When Should You Shoot Chris Cantwell?

July 11th, 2014   Submitted by Davi Barker

Cantwell2Is 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.

To be clear, I don’t consider my proposition the advocacy of violence, because I suspect that Chris Cantwell isn’t even real. My strong suspicion is that the Anarchist Atheist Asshole that we’ve all come to love and hate is in fact a sort of Tony Clifton of the liberty movement. Even if the Andy Kaufman behind the curtain happens to have the same name in this case, it’s the fictional character that I’m discussing, and violence against imaginary people is an unusual, but none the less victimless crime. Tyler Durden can blow buckshot through Jack’s spleen and Chuck Palahniuk lives on to invent new, more interesting characters. So, what I’m really proposing is that it may be time for Chris Cantwell to invent a new character, because this one has transgressed. I say this not as a fan of the fiction, but as a fan of the author.

This soap opera begins with an ongoing debate over paperclips, mailmen, and the sanctity of flower beds. Is it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to kill someone who steals a paperclip? Cantwell says “no.” That makes some people uncomfortable. Is it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to kill a mailman? Cantwell says “no.” His argument being that all government agents are paid through taxes, and therefore they are the recipients of stolen property, and accomplices in the transgression. Is it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to shoot a little girl in the face for trespassing on your flower bed? Cantwell says “no.”

Now, to be perfectly neon-flashing clear, Cantwell is not advocating these things. He is drawing a line between what is philosophically sound, and what is tactically sound. As he puts it, the bullet is worth more than the paperclip. But the philosophical iron he’s striking is that once the Non-Agression Principle is violated any level of force necessary to stop anyone from further transgression is morally justifiable, even if it’s tactically imbecilic.

This debate has resulted in a split in the complete liberty crowd between those who believe that aggression justifies commensurate defensive force, and those who believe that aggression justifies unlimited defensive force. I lean toward the commensurate force crowd, but ultimately this will be settled by tactics and not by philosophy. Someone exercising unlimited defensive force in a free society not only loses the bullet to save the paperclip, they risk all the social and economic loss that would result from almost everyone either openly ostracizing them, or simply avoiding them out of caution. Someone exercising unlimited defensive force in the current slave society stands to lose quite a bit more, and until there’s an actual case study to examine I find the debate essentially meaningless. Or perhaps I should say I don’t find the conversation tactically sound.

It seems the ostracism was preemptive in this case. The ongoing controversy, specifically Cantwell’s statements about shooting cops, prompted the board of the Free State Project to remove him from the list of participants, and declare him unwelcome at Free State Project events like PorcFest and Liberty Forum.

To his credit, Cantwell did not throw a tantrum about free speech, like some people did. He didn’t even advocate that people leave the Free State Project or stop moving to New Hampshire. He took the perfectly philosophically consistent position that the Free State Project owned their parties, and could ban whoever they wanted. He wrote, “Other people go to prison for their beliefs, I think it’s quite a small sacrifice for me to miss PorcFest for mine.” He didn’t cry about it. He just moved on. No victim. No crime.

Sort of.

The crescendo peaked at PorcFest this year. Cantwell honored the request not to attend, but in his place he sent in activists wearing Chris Cantwell masks who littered the campground with posters that read “Wanted By PorcFest Security for Blogging” and asked attendees to report Chris Cantwell sightings. Another poster read “Cantwell threat level high.” The fake announcement was made that Cantwell would be speaking at Gigi Bowman’s tent at 2 PM on Friday.

Some people saw this as playful lampooning. Others saw it as a marketing win for Gigi Bowman’s baked goods. I saw it as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

It’s not only a to transgression to assault someone. It’s a transgression to threaten to assault someone. It’s not only a transgression to steal from someone. It’s a transgression to threaten to steal from someone. It’s not only a transgression to trespass on private property. It’s a transgression to threaten to trespass on private property. To threaten transgression is itself a transgression. What Cantwell and his team did was threaten to trespass, not only against the request of the Free State Project, but against the owners of Roger’s Campground, who also made it clear that Cantwell was not welcome on their property after a drunk driving incident last year.*

From a strictly philosophical perspective, Cantwell’s transgression is more severe that donning a mailman’s uniform. The mailman is the beneficiary of coercion, for sure, but so is everyone else on some level. Many have argued that it is legitimate to take money from the government because the government has already stolen far more from us than can ever be taken back. Philosophically speaking cashing a tax return check is no different from cashing a paycheck, and whether the individual agent regards their wage as legitimately earned income, or the reclaiming of stolen funds cannot be discerned from the uniform alone. Absent an overt act of coercion by the individual, retaliation against the uniform is not only collectivist, but pre-crime. The possibility exists that the person will disobey when the evil orders come, and you have to give them that opportunity. But fundamentally Cantwell’s transgression is worse because the mailman is most likely a useful idiot, while Cantwell knowingly threatened to violate the property rights that he had previously acknowledged in his own writings.

For those who believe that aggression justifies unlimited defensive force, like Chris Cantwell, it sure seems like it is now philosophically sound to shoot Chris Cantwell, although not tactically sound.

The real tragedy here is that Cantwell had already won in absentia. He has said over and over again that he’s not advocating violence, he’s advocating a conversation about violence, and thanks in part to his writing that conversation happened at PorcFest. The panel included Larkin Rose, who echoed everything Cantwell would have contributed, as well as Carla Gericke, the president of the Free State Project.

In his enthusiasm to give the Tony Clifton performance, the Andy Kaufman half of Chris Cantwell lost sight of his own creed and violated his own principles. And while the attendees and organizers of PorcFest may see this in the theatrical spirit with which it was intended, the owners of Roger’s Campground did not. This transgression is admittedly minor, but for the unlimited defensive force crowd any transgression is sufficient. So, I am asking, as fan of the comedian, but not the joke, for Andy Kaufman to kill Tony Clifton.

* Correction made 7/11/14: I’ve been informed that the drunk driving incident occurred two years ago, and Cantwell attended one year ago.

Tags: ,

65 Responses to “When Should You Shoot Chris Cantwell?”

  1. Derrick JNo Gravatar says:

    Great analogy comparing Cantwell to Andy Kaufman and his character Tony Clifton. I can’t wait to see what he thinks of that.

  2. JgNo Gravatar says:

    It’s my understanding that his violent rhetoric only played a part in his ban. The other part being at a previous porcfest he became obnoxiously drunk, dangerously drove his car through campsites (while drunk), and threw beer bottles at those who tried to stop him.

  3. JFNo Gravatar says:

    I don’t think unlimited v. commensurate force is the issue. As you know, if you refuse to pay the salaries of government agents they try to cage you, and if you resist they kill you. You can’t resist them a little bit. Little girls trespassing on flower beds is different. Perhaps he was joking about that.

  4. Bob RobertsonNo Gravatar says:

    I believe the NAP provides a quick way to tell if an action is wrong, or could be right. Not “is right”.

    Someone trespassing is, by definition, “wrong”. Shooting them in response to that trespassing could be right, not “is right”.

    Rights exist because we live with other people. Society exists, social norms, social standards, and all that crap, limit what is and is not “right”. That’s why people have courts.

  5. DonnieNo Gravatar says:

    Love the discussion. Really love the analogy.

    “Threaten” is a soft, ambiguous word. By likening word to deed, I can’t help think this is like Hillary saying “Anyone who is a gun advocate is a terrorist”. Speech is not an act. A “threat” is more an emotion.

    In a philosophical sense, fine. Someone should philosophically shoot Chris. Feel free to philosophically shoot anyone at your own intelectual risk. I do not see how speech, directly or indirectly, violates the NAP.

    • DaveNo Gravatar says:

      Heard of politicians? They tend to never kill anyone, do they? Yet they somehow feel a bit related to the initiation of violence, on a rather massive scale.

      As your intelligence increases and you see how words make thoughts in others and turn into actions and that some people can identify the patterns of when words are intended to create aggression or threat of aggression, then you understand that some words ought to be included in any reasonable definition of aggression. Eventually, as some patterns of talk to aggression are unquestionably clear, there will be cases where it’s no different killing a talker than someone who is pointing a gun at you.

      • don duncanNo Gravatar says:

        You are ignoring the responsibility of each of us to decide what ideas we adopt and what actions we take. We are not robots who cannot resist a “call to act”. Those who do act must be responsible for their actions, not the speaker. There will always be a difference between speech and action, and that difference will vary according to the situation, context. The decision to kill based on mere speech puts the onus of proof on the killer that the act was done under irresistible influence of speech. How can that be proven? How could a third party know? I doubt it would ever be clear, or obvious. How can anyone know if a statement will be attributed to murder? No one can know what is in the mind of another, or if words are like a magic force, inducing violence. If a jury convicts a speaker, along with the actor, of murder, and death results, the mistake is permanent. No atonement can be made. It can’t be undone.
        Yet, the state has murdered (executed people for speech) based on the premise that their speech made them as guilty as the actual criminal actor. Is any speech safe under these circumstances? Is anyone?

  6. Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

    I don’t think Cantwell can be blamed for the actions of others. He said he wasn’t going to show up, hence there was no threat. If other people made false threats, the violation is on them.

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      That’s an excellent point. I have no direct evidence of orchestration between Cantwell and Gigi Bowman. Maybe the better question is whether threatening on someone else’s behalf is a transgression. I still think so, although on the part of Gigi Bowman, not Cantwell.

      There’s been a trend in our community here of phishing phone calls claiming to be from the FBI and NSA threatening to deport or imprison people unless they pay some fine over the phone. The caller of course has no power to actually deport or imprison, and the FBI and NSA are not involved in the call, but I would still say it’s a threat.

      • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

        NAP refers to aggression and threat thereof. Less obvious is how fraud is aggression, so let me explain. Aggression is the attempt to take what would not be given freely. Fraud is the attempt to take what would not be given freely. In the phony calls impersonating federal agents for example, a fraud was committed. The goal of the fraud may be to promote emotional empathy for the victims of the state, but the method is not moral, unless the people defrauded were inflicting pain, then the fraud would be defensive, i.e., reactive.

  7. There are too many falsehoods in this article for me to bother correcting. People who write about rumors, spread by liars, are just as bad as the liars themselves. You can read my positions, and comment on them intelligently, or you can spread the lies my detractors tell, and look like a fuckin asshole. It seems you’ve made your choice.

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      Welcome to the conversation, so glad you could join us. Don’t worry too much about correcting my errors. The collective effort of the readers are quickly handling all of that, and I bow to the facts. Your positions on paperclips and mailmen is not even the issue here. Whether you are right or wrong is not in dispute. Whether you apply those positions to yourself is.

      Only one fact matters to the argument. Gigi Bowman falsely announced that you would be speaking at 2 PM on Friday in her tent. As far as I know that fact is not in dispute.

      Now, Seth makes an excellent point above. So, if we can agree that threatening a transgression is a transgression, the question becomes did you help orchestrate this performance, or were Gigi Bowman and the others acting independently. I trust you not to dissemble, especially when this is the conversation you’ve been advocating all along.

      If the performance was at your orchestration I think you’d have to agree that threatening to appear where you were not welcome is a transgression.

      If the performance was not at your orchestration, I think it is in your interest, although not your obligation, to clarify when people are transgressing the NAP in your name.

      And even if, somehow, you take the position that threatening to trespass is not a transgression, certainly fraud is. Certainly we can agree that Gigi Bowman falsely claiming that a speaker as celebrated and controversial as you would be appearing in her tent is fraud.

      Now the question becomes, in your opinion, is it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to shoot someone who claims you will be appearing somewhere you won’t in an effort to sell buttons and baked goods? When is it time to shoot Gigi Bowman?

      As always, we’re talking about what is philosophically sound, not what is tactically sound. Obviously, no one is advocating shooting Gigi Bowman. We’re just having the conversation about force you’re always saying you want to have.

      • DonnieNo Gravatar says:

        Still not seeing how a threat(a warning that spawns an emotional response) is an objective, philosophically sound NAP violation. I agree your point hinges on that, as do the 2nd and 3rd order effects. I just have yet to see any logical presentation to the truth in this assertion.

        • “I’m going to shoot you in the face if you don’t hand me $10” is a threat of violence that violates the NAP.

          • DonnieNo Gravatar says:

            Waving a gun and doing so….yes.
            Ye olde hand in the pocket…..yes.
            Just saying it……. no.

            I appriciate the example. I see the assertion. I do not see an argument that a statement, alone, can violate the NAP. (Unwise, indeed. This conversation is well into the weeds.)

            • MeNo Gravatar says:

              What are you talking about? Coercion is clearly against the NAP.

              • DonnieNo Gravatar says:

                1 : to restrain or dominate by force  
                2 :  to compel to an act or choice
                3 :  to achieve by force or threat

                1. Clearly NAP violation, force used. Not exclusively verbal.
                2. How does one compel somone to do something without force? I take this to be akin to blackmail. Blackmail requires capitulation. If I have pics of you banging the nanny, I can’t compel you to act unless YOU decide that the offer of exposure vs my offer of X is worth it. It is a shitty situation, but still not force.
                3. This is what I was getting at above and in 2. Again, the force is not in question. “To ACHIEVE by threat”. If you tell me you will shoot me unless is give you 10$ and I tell you to fuck off, no coersion.

                My singular point, unless said threat is credible by a secondary, non-verbal act, I don’t think coersion(as described) can be achieved.

                • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

                  You have overlooked, or discounted deception. Compulsion can be achieved by the clever use of words, especially by an expert in psychology. For example, fear of mortality is used to promise eternal life in return for sacrifice. This is one of the biggest frauds for eons. And the loss of life is immeasurable. Almost all aggression starts with a lie, even war. Would you claim words alone can’t hurt? Words convey ideas. Ideas are what move the world, they precede action.

                  • DonnieNo Gravatar says:

                    By that metric, any factually or philosophically incorrect statement is an act of aggression.
                    A lie by omission is a common tactic in business. Huge difference between intentional fraud and someone not doing their homework. However, fraud requires more than a lie alone, if your homework is done.

                    Compel is a commonly misused word. It is synonymous with force. I am looking for cases where words, alone, force someone to do something.

                    I fully understand that one can be a bad actor. I, in no way condone flirting with this concept in reality. I am a firm believer in not being an asshole.
                    In the abstract, it seems an important divison. The DMZ of the NAP. =D

      • Kristen MeghanNo Gravatar says:

        The statement about what Gigi announced is false. She stated, and I wrote on the back of cards, that Cantwell would be at Gigi’s tent live from 2-4. No one from the Bowman tent ever stated he would be there physically in person, even when people asked, we just repeated he will be there live from 2-4. He was live on skype, no false statements were made, assumptions by others….yes.

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          One could make the point that it is subterfuge to say that someone is appearing live when they are appearing via Skype because people generally think of live as that person physically being there.

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          As for the drunk driving incident at PF, I suggest reading what Cantwell wrote which is linked below. On June 30, 2012 Cantwell posted an entry to FB in which he stated that he would like to apologize for driving reckless at PF and does not see driving drunk as ” an inherently bad thing”. He also stated that he potentially put activist in danger and it is unacceptable behavior.


        • Should say smug obviously.

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          Taking a swipe at someone’s name is a non-sequitur. What was the point of doing that? What is the relevance of what someone’s name is or if it was the name listed for them on their birth certificate or a nick name? Using that “tactic” imo undermines one’s arguments.

  8. VanmindNo Gravatar says:

    Great stuff, Mr. Barker, thanks,

    I have not followed that avatar’s antics, because yawn.

    “Someone exercising unlimited defensive force in a free society not only loses the bullet to save the paperclip, they risk all the social and economic loss that would result from almost everyone either openly ostracizing them, or simply avoiding them out of caution”

    Or simply killing them and accepting the accountability for such aggression. Pretty much what you hinted in the subtle title.

  9. Michael LeCompteNo Gravatar says:

    I do not see this as a NAP violation if the campground does not forbid people from coming onto the property wearing Cantwell masks. If they did not pay the entry fee to Roger’s or the registration desk, that would be a different issue. The threat to violate the property rights has to be sincere to be NAP violation. A bit of parody does not qualify in this case if Roger’s is ok with it.

  10. Jim BabbNo Gravatar says:

    I believe Gigi’s promotions said something like “Cantwell live at 2:00 pm.” The purpose was certainly to suggest that he would be there. Does Skype count as live? Maybe. Was this a threat to violate private property? Possibly. If so, was it Cantwell’s or Gigi’s violation?

    Perhaps the actual violation was the litter left on trees, that I thought was pretty funny.

    Anyway, great article.

  11. Gabriel J MitchellNo Gravatar says:

    Forgive me if i’m wrong, but shouldn’t the punishment match the crime? It would seem to me shooting some one for stealing a paper clip would be against the NAP as the force used is excessive and is therefor no longer defense but now aggression.

  12. Eddie DunneNo Gravatar says:

    Cantwell’s offenses the writer is referring to were two Porcfest’s ago and they were greatly exaggerated, and he returned to porcfest with open arms by the FSP gestapos the following year sober , a welcomed speaker and the winner of their lame talent show as well. The alleged drunk driving accusation were two years back as well so you should get your facts straight.

    Cantwell did not send in any of his supporters to put up flyers claiming he was going to be joining porcfest this year. Gigi Bowman was stopped at a checkpoint and harassed to get into the campground to satisfy the paranoid, golf cart cruising security of the FSP, and Gigi was shocked and appalled by all of this and Gigi and company did what any sane individual would do when they find themselves in an insane environment, they joked around about it.

    The staff at Rogers Campground had no issue with Cantwell on any occasion that he attended the campsite and they do not have issue with him today.
    Once again, the FSP is manufacturing lies about Cantwell and Bowman. Just as they misled many by claiming they banned Josie Wales and Larken Rose.

    Get your facts straight.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Cantwell stated on The Adam vs The Man Show that he had the flyers and posters sent to Porcfest. He also said that he told people at PF to keep the rumor that he was there going. See: http://youtu.be/P9iG1OLVPns#t=9m

      • Eddie DunneNo Gravatar says:

        Yes, but that is after the fact that he learned that there were checkpoints administered acquiring about Chris’s whereabouts. He was simply responding to their bs just like he does with anyone else who wishes to attack him.

  13. KeithNo Gravatar says:

    New Hampshire is so amazing. Even with Cantwell now as one of the over 1.3 million people in New Hampshire, it still rocks. Why does it rock? Well, here are 101 reasons why. http://freestateproject.org/101Reasons

  14. The Real LTNo Gravatar says:

    Chris “Can To” Cantwell: It is time to quote Tony Montana (from Scarface) now.

  15. Bill BochynskiNo Gravatar says:

    Dear Davi:

    Sorry, Davi, this piece fails on too many levels. I enjoy your artwork, but this one’s an “F.”

    “Sticks and stones may break my bones . . . ”

    Bill Bochynski

  16. Kristen MeghanNo Gravatar says:

    I personally talked to Rogers Campground female manager and 3 desk workers. They stated no one is banned from their site, there is no list.

    This whole thing is funny to me.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      He is banned from FSP events including those at Porcfest. Anyone including Cantwell
      can camp at Rogers during Porcfest but only those who paid to attend Porcfest events
      can attend those events. Porcfest is not Rogers Campground. Also one can attend
      Alt Expo events without attending Porcfest because Alt Expo is not Porcfest or the FSP.

    • Izziah MandelbaumNo Gravatar says:

      Kristen Megan, as a “scientist” who says peer review is “bullshit”, I don’t know if you’re a credible source on any topic… but I have never seen such a gathering of group-thinking, blinders-wearing, incomprehensibly un-self-aware morons as those who attach themselves, remora-like, to the filthy, pasty underbelly of Chris Cantwell… who himself is a scrap-stealing bottom-feeder who tries to ride the coattails of others’ hard work by presenting himself as the antithesis to the successful liberty movement’s thesis.

      You sick, sad, unoriginal bastards.

      • Nikki DarlingNo Gravatar says:

        The owner of Rogers said he backed the FSP’s decision to not allow Cantwell on the property. It’s likely that not all of the staff was informed. Call the owner yourself before you spread false claims.

      • Kristen MeghanNo Gravatar says:

        You have fun using quotes to give me titles, lol. Peer review is complete BS. How many peer reviews said asbestos containing material was safe prior to 1980? How many peer reviewed studies contradict each other? Have people in your career field took bribes to be silent or be bias in a study? Well, it is prevalent! Nice try though, its cute.

  17. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    I usually am indifferent or just don’t care much for the entries that have been written by Davi Barker that have posted to this site. I do however agree with what Barker has written about Cantwell in this particular entry. I think the Tony Clifton analogy is a good one. I am an advocate of the No Asshole Rule. Cantwell claims to be an asshole and I take him at his word that he is and I have reasons to believe that he is. If you are not familiar with the NO Asshole Rule it is something that is advocated by Professor Robert Sutton of Stanford who wrote the best selling book: The No Asshole Rule . I like Professor Sutton believe that organizations should not tolerate assholes in their organization.

    No Assholes allowed: http://youtu.be/bKOtdkJRtr0

    No Asshole Rule: http://youtu.be/_LdSB-udpco

    • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

      I agree completely H.R. This comes up rarely but it needs to be addressed. A person may be a consistent libertarian, voluntaryist, not minarchist or limited govt. But an emotional instability is demonstrated by inappropriate outbursts which distract everyone from the issue at hand and taint the discussion. It can be very embarrassing for all. Whatever the personal psychological problems involved, when they obscure the exchange of ideas, the person must take responsibility for his situation and withdraw and get help, resolving the issue, or he should be ostracized. I have seen the result of not doing so, over years. It becomes worse, not better, spreading pain and embarrassment all around.

  18. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    Cantwell in a FB entry on June 30. 2012 stated that he would like to apologize for driving
    recklessly at PF. He stated that he does see drinking and driving as “inherently bad things”.
    He stated that he put activists in potential danger and that it was unacceptable behavior.


  19. Rich PaulNo Gravatar says:

    Great article, and like Cantwell’s speach, it does make one think about the limits of the NAP and the ideas behind it and how to build a just society. Both you and Cantwell rock for making people think about these questions using humor, reducio ad absurdum (sp? My latin is awful), and satire. I hope that both of you will keep it up. And I wish I’d been able to get to PorcFest and wear a Chris Cantwell mask. I was very much opposed to banning him, but I think that the activists who wore his masks (how many times have you tried to “send” an anarchist to do what you wanted them to do, and how did it work out for you?) make the point that the banning was absurd well.

  20. The Real LTNo Gravatar says:

    Where can I get a Chris Cantwell mask?

  21. Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

    I saw Adam’s interview with Chris on the “paper clip” issue. Chris was trying to separate theory and practice. He oversimplified. Also, he tried to hedge his bet, i.e., emphasize the impracticalness of the so-called moral action of killing someone over a paper clip.

    Morality and practicality are not opposed. If it is moral, it is practical. When a contradiction seems to arise, a mistake has been made. The clip is a good example. Killing over the clip would not be a rational act, even if the theft was done as an overt act in defiance of NAP. You may say a principle was involved. And principles must be upheld at all cost. But what are ethical principles for? Ethics is to promote life. Does this killing do that? How could it? It takes a life, and puts the life of the killer in danger. This is a lose-lose.

    Chris sensed his vulnerability on his position but instead of rethinking it or just saying “I am uncomfortable with this, but I stand by it.”, he became angry and used the ad hominem attack, e.g., calling his opponent an asshole. His manner was rude, uncivil, and totally uncalled for with a fellow libertarian who was being respectful.

  22. We don’t need to limit ourselves to the original FSP anymore. I just created FSP 2.0

    http://412libertarian.com/we-deserve-better-introducing-free-stat e-project-2-0-part-1-why-fsp-2-0/

    • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

      Interesting stuff, thanks, although this avatar is more into “No State” (h/t to Marc Stevens). Guessing here that the 412 Libertarian avatar also leans toward an-cap, and uses the term “FSP 2.0” as a bit of a well-deserved dig.

      It is laughable, in any case, whenever individuals or groups of individuals try to maximize the strength of socialism in 49 of 50 states while simultaneously offering jackboots a handy down-range target for concentrated firepower.

      Does anyone listen any more to Cheap Talk Live?

      • I am 100% with you on the whole no state thing. I started this project mainly to spark debate and maybe add some heslthy free market competition to the FSP. It could just as easily be called NAPland (non aggression principle land). It is not a plan to have people add their name to an email list, wait for 10,000 others to pledge, and then maybe within a decade move to Wyoming. It is much better than that, much more dynamic. It does not conform to government defined borders. I am also more than open to changing the name at a later date, or, hell, right now if that’s what it takes.

        By using the FSP “brand” I do several things. One, I take a swipe at them. Two, I do what they accused CC of doing. I piggyback off their almighty “brand.” Three, I’m no lawyer, but I believe the FSP has everything they do under the creative commons 3.0, which I think entitles people to use it as they see fit, even for commercial purposes. Even if they somehow get pissed off and sue me or something, that would be fine by me. It would further expose them as enemies of true freedom, only concerned with libertarianism if it adheres to their own little brand and their corner of New Hampshire. Fuck that. We need competition. They aren’t the only game in town anymore. I don’t care if I do it alone. I will expose them for what they are, and if I do it right, I will cause them to take a damn long look in the mirror and improve themselves. I want to force their hand to innovate, adapt, or die as an organization. If they make changes, let CC back in, redefine themselves a bit, then all the better. Somehow I doubt they will. Gotta protect “the brand,” after all.

        I agree with you again, if they only want to concentrate liberty in one state, screw that. Too easy to target them there, both physically but also politically. If they are hostile to competing free state concepts, again, this will only further serve my purpose of exposing them for what they are. If not, healthy competition can only benefit us. Even if I totally fail with FSP 2.0, at least we had the conversation. At least I sparked some new thoughts. At least I hopefully forced the FSP to reevaluate what it is doing and what it stands for. And I am no worse off for it. I am ready to innovate, adapt, or die. Is the FSP? Let’s find out.

        As for free talk live, I listened to a bit with Cantwell last night. If he’s not on anymore then I won’t listen. I can’t remember if he is allowed or not. Who can tell these days.

        • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

          Great thoughts, thanks for sharing with the hoi polloivatar.

          This avatar seems to remember the FSP saying some good things about other projects out there, specifically about one effort in Wyoming or Montana or somewhere like that. Good things as in “We’re ok with you choosing some other project like that but we’d appreciate you considering NH.”

          Fair enough. Pass, and pass.

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          Why don’t you simply move to Asheville, NC and become a member of the Blue Ridge Liberty Project?


    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      One of the criticisms of the FSP you have is drama. Drama is unavoidable and particularly so when there is
      an asshole(s) in an organization. People have disagreements and personality conflicts. Drama in any organization is par for the course. The FSP btw does not run candidates for political offices or advocates participation in elections. The purpose of the FSP is to persuade people who support liberty to move to NH.
      There are FSP members who live in NH and do not participate in elected politics and do not even vote in political races.

  23. Davi Barker comes off as a sniveling little snitch who seems ready to single-handedly preserve statism within the hard-fought anarchist space by way of pedantic little cross examinations of so-called thin libertarian “anarcho-capitalist criminals”.

    “so glad you could join us”

    Don’t include me in your us. What Seth King sees in you, I’m unsure. Spare me your fake humility and hallucinated burdens of centrally commanded editorial leadership.

    When you have to say things like “as the editor of Daily Anarchist” to impart relevance and gravitas to your mewlings, you betray knowing your dissertation is ludicrous and on extremely shaky philosophical ground.

    When Carla Gericke has to say things like “as the president of the Free State Project” to impart relevance and gravitas to her gonzo statist “we speak” speech of why “she had to ban Cantwell” we know she’s likewise gone way off the rails.

    Principled voluntarist market conduct is the only hope of forming a compelling and undeniable freedom environment that people will proudly participate in and non-participants will respect and allow to survive.

    It’s is time to take a principled stand against any who dare to speak in the “royal we” monarchist plural. Shoot them a nasty comment each and every time you see someone allegedly in authority dare to commit this outrage to anarchy.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Since you strike me as someone who believes they are an authority on Anarchy I will take your advised and post a “nasty” comment directed at you. So glad you could join us.

    • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

      As an individualist anarchist since 1954 I find myself using the “royal we” sometimes. I hate that. It shows a collectivist mentality. And it shows how the cultural propaganda we are drowning in seeps into our consciousness. That is why voluntaryists should socialize. It is a counter to the insane dominate culture. If direct personal socialization is not possible, constant communication is the next best thing.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        Is that correct and not a typo- 1954? If that is the case you probably didn’t know of very many Individualist Anarchist back then. Did you identify as an Individualist Anarchist in 1954 or just an Anarchist? I make a point not to say “we” or “us” unless I am personally part of the “we” or “us”. I make an effort to not say things like OMG being a strong Atheist but I still find myself at times using the word god. I have tried replaces the word god with the word science- i.e. OMS.

        ” The world is drowning in a sea of self-sacrifice; it is the very self that must not be sacrificed.”

        – Gail Wynand ( The Fountainhead)

        • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

          Yes, 1954. I was twelve. I became an atheist at 8. I was living in a ghetto and witnessed gang violence frequently. My best (only) friend was attacked in front of my house for no reason except the three thugs were jealous of his popularity. That incident got me thinking about the nature of violence. I could see racial prejudice was not a fundamental cause. The gangs were a small example of a general attitude found in society. The biggest gang being the govt. I had quit my job rather than pay tax on my income to thugs. I went into business for myself mowing lawns. After months of pondering the source of violence I came to the conclusion that it was the result of people who believed it was moral to “push other people around”. That was the exact phrase I used in my mind to explain war, which I saw as gang violence on a large scale. I considered this belief as the fundamental cause of suffering. I did not hear the word “anarchist” until later, and then I had a name for my disgust with government. I was always a loner, with never more than one friend at a time. At 13 I read “The Communist Manifesto” and recognized it was anti-individual. That alone made it unacceptable to me. But since I was the only one I knew who was an archchist/atheist I wondered if I was crazy or from another planet. I did not find someone I could agree with philosophically until Jan 1, 1966 when I read “The Virtue of Selfishness”.

    • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

      It’s more worrisome in cyberspace, with avatars pretending to exist online as real people simply because they happen to display a meatspace name. Forget the royal “we,” even using the term “I” becomes psychosis-inappropriate.

      Too many real people are digesting the metaphorical blue pill, volunteering to become e-simulacra, actually embracing roles in the matrix. Recall the movie Happy Gilmore and the appearance by Bob Barker as himself. What if Barker went on after the movie to pretend that he actually was the character “him” that he portrayed alongside Sandler, going around off the set and beating up people for being as useless as Sandler is in real life? Indeed, the separation of actors from their roles is important to their mental health, so any actors who portray themselves in a fictional production must by necessity go over the top with self-lampooning.

      The reverse is every “bit” as bad, insisting that virtual environments are real places where real people interact. Losing one’s sense of identity is becoming easier and easier, almost as though it’s been scripted to unfold in such a manner.

      Uploading audio/video files or text-based articles is one thing, using VoIP to talk with someone is one thing — but any semblance of interactivity through comments, forum posts, or other text-based “social media” is one short NWO push away from becoming bot-driven. If it’s interactive in terms of a person thinking they’re interacting with other people (without hearing their voice or seeing their face), then that person is a target for automation fraud, for being trapped within the nascent matrix. If it’s interactive in terms of a person thinking they’re interacting with applications or videos, then that person has become a transhumanist lunatic, has already become trapped within the nascent matrix. Keep in mind that there’s a big difference between using an application and pretending that an application is engaging you — it is the difference between lucidity and psychosis. Keep in mind as well that virtual reality is merely a decade or two away from being able to trick people consistently with artificial voices and digitized appearances, after which only the “wetware” ports between machine and brain will remain for the closing of the mature matrix’s trap door.

      So ‘fess up, all you avatars out there that are just Agent Smiths in disguise. As for any real people who might be out there: stop drooling over the Skinner Box “likes” that the NWO, considering you to be a sucker, already Pavlov-programmed into your behavior pattern. As you stare down at your idiotphone’s “social app” screen, you are attempting to project your psyche into another reality. Don’t let your idiotphone outsmart you.

      • Boo hoo, the proles are absorbed in their smart devices, they invent new personas there, some even go so far as to deny the supremacy of meatspace. How dare they pursue an existence without society’s permission.

        How am I supposed to get others to live for me if they won’t even submit to the decree that there is but one true reality, one true reality to rule them all.

        • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

          Ha. Spoken like an imbecilic Tor user.

          • You’re quite the motivational speaker. A cautionary tale of what happens to your MIND when you’re living in a VAN down by the river.


            You’re comments are always a good read, I enjoy them immensely. Of course, you should never shoot anyone, unless in self-defense in the heat of the moment. A true anarchist is also against caging anyone. Regardless of the aggression, there should always be another chance for redemption and repayment. Living in freedom requires all men living in as much freedom as is practible.

  24. When there is no Chris Cantwell. There is no one to shoot. What if each day, we got up and performed an algorithm, and assigned ourselves a new temporary, unique bitname.

    And this is who you became. No way to assign yesterdays crimethink to anyone. No way for anyone else to know today’s bitname unless you cared to share it.

    Your homesteaded property is still secure, since only you have the key to your previous bitnames. And that property is still owned by the homesteading bitname unless assigned to another..

    No way to call you forth for subpoena. Or to single you out for incarceration. Or to select you for service in war.

    Any organisms without names imposed from without already enjoy anarchy. Yet still they can cooperate and engage in spontaneous order as they wish.

    Anarchy is easy to summon. Seek it. Demand it. Sustain it. There it is.

  25. Kyle ReardenNo Gravatar says:

    Well, the issue of this case is whether or not there should be a proportionality of force. As Cantwell himself has written, he believes that such proportionality is madness, and I think that is the impasse his detractors meant to highlight, albeit implicitly.

    Also, I find it quite humourous that Cantwell is considered here to be threatening trespass, yet anarchists (generally speaking) don’t see illegal aliens as trespassers.