Are you conservative or progressive?

[Freya]

I don't believe that though. I believe that there is an objective reality, which forms subjective human experiences. It doesn't matter if the hindus think that 4 arms make a goddess; four arms is still objectively a mutation and an abnormality when contrasted to the typical man.

Humanity as a species is formed by mutation starting with the mutation of single celled organisms. The objection is against you labeling such things as flaws, as it it is an inherently bad thing.

Obviously it is not according to the "norm". us anarchists are also not part of the "norm". We are an abnormality. Are we a flaw? Am I a flaw simply for not meeting the standard of what is normal for men?

[Rothbardian]

I sort of feel afraid to answer your questions. I feel, in fact, that my traditionalist opinions are being ostracized. The whole discussion has made me feel embarrassed and basically like a huge jerk, even though I still hold my beliefs.

I'm a bit offended that anyone could consider the State "tradition," or present that as an argument. For, indeed, the State is not the tradition of the people: the State runs counter to all of man's traditions. Man's traditions tend to be voluntarily based and based upon the Non-Aggression Axiom. The State is not our tradition; it is a gang of thieves writ large. While the abstract paradigm of the State is perhaps tradition, private people do not actively have a tradition of aggression. (Simply because I am a traditionalist does not mean I have to think ALL tradition is good: like I said, voluntary traditions). There is Libertarian tradition (what I espouse), and what the Statists espouse is very different.

I'd probably consider you as having a flaw - to be honest - but I'm a naturally very tolerant person. I probably would not say that to your face even. In a sense, therefore, we have faced the same problem; modern society ostracizes some of my views as to what flaws are and aren't. For instance, it would unfortunately be extremely offensive for me to share that I think of homosexuality as a flaw, so I have to keep that to myself. I just believe in normal men and women living in a voluntary society. That's all. It's nothing to really be taken with offence. I believe that the Individual - such as yourself - triumphs over any flaws he might have. I also have flaws. The Individual, to me, is supreme, so one flaw in a person does not account for his whole character. A petty thief (flawed according to tradition and libertarian theory) could hypothetically be a relatively good person in other aspects of his life. A retarded person - while flawed - could be a great Individual as the sum of his character. Multiple flaws - or single very egregious flaws - would tend to make me consider a person very poorly. I'd consider your flaws as so small that it hardly matters: almost as small as my flaws, which hardly matter. You seem to be assuming I make a huge deal about it: perhaps because it's a huge deal to you. I hardly give a shit about sexuality, to be honest; while very heterosexual myself, for example, I don't give two craps about relationships. I prefer keeping to myself: being a single Individual. In that sense, I care about these things far less than you. If you took a similar approach, perhaps you too could transcend the societal barriers which have limited you. (I honestly make that as a helpful comment, having read your whole story, but feel free to ignore it).

I'm also offended as to your thoughts on us traditionalist anarchists. Rothbard, the great Old Rightist, founded the anarcho-capitalist movement after all. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism can best be understood as a socially traditional - but radical - movement. At least that's the way I perceive it.

Anarchists aren't flawed because we conform to the natural traditions of the private sector: Natural Law.

[David Giessel]

I don't believe that though. I believe that there is an objective reality, which forms subjective human experiences.
...
Anarchists aren't flawed because we conform to the natural traditions of the private sector: Natural Law.

Just because you believe there is an objective reality doesn't mean there's an objective basis for that belief. Your words betray you in fact. You believe there is an objective reality. I could believe that the extra-limbed baby is a goddess. The difference lies solely in perspective.
...
Isn't your understanding of and belief in Natural Law subjective at its core?

[Martin Brock]

Most of these issues are hot button diversions for politicians, but I'll play along anyway.

Feminism: equal legal AND social status for females. (while legal status is equalized in many western countries, social status is not. example: slut shaming)

"Feminism" is a highly political term, and I don't much identify with it. Men and women belong to the same species and have very similar abilities, but the few differences, like giving birth, are highly significant.

Sluttiness is hardly exclusive to women, so slut shaming has nothing to do with gender equality per se. The "double standard" is a product of actual gender differences. My mother policed sluttiness far more than my father. If one gender imposes this standard on the other, women impose it on men, perhaps rightly so.

Needless to say (around here), the only impediment to anyone's employment in any profession should be the free market.

Homo and bi-sexuality

Acceptance. I have participated but not enough or recently enough to qualify as a participant.

Gender bending: Men looking and acting feminine, woman looking and acting masculine. Cross dressing, Metro-sexuality, etc.

Acceptance. I could hardly care less.

Transgenderism: Not conforming to the gender role expect of the sex. May result in gender bending or sex-reassignment.

Acceptance.
It's none of my business, but if a friend asked me about surgery for this purpose, I'd advise him to think long and hard about it.

Prostitution

Acceptance. I've never employed a prostitute, and I'd advise a friend considering it (either selling sex or buying it) to be careful.

Atheism and religious diversity: People with different or no religious beliefs.

Acceptance. Religous practice could encompass almost anything, so I refer only to religious belief and ceremony here.

Sexual fetishism: Sexual arousal from certain objects or situations. Especially "deviant" ones. BDSM Necrophilia.

Tolerance.
I accept almost anything between consenting adults, but in some cases, I support a high standard of proof for consent.

Bestiality: Sex with animals

Tolerance
Sex with animals raises consent, cruelty and public health issues, but I wouldn't jail anyone for it. I would out someone.

Pre "age of consent" sex:  Sex with a (sexually mature) minor or between minors

Avoidance/Resistance
Define "sexually mature". I support an age of consent. The line is always arbitrary, but respecting it is not an onerous burden for anyone.
If two minors violate the proscription, I would advise their parents to chastise and separate them, and I would shun parents permitting it.
If an adult violates the proscription with a minor, I would resist the adult.

Pedophilia: Sex with non-sexually mature individuals (children before AoC)

Resistance

Abortion

Acceptance in some circumstances. Avoidance or resistance in others.

Free love: sex outside or before marriage.

Acceptance. I am monogamous myself.

Polyamory: romantic/sexual relationship between more then two individuals. With the consent of all involved.

Acceptance.

Pornography

Participance.

Euthanesia/Suicide

I would commit suicide in some circumstances, and I would assist a suicide in some circumstances. I would resist euthanasia beyond assisted suicide, but withdrawing artificial life support is not euthanasia.

Gene modification/Transhumanism: Artificially modifying the human body by modifying the DNA.

It's a very broad and thoroughly unexplored category, so any conclusion I've reached at this point is meaningless.

Body Modification: Tattoo's, piercings and "mutilation"

Acceptance.

Recreational use of soft drugs: using drugs that are considered relatively harmless. Marijuanna, mushrooms.

Acceptance. I have participated but not recently enough to be a participant; however, I would participate again in some circumstances, like if you offered it to me a toke right now.

Recreational use of hard drugs: using drugs that cause serious harm or sideffects: Speed, Cocaine, Heroine

Acceptance/Tolerance. I would not automatically shun a person using hard drugs. I might intervene.

Consensual incest: Consensual sex between (adult) relatives

Acceptance. But my sister is not remotely sexy.

[Rothbardian]

You believe there is an objective reality...

I could take out the words "I believe" and it would still be true. It would simply make me come across as an overconfident jerk. I only used "I believe" because I don't want to be perceived too negatively here.

Libertarianism is a fact and not an opinion. But, you see, if I state that without "I believe," I come across as a jerk.

Isn't your understanding of and belief in Natural Law subjective at its core?

No. Rothbard explains this in Ethics of Liberty.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

If you think there is an objective reality, I suggest you look up the paradox where the moving train exactly the length of a tunnel gets closed inside of the tunnel. What happens is different depending on where the observer is at!!! Were the doors closed simultaneously? It depends who you ask!!! Reality is definitely not objective, relativistic physics being the main piece of evidence.

[Rothbardian]

Relativism in physics certainly does not contradict the concept of an objective reality. Simply because I am moving 30km/sec relative to sun, and about 0km/sec relative to the Earth's ground does not make reality subjective.

I am objectively moving 30km/sec relative to the sun, and objectively moving 0km/sec relative to the Earth. And that's the objective reality of it all. To deny these as objective facts is nihilistic.

[Rothbardian]

That depends, if I had to live in a conservative but anarchist community I think I would much prefer a state which is progressive.

  This is perhaps the saddest thing that has been said in this thread, in my opinion. I'd much rather live in a socially progressive anarchist community than a traditionalist but statist community. Even though the socially progressive anarchist community would ostracize/oppress me for my opinions, it would be better than anyone such as yourself being oppressed with State aggression.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I too would choose anarchism over any flavor of statism.

[Freya]

Yes, that is not a hard choice when you are being privileged by the tradition. I seem to remember a certain thread wondering why most anarcho-capitalists are straight white males. I believe I might understand why that is the case.

[Rothbardian]

It is an easy choice, or so I believe. I'd rather have a society that oppresses me and my traditionalism (voluntarily) than one which oppresses you aggressively.

In other words, I'd rather have a society in which I am the unprivileged and socially scorned than where you are aggressed upon. Seriously, in the society you want, I'm the guy who would be socially frowned upon. So this goes both ways.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Yes, that is not a hard choice when you are being privileged by the tradition. I seem to remember a certain thread wondering why most anarcho-capitalists are straight white males. I believe I might understand why that is the case.

I actually don't understand why that is the case. If you are a member of any minority group, you should oppose all centralized power that would be able to oppress you. Market anarchism is, as stef says, extending humanity to formerly mistreated groups. Blacks, gays, people who use experimental drugs, plant based medicines, and children... these people have all been mistreated, or are mistreated today. Give them the power to free themselves, ie, take away the power of others to oppress them.

In fact, if straight white males are the ones who "benefit from the system" why would that make us more likely to be market anarchists....We should support the status quo if the world really operates along these social divisions.

[Freya]

I actually don't understand why that is the case. If you are a member of any minority group, you should oppose all centralized power that would be able to oppress you. Market anarchism is, as stef says, extending humanity to formerly mistreated groups. Blacks, gays, people who use experimental drugs, plant based medicines, and children... these people have all been mistreated, or are mistreated today. Give them the power to free themselves, ie, take away the power of others to oppress them.

In fact, if straight white males are the ones who "benefit from the system" why would that make us more likely to be market anarchists....We should support the status quo if the world really operates along these social divisions.

Because anarchists take it one step further and include social liberty in their agenda. Which is why it is generally more attractive to non-privileged individuals.

I'm not making a value judgment about anarcho-capitalism. I'm just stating the conclusion I've drawn from my observations.

In other words, I'd rather have a society in which I am the unprivileged and socially scorned than where you are aggressed upon.

Yes, you are going to be socially oppressed if you try to socially oppress others. But you won't be socially scorned for who you are in a progressive society. You will obviously be scorned for homo and trans-phobia.

But you aren't exactly the one having to deal with hurtful slurs and violence simply for being who you are in our current society, are you?

[Rothbardian]

Where in the world did I say I want to socially oppress anyone? It's more of a "I prefer my own kind thing," than a hatred sort of thing. So, some things to keep in mind: (a) I don't hate anyone solely on the basis of one flaw; (b) I would use neither hurtful slurs nor violence against individuals who I personally believe have a flaw; (c) I'm far more opposed to the infiltration of Western culture than I am to homosexuals or transgenders, who I'm not really opposed to at all, so I'm a reactionary and not a bigot; (d) I'd personally act against anyone who would choose to use hurtful slurs against you, especially if they did so to your face; (e) although I prefer my own kind, I'd be very friendly to individuals such as yourself, with basically no judgement; (f) I'd be supportive of the formation of more progressive societies in Anarcho-Capitalism, i.e., individuals voluntarily choosing to be more comfortable around their own ilk; (g) if this wasn't explicitly made clear already, being a political comrade makes someone an automatic friend of mine, at least if their flaws are not too egregious.

Yes, I'm not the guy who has had to deal with the issues you have had to deal with. But I'm naturally a very withdrawn and non-social person, so - to empathize - perhaps if I was you I wouldn't care about the issues in the first place.

[Freya]

Yes, I'm not the guy who has had to deal with the issues you have had to deal with. But I'm naturally a very withdrawn and non-social person, so - to empathize - perhaps if I was you I wouldn't care about the issues in the first place.

I get where you are coming from. I never intended to say that I like statism. But it is my belief that social oppression is a tool that is keeping statism alive. Both types of freedom are linked. I just value one slightly more. I am a very social person. If I wasn't I wouldn't be trying to get socially accepted as a woman. But I care very much about being socially accepted as who I am.

I might be a little bit aggressive on this point, but I'm actually holding back. When you told me I had flaws I was actually really mad. It turns out you didn't really intend it to be as offensive as it sounded, but it still hurt a bit.