caged. How about you li’l boy? Experience is the ONLY arbiter of truth. So go back to your mom’s basement and tell us how things aught to be.

        I have no regard for the Police States in either the USSA or Mexico, where you can “flip off the cops” and not lose a moments sleep or liberty.

        When you post from Mexico, I might give your words some credence.

        The Boot-Strap Expat

        • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

          “’ve been caged. How about you li’l boy? ”

          Being caged in the US is nothing like being caged in Mexico.

          “where you can “flip off the cops” and not lose a moments sleep or liberty.”

          “When you post from Mexico, I might give your words some credence.”

          Okay, like I said I really hope your arrogance doesn’t convince some sicario to make you the star of a decapitation video. You’ve been warned, if/when they kill you my concious will be clear.

          • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

            You don’t have to take my word for it. In fact I would encourage you to do your own research.

            Never mind what am I thinking you’re Rambo. Those Cartel Sicarios don’t stand a chance against a high speed killer like you.

  17. spiritspliceNo Gravatar says:

    This article is truly awful and filled with all sorts of nonsense.

    ” The idea that voting is bad in and of itself is a subjective value judgement, and has zero bearing on reality.”

    No, it is very real harm and aggression.

    So, instead of acting to improve our position through voting with what little efficacy it can have, ”

    You just said that it has no bearing on reality, which is it?

    “AnCaps don’t, leaving less opposition in the process. Voting can be a form of obstructionism, giving us time to come up with meaningful solutions.”

    Apparently two centuries isn’t enough time…..

    There is no such thing as meaningful opposition when you agree with the fundamental premise of being owned. This is like trying to stop the Nile rivers by a few dozen people standing in the way.

    I did a very conservative calculation, just at the Federal Level, assuming no new laws would ever be passed and that repealing a law only took 3 months of effort. Assuming only 10,000 Federal laws, it will only take 2500 years of ceaseless effort to get back to the Constitution we started with. Tell me more about the real world.

    “The State doesn’t need you to vote in support of it. The government goons are ready to take what they want. We shouldn’t pretend like they need a reason.”

    Again, make up your mind. Does voting matter or not? You just showed it doesn’t. Of course they don’t need a reason, neither does the Mafia, but the Mafia does not pretend to have moral authority. The state does. Lateral enforcement and obedience is what holds the system together. Voting, political action, etc only re-enforce the superstition, which is the entire problem.

    “Property, says the rhetorician, is acquired through homesteading. No. Property is a matter of control.”

    This is flatly false. Property is the “right” of control, it is legitimate control. If control or possession were all that mattered, the thief has done nothing wrong. He has the object, it is now his. Obviously, this is untrue. You are essentially arguing that might is right, a statist POV.

    “Strike the root, they say, but how can the root be struck when it is unclear what the root is? The root is the State and the government!”

    No, the root is worship of authority. The root is unthinking obedience. You need to spend a few hours watching Larken Rose. Government doesn’t exist anymore than does Jesus or Zeus or Cthulu. What is called “government” is simply an excuse to act immorally. It is a justification for evil action. There is no difference whether people rob and kill in the name of “God” or “government”. Statism is just another religion claiming moral authority to excuse its own immoral actions.