No True Anarchist

April 6th, 2015   Submitted by Davi Barker

EvolutionToday I received a message through the Contact Page which said simply,

“Anarchy is, by definition, the absence of hierarchy; Capitalism extols hierarchy, so the wedding of the two is nonsensical.”

People send me drivel like this fairly regularly, but there’s been a spike in the last few weeks, so I think it’s time to dispel some rumors about Daily Anarchist, and anarchy generally.

Daily Anarchist publishes more than anarcho-capitalist articles. The founder, Seth King identifies as an anarcho-capitalist, and credit to him for the forethought to homestead the url, and put it to productive use. At my core, I identify as an anarcho-kritarchist, a term so obscure I should probably commit an entire article to it. I discussed it briefly in, “The Law According To The Somalis.” I remain mindful that terms like “socialism” and “capitalism” mean different things to different people, and I strive to get to the root of what a person means, rather than getting caught up on the terms they chose to use.

As the editor, I aim to balance the scales by scouting writers from every artery and capillary of anarchist thought. It just so happens that, for reasons I don’t fully understand, I have great difficulty finding competent writers that cover the left anarchist perspective. But we have a few. Gyorgy Furiosa and Austin Scott come to mind.

I actually give preferential treatment to left anarchists. Every time I receive these complaints I invite the person to review our submissions guidelines and contribute an entire article, or several, more fully expressing their objections to anarcho-capitalism. The vast majority never respond to the invitation, and if they do I devote far more time and energy to their submissions than others. The trouble seems to be that Daily Anarchist maintains a high editorial standard. I will not publish something as simplistic as “Anarchy is X” without some exposition. Whether or not I agree doesn’t matter. I frequently publish things I find wrongheaded and foolish. I don’t use the editorial process to censor, but to ensure that complex ideas remain comprehensible to those who do not share the writer’s bias or background knowledge. We respect the intelligence or our readers too much to feed them commonly parroted rhetoric.

“Anarchy is, by definition, the absence of hierarchy” resembles sentiments often spoken by anarchists that I find wrongheaded and foolish, but frequently publish. The statement contains two appeals to hierarchy; “by definition” and “anarchy is.”

To assert, without qualifier, what anarchy is gives what is dominance over what is not. It requires a hierarchy of value to assert that the true should dominate the false, and that the true speaker has the authority to correct the false listener. Is, and all forms of the verb be, produce potential confusion. As anarchist thinker Robert Anton Wilson put it:

Is, is, is. The idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don’t know what anything is; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.”

For more on why, and how is can be avoided, read up on the language English-Prime, which increases scientific accuracy by excluding all forms of is.

By definition, anarchy is chaos and disorder. By other definitions, anarchy is the absence of government. Definition cannot even occur without hierarchy. Which definition has authority, and who has the authority to define? Does etymology dominate usage, or does usage dominate etymology? It has always seemed like hubris to me when left anarchists act like they own the word “anarchy,” and have the exclusive authority to define it. They imagine that a self-referential network of websites and publications allows them to legislate dissenting opinion out of the conversation, as if anarchy has some central depository of official definitions that has deputized them as enforcers. I searched and couldn’t find a single dictionary, or anyone other than left anarchists, defining anarchy as the absence of hierarchy. Let’s examine that.

The linguist examines roots and prefixes. The common Greek root arkhos means “ruler,” but the prefixes an, and hiero have divergent meanings. The Greek an means simply “without.” An-Arkhos, “without rulers,” simple enough. An anarchist should reject any arkhos, whether it’s a monarchy, a patriarchy, or a hierarchy. (Before you get on my case for identifying as a kritarchist you should know that it derives from the Greek krito, meaning “justice,” and archè, meaning “principle.” Pesky things, words.)

So, what does the prefix “hier” add? It mostly further confuses the issue. The Greek hiero means “sacred,” as in the term hierophant, which meant a priest in Ancient Greece. Hierarchia, originally meant “The ranked division of angels.”

If we give dominance to etymology over usage, anarchists have no use for this word. Not many angels breathing down our necks. But if we give dominance to usage, the meaning “ranked division” becomes relevant. Anarchy means the absence of rulers, and hierarchy means the division of rulers from the laypublic. So, anarchy rejects hierarchy for ruling, but not for division. Anarchy does not categorically reject division.

Capitalism, by some definitions, extols hierarchy. Such capitalists do not make it through my editorial process. I will not publish words tolerant of minarchy, or city states. Neither will I publish words tolerant of mixed economies or a dictatorship of the proletariat. We publish anarchist words, by anarchists, for anarchists. But by other definitions, specifically those set out by anarcho-capitalists, capitalism extols the division of labor, not the rule of capital.

Tags: , ,

75 Responses to “No True Anarchist”

  1. VanmindNo Gravatar says:

    Nice, refreshing breeze of cyber-air, like hitting F5 on the brain’s keyboard. The typical self-styled philosopher king does indeed love hierarchy, precisely because self-styled philosopher kings pretend to have descended from the stars.

    Capital, of course, doesn’t rule anything at all, but should anarchists publish only for other anarchists?

  2. macsnafuNo Gravatar says:

    Yes, the anti-hierarchy people can be irritating. And you already mentioned division of labor, itself a form of hierarchy. A simpler example that even the left-anarchists should understand is the example of any private, voluntary club or organization. How could they function without hierarchy? Somebody has to be in charge of the treasury, for example, while somebody probably ought to record the minutes of the meetings. And somebody probably ought to run the meetings, to make them go smoother. And then there will be particular projects or activities that the organization may handle or operate.

    In short, hierarchy can be voluntary or involuntary. Only the latter is contrary to anarchism.

    • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

      Yes, thanks for mentioning private versus pretense of public. There is, obviously, no such thing as “public” anything — so any recommendation to establish a hierarchy by-the-public-for-the-public constitutes fraud.

      A private business remains a private business, even if it leaves its front doors open either literally or figuratively. If it’s willing to risk bankruptcy, a private business can hierarchy-up itself as much as it wants (e.g. “The Christian God is my ultimate boss so I can’t make that wedding cake for you two same-genders”). A “public space,” by way of contrast, is something that bureaucracy pretends to own by way of “public investment” (known in the real world as plunder), and its “official” security goons will keep out anyone who doesn’t fit the bureaucracy’s definition of hierarchical obedience (e.g. try open-carrying a firearm & recording device into a so-called courthouse or try traversing a so-called National Park without authorization from The People which somehow doesn’t include you — indeed somehow doesn’t include anyone who isn’t on the bureaucratic payroll).

      Corporations are a good example of misguided people targeting the wrong “bad guy.” Corporations are no different than any other organizational template for enabling cooperative effort among individuals, so get rid of “public” archy and make corporations — all businesses — compete based on merit to consumers rather than letting them ride the legalese coattails by which more & more producers pretend to be in a position to dominate consumers.


      Domination’s the name of the game
      In bed or in life
      They’re all just the same
      Except in one you’re fulfilled
      At the end of the day

      Let’s play …

      • JohnNo Gravatar says:

        Lots of tricky questions for you – I seriously am just trying to learn.

        “””There is, obviously, no such thing as “public” anything”””

        Suppose we get a society where nothing is public, and, therefore, … everything is private (I suppose)? What does that look like? What does it mean to own something, specifically a chunk of land? Can one own the moon? The antarctic? The Mariana trench? An iceberg? What does it take to start owning something that was not previously “owned”? Do dolphins/bears/pigs/monkeys/whales/etc. get property rights? Why not?

        Do you get water/mineral rights as well as airspace rights along with it? Does sound / light / smell reaching your property count as trespassing?

        Can something be private-public, where someone buys a chunk of land and turns it into a “public park” – allows trespassing for free, but disallows farming, litter, construction, pollution?

        • macsnafuNo Gravatar says:

          I can’t answer all of your questions, but it should be obvious that a retail store or a restaurant are still private places, even if the public is invited to them, which simply means that people you don’t know (in addition to people you do know) are welcome on your property. Thus you could also do private parks where the public is invited, but must abide by the rules of the park.

        • macsnafuNo Gravatar says:

          As I said before, I can’t answer all your questions. But this is where a good legal system would come into play. Locke’s idea of “mixing your labor” is merely a start towards acquiring unowned resources, but far from comprehensive. Obviously, anyone can “claim” anything, be it Antarctica, the moon, or Mars. But the claim is meaningless unless other people accept and recognize the claim. So the burden of proof is upon the claimant to show that he has done *something* meaningful to make it a valid claim, say that he actually has access to the claim (if the claimant can’t get to Mars, how can he claim the planet or any part of it?), and that he actually has started making some use or has the ability to make use of the resource.

          If he has an overly-broad claim, it can still be challenged by others. If, for example, someone claims the entire planet of Mars, and let’s say he has some validity for the claim: he can actually travel to Mars, and he’s set up a small base on Mars for mining, research, etc. that covers a few square miles. One challenge would be for other people to travel to Mars and utilize other parts of the planet. How would he be able to defend his claim? If he used physical force, the others could legitimately use physical force to defend themselves. If he asked a ‘Space Ranger’ or some other law enforcement agency to defend his property, they would have to accept his claim to the entire planet as legitimate before they would take action against the others. If he took the others to court, then he would have to defend his claim to the judge and to the public.

          Alternately, other people could take the claimant to court and require him to defend his claim to a judge and to the public. Any way you look at it, simply making a claim isn’t enough–the claimant has to justify the claim in some way that is acceptable to other people. I, personally, do not know what would be an acceptable justification, as that depends on circumstances such as the type and extent of the claim, and what other people affected by the claim (which may or may not include me) think about the claim and the claimant’s justification.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            mac, the concept of mixing one’s labor to show ownership is also valuable for taking back ill gotten goods from those who use society’s power to steal, i.e. oligarchs. If squatting or homesteading became socially acceptable we could get out of the present horror story of 85% of all wealth in the USA being controlled by the top quintile and a huge part of the west owned by the government.

    • DaveNo Gravatar says:

      Good point. This is the heart of the matter – voluntary vs. forced. Anarchists should support someone acting similar to a slave as long as everything is voluntary.

      • macsnafuNo Gravatar says:

        This is incoherent, Dave. So you say that if someone is a member of their local gardening club, for example, which has a hierarchical structure, then that person is acting like a slave?

        • DaveNo Gravatar says:

          Not at all. I’m simply saying that as long as all actions are voluntary, then whatever they resemble to someone else is not relevant. Someone on the outside may see slavery, but this is of no matter.

  3. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    Interesting essay, Davi. I’m old. Oh, wait! In keeping with E-Prime, which appears logical to me, I’ll change that statement to, “I may seem to you to be gettin’ up there”… (How does octogenarianism grab ya?).

    Anyhow, my kids enforced compooterization upon me some ten or perhaps fifteen years ago now. Guess they felt I was being too much a pain in the arse with my anti-government expostulations. Also they might have felt I’d get a wider variation of ideas — and perhaps mellow a bit — once I learned to “surf” (now “google”) the web. If that’s the case, I suspect their guess was somewhat accurate. How’m I doin’ so far?

    For one thing, they couldn’t understand why I had such difficulty jumping onto Ron Paul’s bandwagon with enthusiasm and zeal. I did “grandpa duty” while they encircled the known earth with his “election committee”, and was cordial with Dr. & Mrs Paul and their family when we visited. But I would try to explain that I am an anarchist (it would have been more in keeping with the realm of E-Prime to show them I tend to lean into the direction of anarchy — sort of like that Quixote fellow with windmills, I suppose), and that no, I won’t “vote” and I won’t allow signs to be posted in my yard endorsing political candidates — any political candidate for any “election”.

    Never understood “left” (vs “right”???) anarchy, or “anarcho-kritarchy” or any of the other more-or-less exotic “archys”. I know it’s been around a year ago since I posted my list here, that I had started some ten years ago, of the various “archys” promulgated by all the shmexperts on the topic at the many, many anarchist-leaning web pages. It has grown to over 112 “archys” now, so it makes a rather lengthy comment.

    Not a few of my anarchist friends rue the day when I stumbled across the late Delmar England’s “Insanity As the Social Norm“, but I like the way he identified the situation with the various “archys”:

    “…ANARCHISM IDENTIFIES the coercion of the State as the main hindrance to freedom and liberty. Yet most anarchists fail to break free from the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth. How is this, and what value is there to anarchism if it is simply a no-State hierarchical blueprint for society? The influence of the corrupted mind and in-the-box thinking on anarchist theory is the main target of analysis in this essay. How deep is this corruption in our thinking and to what extent does it impinge on the way we see the world, anarchists and statists alike?…”

    I recommend the essay, but I gotta warn you: it’s long, hard to read a times, (primarily because England smites the noses off your idols). Therefore, Delmar England died rather in what might be defined as ignominy — like virtually all truly accurate anarchist editors.

    Anarchy, by it’s very nature (woops, anti-E-Prime) defies gurus.

    And that, my friend, is perhaps why finding truly great anarchist writers is like locating the proverbial flea on a shaggy dog. Here’s an excellent (IMHO) article I researched while thinking of a comment for your nice essay. It was written by Mark Davis, who has become a good cyber-friend — an ordinary guy with an ordinary job and an ordinary family.

    Here’s perhaps the best general outline of observable anarchy. But, once again, John Hasnas may make it seem too simple for complicated thinkers.

    I have a 5 year-old great granddaughter who is probably the most astute anarchist of us all. She tells it like it is, and doesn’t worry about where the chips fall. Sam

    • JohnNo Gravatar says:

      I remember you wrote about how you told your “Paul-tard” relatives to get off your lawn. Can you define what you mean by “your lawn” and what the exact 3D boundaries of it are. It is supposed to be a deep question.

      • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

        Sorry, John — I missed this query and now a week or two have lapsed and I didn’t mean to fluff you off.

        I tend to lean to the simple. There’s an old saying down at AA: “don’t let the bastards get you down!” I tend to follow that principle.

        I came into the world naked as a jay-bird and owned nothing. That’s the way I’ll go out. So the stuff I have on is a gift, as well as the items hanging in the closet. Not that I didn’t put forth some effort to acquire the duds, mind you — it’s just that if I were to die today (g-d forbid) the clothes would remain hanging in the closet. My kids would then have to expend some of their energy clearing all that junk away, knowing that when the ultimate time comes for them to die they’ll leave stuff hanging in the closet also. And on and on it goes.

        I steer clear of anarchist theory — poppycock in my opinion. If I were to concern myself with the white man’s legal system I suppose I would have to say the borders to my “property” are considered to be out in the middle of the street. So, if you were to drive by my place you’d be on “my property” as you went by. As long, that is, as I give the white man some baksheesh now and again so that I can continue to claim it as “mine”. And over there (wherever “there” is) is my “property line” — if you dig around you might locate copper survey stakes. The stakes are meaningless, but they look important, and that’s what counts.

        There is no such thing as “jurisdiction”. There are only loaded firearms. I always believe the man (or woman, l-rd have mercy!) with a loaded gun.

        Anarchy is fun. I am a sovereign state. As such, I get by quite well. My borders are defined as where I place my butt. So, if I walk into the McDonald’s down the street from your house and put my butt on one of their chairs, please don’t come in and ask me to move. Soon as I’m finished eating I’ll get up and you can put your butt on the chair, and it will become your “border”.

        I’m sad at times when I have to witness friends and acquaintances whine and moan and gnash teeth and sometimes get themselves shot up over the white man’s conflicts in places with names like “Ukraine”. And his theft of their hard earned “property” (which they, too, will leave hanging in closets when they die — that which the white man doesn’t abscond with first). But if you pledge allegiance to the white man (he likes to represent himself with graven images called “flags”), you will get caught up in his wars.

        Because war is the health of the state.

        I wish you and all your family and friends and neighbors would abstain from beans — for the sake of your borders and mine. But I can’t make that happen.

        And if you’re concerned or upset with my use of “the white man” as the representation of that mindless abstraction called “government”, I’m only keeping with the tradition of our old and late friend, Russell Means — and all his predecessors, who generally didn’t observe “borders”, but came brutally to see that the white man did, and would not hesitate to take theirs and them alike. Sam

  4. Foo QuuxmanNo Gravatar says:

    Interestingly enough I just wrote a short rant on this subject yesterday. And then as I started typing this post one of the vagabonds showed up in an IRC channel I admin on…

    I wonder what the spike is from.

  5. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    Anarchy means without rulers. Thus terms like Christian Anarchist are an oxymoron because if one believes that there is an ultimate ruler of the universe they are not an Anarchist. Those who are Muslim tend to be theocratic so you don’t really hear them claiming to Anarchists. Sure there are always a few but seriously it would seem that those two things are not compatible and to claim otherwise is futile. Those who claim otherwise should accept that reality that one can not believe there are no rulers and believe that there is an ultimate ruler of the universe at the same time. One can not embrace an autocratic and theocratic ideology and claim to be for freedom at the same time. Btw, I consider myself a Voluintaryist, Anarch-Captalist, and Panarchist. I am consistent in my views and I am an Atheist.

    • JohnNo Gravatar says:

      Speaking of Christian anarchists, could Christian Grey be one? Could Anastasia “Ana” Steele? So what that she signed a weird anti-freedom contract? In some Anacap societies it may be reasonable to sign an anti-freedom contract allowing private right enforcement agencies to arrest you based on suspicion of a murder.

    • STLICTXNo Gravatar says:

      That’s only true if your conception of God is ‘man writ large’; if God is both immanent and transcendent, if everything that exists or can be conceived of is part of the ‘mind of god’, then this would be compatible with anarchism; in fact, it would support it because what right does one part of god have to compel another part of God? The same applies with such as ideas as life having a non-local component(which psi studies seem to give evidence towards, though admittedly there is no scientific consensus on the meaning of the statistically significant results that always show in meta-analyses), and so all life being deeply interconnected and ‘at one’ on a fundamental level… this idea is deeply threatening to standard ideas of property but is very compatible with anarchism, and gives the same reason for it; why would you be so stupid as to try to coerce another part of yourself?

      Both of these interpretations also shed new light upon the commandments of Jesus to “Love your neighbour as yourself, and love God with your whole heart and mind”, even while not being very compatible with standard Christian theology.

  6. Nikos SakkasNo Gravatar says:

    Very stimulating text!! I’ m fed up myself receiving at my fb page nonsense comments that anarcho- capitalism is a sort of a banker’s trick, etc.

    I don’t see how simple division of labor can by itself really result to hierarchy. I see hierarchy as linked to command and control; so if some record the minutes and others manage the treasury why would this ever qualify as hierarchy?

    This said, I totally agree with the idea that involuntary hierarchy is fundamentally contrary to anarchism.

    I have striven a lot to create a professional environment that is free of hierarchy; self motivated, self driven, self managing people. I am very happy seeing that this flat model is possible and that it is even more effective. I am sad to see I can’ t push this practice beyond a certain size threshold; if you grow beyond a point, hierarchies become more effective; so says my tiny, little experience. Sometimes I feel like living in in 100 BC and having to bear with, maybe unavoidable those days, rampant slavery around you. At least I have managed to set my slaves free and still benefit from it.

    At the end I think “big sizes” are not (yet? favorable to our hierarchy-free case. I am trying to put together some thoughts on the relationship between size, effectiveness and hierarchies, hoping they will get through Davi’s tough standards.

    Last, a small comment; ruler in ancient Greek is “archon” not “archos”

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      “Archon” is the noun form of the root word “archos.” At least that’s how it looks here: =0

    • JohnNo Gravatar says:

      “””At the end I think “big sizes” are not (yet? favorable to our hierarchy-free case. I am trying to put together some thoughts on the relationship between size, effectiveness and hierarchies, hoping they will get through Davi’s tough standards.”””

      Here is some food for thought. Warning: it is 44 minutes long, but totally worth it!

      If the root of our economic problem is the tendency toward centralized, globalist bureaucracies (like the EU and the WTO and the IMF and the World Bank) why does anyone believe the solution will be centralized, globalist bureaucracies (like the BRICS Bank and the EEU and the AIIB)? Today we look at a truly paradigm-shattering civilization-wide change taking place right now that has the potential to undermine the status quo: the peer-to-peer economy.

      Solutions: The Peer-to-Peer Economy

      • akrummNo Gravatar says:

        The peer-to-peer economy appears to be compatible with anarcho-capitalism. BTCjam peer-to-peer bitcoin lending appears to be an anarchist marketplace in action. Private money being lent directly between private individuals for the purpose of accumulating privately held capital.

        • JohnNo Gravatar says:

          That is a rather dry reply. James Corbett’s work gives me an optimistic boner. How about you?

      • Nikos SakkasNo Gravatar says:

        very interesting indeed!

        peer to peer seems a very promising model. I wonder to what extent this could contribute to restricting the rule of capital that Davi, correctly in my view, finds incompatible with anarchy. Food for thought….

        • JohnNo Gravatar says:

          I think the answer is

          I am not sure what the rule of Capital is. Monopoly? Say some jackass buys up all fresh water aquifers in America or Greece or what other country have you, creates a monopoly and jacks up the prices. Many people will likely move outside of US in protest to a more decent country. Some people will come together and build a desalination plant … expensive at first, but subsequently they will get cheaper.

          Technology will help fight the state. FED can manipulate the dollar all it wants. If nobody uses it, then it has no effect – they lose power and starve. Something bit-coin-like may help with that. Stefan Moleneux is very optimistic about this idea – dehydrating the tumor so to speak.

          Technology will help fight Enron-like corruption. When everyone has got cheap solar panels which produce energy in excess and the rest can be sold as charging stations and one way to use this excess is not to connect it to the grid IMO but to accept energy-intensive jobs such as melting of metal or glass (everyone can recycle their own glass if they wish) or pumping/cleaning water, or running desalination and selling fresh water or distilling vodka – whenever there is an excess of energy, so that these “shops” will operate part time and sit idle when the wind / light is gone.

          An obvious challenge is truly free (as in freedom) internet. Right now the architecture is centralized Comcast and Verizon (in the US) have us by the balls. Some Anarchists credit internet with the spread of anarchy. The architecture of the net and root certificates, etc. is an awful hierarchy, however.

          Every time that and many other tech challenges are solved, the need for large hierarchies shrinks ever more.

          Going back to the beginning, I am not sure what the dilemma is with the supposed “rule of capital”.

          • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

            John: “…I am not sure what the dilemma is…”

            I’m not sure what the dilemma is — or was — period.

            I am a sovereign state. I had no need to change anybody else in order for me to become free. “Rules of Capital” have no bearing upon my sovereignty. Nor do any other of the white man’s “rules” — or his constant attempts to draw me into one of his conflicts (that are necessary for his survival).

            I did not go with my hat in my hand to one of his bureaucracies with any requests or forms begging to “give up citizenship” or “…make a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer…”. It was not necessary for me to be freed from his “statehood”, since I had never consented in the first place.

            Nor did I have a need to leave my family and friends and move to say, a place or places called “New Hampshire” or “Costa Rico” or “Chile”.

            I’m certain the white man still considers me to be one of his “citizens”. That is no concern of mine, since he is stupid, pompous, easily circumnavigated.

            I’ll admit that being old is an advantage (and a relief). I’ve been steering abaft the beam of the white man’s traps for over half a century. Now I can sit back and watch candidates for liberty — adrift, wringing their hands and wailing over the details of how to control, or “manage” anarchy.

            Abstain from beans, my friends. Remain aloof — don’t board the white man’s ship.


            • JohnNo Gravatar says:

              Sam, you wrote with similar thoughts in the past. However, while you can be “free” in your head, you still are not really if say the tax rate was 90% or all of your stuff was confiscated or you were imprisoned for life for nothing or for s&g or for having a wrong opinion.

              You may say that you would be free even if incarcerated for life. Well, if so then our definition of “free” differs. You are clearly done with copulating and child raising, so I do not know – maybe you can find freedom even in daily water-boarding.

              While I can live an ascetic life style myself, I need extra resources in order to raise a family. There the tax rate, which state I live in and just how insane the local and the federal laws are starts to matter. Revoking a citizenship makes practical sense; I would not want to be raises by a swat team in a foreign country for not sharing my paycheck with the “white man” and be made an example of. I would rather humiliate myself and pay the 2k or whatever it is for the privilege to no longer be “American”.

              Only a man who is indifferent between life and death can be truly free. I am not; I prefer life, in fact I prefer good life. I chose comfort over homelessness, satiety over hunger, relaxation over physical pain, good income over crappy income, friendlier laws over crappy laws … because all of these have an effect on me. Hey, so does the weather!

              Someone who chooses to move to New Hampshire because they prefer the climate and the view are not free. They are a slave to the climate or their preferences of the climate. Someone who moves there because they prefer the political climate better is similarly a slave – a slave just as much. What is the fundamental difference? All physical sensations get converted into electrical signals in our brain. So, too hot a climate causing stress is merely a pattern of voltage change. Getting kicked in the balls – same thing. Not liking where the state/country is going politically – same. I think you are advocating self-hypnosis as a way to fight pain. Works great in the short term, but there is a reason why we feel pain. How about removing the source of pain instead?

              Am I arguing a straw-man here?

              Also, you weren’t your own state when you were 6 months old and carping all over the floor and depending on mother’s milk. Neither were your children at a young age. I believe that the reality is more complicated than what many mental models of the world can show.

              • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

                Your last paragraph, John, is the only thought that makes sense. To me.

                Of course, I probably suffer with what many are now accusing their opponents of: “conformation bias” (a condition that afflicts only those in opposition to the accuser — think about that while promoting “orthodox debate tactics”).

                If you say you’re free, you’re correct.
                If you say you’re not free, you’re also correct.
                If you say I’m not free, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong. It means you have no clue. Because I’m the richest man in my city and in my part of what in serf vernacular is called “country” or “nation”. Because I’m free.

                I’d hate to render a guess as to how many “anarchists” and/or “libertarians” have challenged my sovereign state and/or my “freedom” declaration; who have expertly pronounced that I am not truly free — it’s all in my head. My use of quotes designates my opinion that these are the people who are contenders only — who may or may not in time (if they stick it out here with us) actually achieve liberty and/or freedom for themselves.

                Meanwhile, they will wail and gnash their teeth over the machinations of the white man. Almost implying that if “we” could just get a more merciful class of politician elected to political government we might all get to have freedom — and the policeman would once again be our friend.


                Your last paragraph almost alluded to my anarchist thesis: there is one legitimate governing unit, and that is the family unit. All else are coercive, thieving interlopers — dangerous superstitions, to quote Larken Rose. Because the human newborn is naturally and totally dependent upon adult caregivers — hopefully (but all too often not) a loving and dedicated Mom and Dad — for their very survival. If and when that governing unit remains viable, in time the newborn will probably grow up to provide care and supervision for her aging parents.

                Two of my daughters are my conservators. They could under the white man’s concept of “law” legally have me locked away into one of his rape cages with merely a “nudge to the judge”. You call that “freedom”??? I’m guessing you don’t.

                But it is. Think about it. Sam

                • JohnNo Gravatar says:

                  Sam, ok, so we kind of agree on a family hierarchy (which changes over time). Other than that you failed to penetrate my thick skull. “You are free if you say you are free”.

                  “””Of course, I probably suffer with what many are now accusing their opponents of: “conformation bias” (a condition that afflicts only those in opposition to the accuser — think about that while promoting “orthodox debate tactics”).”””

                  “Orthodox debate tactics”?? Dude sir wise old man whatever do you mean? Don’t you go Vanmind on me. Why not exclude the use of “orthodox arithmetic”?

                  Ok, policeman is not my friend. However, I will take my chances with an American cop over a Nazi Germany cop. I would prefer a cop from private police / right enforcement agency that is competing for income with lots of other institutions. Give me that cop in a country like Iceland and that cop will pretty much be my friend. I do not know if it can get much better than that with policing other than humans completely losing violence gene, which would spell the end of humans, I think.

                  Pretending that a cop is not there does not make him go away.

                  For the most part you were talking passed me. Explain it to me like I am 5 year old. Hold off with those links. Just very simple concepts and “orthodox elaboration” please.

                  • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

                    John: ‘…“You are free if you say you are free”…’

                    This is the science of rulership (“religion” is more accurate when observed objectively rather than subjectively. Once again, Larken Rose does a better job than I).

                    Leaders of early hordes would besiege a city. Eventually they would breach the walls of the city. They would then proceed to rape the women. They would slaughter all men, women and children (liabilities if you’re on the move) and leave their carcases to rot on the desert floor. They would then pillage the city, leave it in burning ruins, and move on. Scorched earth.

                    No question — the conquered were not free. They were dead.

                    But they also ceased “voluntary compliance” in producing for the conquerors (“forefathers”). The vision of the empire had not yet spawned.

                    It took the Attila the Huns and Genghis Khans of history to discern what was later dubbed “Stockholm Syndrome” — a term used much later to camouflage the science of rulership; to make it appear that the tendency to fall in love with the conqueror applies only to a select few poor nerds who chanced to be victims of situations like a rather obscure free market robbery and hostage situation in a city at a place called Sweeden.

                    Even “libertarians” like to chant slogans such as “our forefathers” when referring to the likes of Washington, Jefferson and Madison. But “our-true-forefathers” date much, much further back in history than that — much earlier than the kings George(s), Jame(s), Charles(s) queens Mary and Elizabeth et al.

                    Anarchy produces an eerie tale when one comes to see it clearly. It almost appears that we would all best just give up and admit we cannot be free — it’s just too big for us. Freedom’s only in our head.

                    And that’s that.

                    NO! True heroes of liberty have escaped each atrocity in history. But they are not the “decorated” heroes. They are, in fact, denigrated by the victim mentalities of the Monday-Morning-Quarterback crowd. “Historians” love wars — and pessimistic views of the future and the chances for freedom.

                    The man behind the curtain is real — and counterfeit. The difference between a nazi cop and a Charleston cop is the same difference as between a rattlesnake on yonder ledge and a rattlesnake in your tent. Both can be dangerous. But the advantage with the rattlesnake is that s/he feeds on rodents and other vermin — not men and women.

                    So if you love a rat-free home, thank a snake.


    • macsnafuNo Gravatar says:

      “I don’t see how simple division of labor can by itself really result to hierarchy. I see hierarchy as linked to command and control; so if some record the minutes and others manage the treasury why would this ever qualify as hierarchy?”

      Interesting point–I wonder if this command-and-control idea of hierarchy is what most left-anarchists mean? Yet even the Secretary and Treasurer of an organization are given a ranking and privileged position within the organization. If the president and vice-president are missing for some reason, the next-highest ranking officer is “in charge”, if only temporarily.

      But even accepting this, I still say it won’t do. If a manager tells a ditch digger that we need a ditch in a certain place, say to put in a new water pipe, it’s merely because the manager knows where it needs to be, while the ditch digger doesn’t. If a manager tells a computer programmer we need a program that does such-and-such, with these requirements, it’s because the computer programmer, while knowing how to write the program, doesn’t know why those requirements are necessary. If he were to simply write the program on his own, without directions, he would either write a program that few people would find useful, or he would have to go out of his expertise to find out what the necessary requirements of the program are, something he may or may not be good at, but which either way would take away from his time spent actually writing the program.

      Again, the key here is voluntary or involuntary. If those being commanded are free to not accept those commands, then is it hierarchy, or not? It might be better if everyone were self-employed with clients or independent contractors, but even your self-employed ditch digger or programmer would *still* need someone to tell them where to dig and what the program needs to do. The person “commanding” them would simply be called a client or customer instead of being called a manager.

      Even your typical employer-employee relationship is merely a contract. If an employee decides not to do what his/her employer tells them to do, that merely voids the contract: no work, no pay. Left-anarchists act like it is coercion if one doesn’t get paid for not doing undesirable work, when it is really only coercion if one has to do the work without getting paid for it.

  7. Maximus WolfeNo Gravatar says:

    Anarchism is the rejection of all compulsion based systems and the incipient aggression which cyclicalizes those systems. In the case of a Christian anarchist, it is appropriately conceived of as the rejection of all non supernal (temporal) compulsion based systems (eg man states, crime syndicates), i.e. distinguished by the recognition of God as possessing rightful cosmic regnum only by profound and ineffable otherness (eg His lack of migratory or corporeal constraint) to the extent that He would be Arche whether formally recognized as such or not by non unbelievers. In other words. Christian anarchism gives only God (and his Church insofar as it rejects compulsion based conversion) sole natural right to rule.

    • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

      Maximus, I agree with you; and I like Davi’s “wrongheaded and foolish” perspective — plus his reminder that terms (such as “socialism” and “communism”) can have different meanings to different folks.

      It would seem that, if anybody, the “libertarian” and/or the “anarcist” would be the last on earth to get embroiled in these ” ‘Tis!” vs ” ‘Taint!” disputes over what actually amount to word games — many of which become testy, even combative. Don’t we rather preach a doctrine of “…to each his own”? As long, that is, as the doctrines preached are not dogmas that justify coercion, or infringements into the space or property of others.

      And this especially pertains to childish arguments surrounding religion and/or atheism. Or agnosticism. Or skepticism. The skirmishes appear to consist of all foolish assertions. Either you believe like I believe, or you are “No True Anarchist” (thanks, Davi).

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Why should one accept the definition of Anarchism you stated? Anarchy is when there are no rulers and the absence of a state. By your own definition of Anarchism/Anarchy and Christian Anarchism there can not be such a thing as Christian Anarchism. Btw, there is no national right to rule.

  8. Sam GeogheganNo Gravatar says:

    Hi Davi,

    Socialism is on the rise again. Just look at the preponderance of anti-market commentary on secular humanist and political videos on You Tube. Now compare this to a free-market economics lecture —Crickets.
    Compare Thomas Piketty’s work compared to Phil Magness and Bob Murphy’s rebuttal. One’s emotional, the other empirical. We know which version appeals to the public at large.
    Ancappers probably should engage with these numskulls and debate with them. We’re just preaching to our own kind while they gain more and more ground, as every disenfranchised teenager is lured into egalitarian circles Anarcho-capitalism is the hard problem of the social sciences.

    • STLICTXNo Gravatar says:

      Your best bet is free market egalitarianism of the Kevin Carson sort. Telling socialists to abandon their ideals simply won’t work… giving them a new way to fulfill them compatible with voluntarism might.

  9. Nikos SakkasNo Gravatar says:

    I liked this article because Davi centered it around “hierarchy”. I often find that people in this blog are more preoccupied with the “state” rather than with “hierarchy”. Am I perhaps wrong?

    For me hierarchy is generated both by the state as well as by large business.

    I also believe the state if far more parasitic than large business; it represents an abnormality, bound to evaporate some moment in time; technology and peer to peer, etc., will be the instrument to this.

    I have no evidence that the same applies to big business. I only have literature evidence that small business is adding more and more value to economy compared to big business. That’s different from suggesting that this tier of hierarchy will follow the fate of the state.

    Being anarchist for me means living in flat, voluntary, anti hierarchical settings. This is why I moved out all my multinational attachments and feel really happy and fulfilled about it.

    • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

      Well, if one is arranging one’s own private affairs, no other person has the right to dictate what kind of management template one chooses … including the typical hierarchy of the typical corporation (Mises had some insights regarding the drawbacks of allowing one’s private organizations to employ people who merely pretend to be business managers while acting like fiefdom-seeking bureaucrats).

      If, on the other hand, one is pretending to be in possession of jurisdictional authority over others, any organizational template is irrelevant because one’s actions can never be considered as anything other than fraudulent.

  10. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    I have been taught that anarchy basically means “no government” and use the term that way. Philosophically, leftist anarchism tends to get few followers for leftism tends to be social in its themes whereas anarchism tends towards individualism. So, though not mutually exclusive, the terms leftist and anarchism trend in different directions for most people. In the real world, honest leftists realize that socialism is virtually impossible without a strong government forcing the population to accept it. So anarchism is anathema to them.
    Many years ago I knew a woman who claimed to be a communitarian anarchist. Today she supports Obama and government helping promote her leftist agenda. I think she is pretty typical of where young leftist anarchist end up. They either reject much of their leftist philosophy or embrace governmental coercion as necessary for the “greater good”.

  11. JohnNo Gravatar says:

    Chess originated in Gupta Empire which was not an Anarchy. QED

  12. Nikos SakkasNo Gravatar says:

    Davi, quite a late reply…

    Don’t you think you’ re a bit strong on minarchy? If someone agrees to the no- state strategy and principle but believes this will take some time, cannot be done just like that the next moment is that so important as to have him rejected on editorial grounds?

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      Such a person is not a minarchist. They’re an anarchist with a strategy.

      • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

        Agreed. I believe those of us embracing anarchy engage in our greatest fallacies with idea that “we” must “bring others into the fold”. That anarchy cannot exist unless there are many (multitudes, perhaps) making up anarchist “society”.

        I also believe that liberty and freedom (anarchy, if you will) can and will be achieved to the extent that I can shed my collectivist mentality that has been ingrained in my brain since I was a baby. “Society” is an example — a mindless abstraction.

        You exist. I exist. You and I have something in common: we gravitate to Daily Anarchist discussion forum. It’s a good feeling to know others trying to be(come) free. Sam

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Sam, though I would be the last person to be against the idea of freeing one’s mind from ingrained collectivist dogma, I will have to say to you the same thing that I have stated to those who told me that one can be free in prison if you have a free mind. One needs both physical freedom and mental freedom to be truly free. Without an “anarchist society” one spends all one’s time reacting to collectivist BS and is not free. In an anarchist society if one’s mind can’t accept the freedom you self limit and are not truly free. Both the mind and the body need freedom to maximize our human potential. We probably can’t obtain such freedom, but we should settle for nothing less!

          • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

            You know my ongoing mantra, Fritz. If I depend upon you, or psychopaths grouped into what they’re calling “government”, or “society” (also a mindless abstraction) — or anybody else, (including nay-saying close family members that I love dearly) — to set me free, I’ll remain forever a slave.

            If it’s going to be, it’s up to me.

            If you say you are free, you are correct. If you say you’re not free, you’re also correct.

            I am a sovereign state, land-locked, bordered on all sides within a serfdom. You do not have to agree with my sovereignty for me to remain free. I’m 80. If I haven’t learned to be free in an unfree world by now, it’s too late for me.

            I genuinely hope it is not too late for you. Sam

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Sam, I think that the overemphasis of the mental aspect of freedom can come at the expense of the physical aspects of freedom. One does have to free yourself, but true freedom depends upon more than just a belief. It depends upon physical circumstances as well. I suspect that we are defining “freedom” differently. Many years ago a guy who went by Rayo defined freedom as invulnerability to coercion. I think that is pretty close, but notice that freedom does depend upon interactions and is thus dependent to some degree upon one’s physical circumstances. No matter how free your mind is, you can’t be truly free living within a police state.

              You are correct about the marketplace limiting fat cats, but only within a truly free market which you correctly state that we do not have because of governmental interference. Unfortunately to get a true free market probably requires starting over for with 85% of the wealth in the country controlled by the top quintile, we are slaves from the get go. The ill gotten gains of the ultrarich must be taken from them as restitution of stolen property for there to be any chance for a free market to develop.

              • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


                “…No matter how free your mind is, you can’t be truly free living within a police state…”

                Then quit living within a police state.

                Either that, or give your fellow “citizens” the specifics regarding a few effective steps that they can take immediately to put an end to the police state in which you insist you (and they) live.

                I am a sovereign state. I do not have a dog at this time to enter into your fight.


                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Sam, that is the problem. There are no easy step to get out of the police state we are all stuck in. I fear you are fooling yourself my friend.

                  • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


                    “… I fear you are fooling yourself my friend…”

                    I’ve fielded this “argument” by expert naysayers (none of whom seemed to have much in the way of answers).

                    And it inevitably came down to the same above statement.

                    To which I would repeat what I preached to countless students over many years:

                    If I say I can, I’m correct.
                    If I say I can’t, I’m also correct.

                    If you want to be free, free you shall be. Sam

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Sam, I am not trying to jerk your chain here. I honestly do not get your position. Since I normally think you have a good handle on things, I would like to try to see if maybe we are just using the same words but with differing meanings. Perhaps you see the world as a mental construct. I think there is a physical reality out there, but that different folks could perceive things differently due to how their senses and brains function. But the bottom line is that there is a physical reality, we are part of it, and if our perceptions of reality do not jive with the reality pretty well, we will die. Thus I see freedom as both a way of thinking and a physical reality. One is not truly free without having both aspects. You seem to me to be stipulating that the mental aspect is the only meaningful one. If I have that correct, then we disagree. That is OK except that to the extent that you get others to accept your concept they may stop trying to free the society around them. It is like the religious nuts who say to wait until you die and God will take care of it all. That is pretty destructive for those of us who would like a better world in the here and now.

  13. Sam GeogheganNo Gravatar says:

    But capitalism IS hierarchical, I mean, tends toward hierarchy 🙂

    Seriously though, there’s nothing wrong with this. Nature itself operates with similar preferences and priorities.

    What’s wrong is the socialist notion of equality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

      Plus, Sam, if you take the “ism” away and consider only “capital” you will see that in a totally free market we are all equal. That is, some entrepreneurs might be more successful than others, but everybody who can scrape together enough capital to start up and compete has equal opportunity for success — possibly greater success than the original competitor(s).

      The marketplace automatically limits individual entrepreneurs from becoming “fat cats” — that can only happen through mercantilism.

      And that (government interference) is the “ism” of “capitalism” — not competition between entrepreneurs. Contrary to what many of us believe, the larger a firm becomes the less efficient (due to various levels of “management”, etc) — and the less capable of competing with lean and mean (and astute) start-ups. Sam

  14. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:
    May 28, 2015 at 10:49 am

    “…Sam, I am not trying to jerk your chain here. I honestly do not get your position…”

    Fritz, I see our “window” on this discussion for me to reply to you has closed. So will start anew, and hope you find this and piece it together with our dialog.

    I read something interesting recently:

    “…The truth does not need you to defend it. It takes courage – real courage – to relax, and stop defending your point of view. Not to turn loose of your grip upon the truth – But to turn loose of your grip upon your platform (‘position’)…”

    My “position” (in simple form) has mainly been that there are some things I can change, others I cannot. That’s all. It makes no sense for me to run around tilting at windmills. Even if it were productive, I’m getting too old for that.

    The group of psychopaths we like to refer to as “government”, or “the state” (take your pick) are currently in operation. They have been since the time of Genghis Khan (our true forefather) and before. I can’t change that. The only thing that keeps them in operation is voluntary compliance. Nothing more. They depend wholly upon a quorum of the hoi polloi to wail, gnash teeth, whine, complain — and “vote” (each serf who marches to a “poll” is a vote in support of them). That’s where they get their divined “power”.

    The greater the amount of emotional energy you devote to denigrating her or him that you identify as your “enemy”, the greater power s/he has over you. That is a fundamental rule of psychology.

    It is also a basic rule in the science of rulership.

    The recent political holiday is a case in point. How many individuals really think about why there is a “Memorial Day” — and why it’s strategically placed where it is on the Gregorian calendar? Few indeed. Because if a quorum of “veterans” and/or family members of dead veterans (please, please do not thank me for “serving”) were to ever come to realize the egregiousness of their actions while they were “serving” in years past, support for “commanders-in-chief” would fail, and the tabernacle would quickly crash in.

    And so political holidays: “Memorial”, “Independence”, “Labor”, “Veterans” — all shams to sustain voluntary compliance. Another topic for another thread. Because even “Chr-stmas” fits neatly into the agenda.

    Oh, I believe in loaded guns — don’t get me wrong. I’m aware as I sit here typing this to you (in my sovereign state) that cowards in costume with tin badges, in groups, armed to the teeth, might well come crashing through my door, shoot my dog and possibly wife and kids as well, only to discover they had the wrong address. Or had the right address, but had garnered a degree of “evidence” for a false charge against me.

    Of course ordinary street bandits could do that also. But the advantage I have with street robbers is the fact that they know they are robbers. They do not have the blessings and support of my neighbors, my friends, and even family members — and they know that before they come after me. They will tend to go away and leave me alone.

    But, like street bandits, state bandits are stupid, vain, pompous — somewhat easily circumnavigated and side-stepped. Their haughty presumption that I am going to revere them is their soft underbelly. I shall be free in spite of them. I genuinely hope you will also — the decision is yours.

    >>>”…That is OK except that to the extent that you get others to accept your concept they may stop trying to free the society around them. It is like the religious nuts who say to wait until you die and God will take care of it all. That is pretty destructive for those of us who would like a better world in the here and now…”<<<

    If you believe, Fritz, that you possess the elixir that might "…free the society around you…" I truly wish you success. I mean that. But I don't believe you do. Because I believe that each individual — man, woman or child — must free himself or herself from the superstition that is belief in and reverence to rulership. I have no control, and little or no influence, upon you — or them. Just what I discuss here with you and at other forums and "comments" sections at places like "Daily Bell“.

    But you and I are here. The Internet Reformation is upon us. Both of us are making a difference — some difference — to those around us. Slowly.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Sam, I get your point and even basically agree except I think I see things from the “glass half empty” point of view. You insist that you are free now. I see myself and most people as slaves to one degree or another because the state has the guns to enforce their edicts and human psychology ensures that most people will do what is necessary to survive.

      I do disagree with your point about the amount of emotional energy one expends against one’s enemy reflects their power over you. I think that not being upset is self destructive particularly psychologically for if one does not have rage against your enemies, you are not very alive as a male.

      I wish you well with your philosophy. To the extent that you can pull it off it should make you happier. It simply is not for me.

  15. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    Sam, thanks but I can’t listen to videos at the library computer.

  16. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    To try to sum up the video in one sentence, Larken believes (as do I) that if one looks at the mirage we see as “monopoly state” as indeed having what we think of as “power”, s/he will be forever unfree. There is no “power” that I do not grant my adversary.

    Of course I always believe the man with a loaded gun. Sam

  17. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    Sam, but there is all kinds of power held by people that we do not grant them. A man with a gun has the power to kill you or not. Rich assholes have the power to financially make or break you. Though I do not consider humans a “social animal”, we do not live in a vacuum. To deny that others have effects on us both positive and negative (power) is simply a negation of physical reality. I realize that is not what you mean, but it is what many get from what you state. I like your emphasizing being sovereign within yourself. But one needs the physical power to use that sovereignity to be truly free. The state is an abstraction for sure, but since the vast majority accept it as real and give individuals representing the state power, it actually has real power through the individuals who are criminal or naïve enough to play the statist game. I do not accept the legitimacy of their authority, but I must accept the reality of their power or pay the price (imprisonment or death). That is not being free, so I need a much more free society before I can practice my own individual liberty with relative impunity.

    • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

      Indeed, Fritz: the man or woman with a loaded gun has “jurisdiction”.
      And that is all the “jurisdiction” that exists — loaded firearms. All other “jurisdiction” is superstition, pure and simple. If you believe an individual labeled “judge” and called “honor” (“your honor” by true believers) has jurisdiction without the backup of men and women with firearms, you worship at a place I fear to tread.

      If you believe you are not free, you are correct.
      If you believe you are free, you are also correct.
      There is no compromise.

      Don’t feel bad, Fritz. Many on other sites fail to read that. Even libertarians.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Sam, I am fond of telling people that law needs not be just or even legal. It needs only be enforceable. The guy with the gun on his hip is the law. Thus our greatest enemy is the cop/soldier. They are the teeth of governmental oppression. Lawyers, judges, politicians, ad nauseum are all evil for sure. But without those cops and/or soldiers with guns to back them we would ignore the lawyers, et al with impunity. I have a book. The title pretty much says it all. The Policeman Is Your Friend and Other Lies.

  18. David M. BrownNo Gravatar says:

    “I don’t know what anything is; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.”

    If Robert Anton Wilson contended that he was unable to distinguish mountains from sky, then Robert Anton Wilson was dead wrong, wasn’t he?

  19. ultrabreadNo Gravatar says:

    Capitalism requires government to function correctly. Government controls the money and sets prices and interest rates. this will insure wealth will increase for the few, which is the bases of capitalism. You also have to be willing to stomp out the competition and “capitalize” on the situation…
    What people tend to talk about when they say capitalism is free trade…the two are alike but not the same. free trade requires a lack of government involvement. the prices then drop and raise depending on the spending of the people.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      ultra, you have basically got it correct as we use capitalism today. Capitalism can exist within anarchism, but with private capital. If government is involved free enterprise goes out the window.

      • ultrabreadNo Gravatar says:

        i always felt the point of anarchism was to grow as a whole not to screw people over. capitalism feels too greedy and self centered to me.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          ultra, capitalism is neither good nor bad per se. Like most tools it can be used or abused. In today’s world it is largely abused. In a “freed” market it could be well used. Remember that greed is a normal human driving force which actually pushes us to be more productive to obtain those things we wish in trade. supply and demand along with competition are the essentials of the real free market. without individual greed none of that can exist and progress stops.