An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes

[LegesNullae]

If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.

And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?

What I think JSNTS is trying to say is that the an-coms don't consider seizing private property to be coercion because they believe privately owned property to have been seized using coercion in the first place. This is basically like how an-caps wouldn't consider seizing state property to be initiation of coercion because state property is established using coercion in the first place.

[Rothbardian]

I don't support this letter.

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.

[Seth King]

I don't support this letter.

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.

The hardliner. Ha!

[Anonymous Infowarrior]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
We both should work together to kill those in charge, establish an anarchist state in alaska, and partner with islamic extremists to end US imperialism

[AgoristTeen1994]

@Mark Stoval: I disagree that anarcho-communists don't believe in self-ownership, or the NAP Leo Tolstoy is a good example of that.. You're argument could be considered a straw man, since you're arguing against a position you believe they have, when in fact, from my experience they don't hold that position at all. As for your claim that their view of society requires someone/something to force people to behave as they would have them act....that is a HIGHLY specious argument. You have absolutely no way of predicting with 100% what a free society will look like, or how people will behave in a free society, for all you know, there could very well be large communes, that work like a family, only on a larger scale...

I just don't agree with you here. How can I own anything if I can not own the ground under my feet? If I dig iron out of the ground and that ground is not mine; who owns the iron or anything made of it? If I must please the community to keep my right to stand on this ground; then I am its slave.

If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.

The free-market anarchists believe in voluntary trade which makes everyone's standard of living go up. The idea that no one can own anything is not workable. (and you can own nothing if you can not own the ground under your feet)

Or put another way; if there is "communal property" there will arise a committee to control the property and settle disputes. Guess how that is going to work out!

"Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle."  -- Rothbard

See: http://mises.org/daily/2197  The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

Another look at the idea of "anarcho-communists":  Murray Rothbard's article on the subject called Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html



Edit: for clarity

[Will]

I don't support this letter.

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.

Because political action has done so much good for the country so far It seems ironic to me that you call yourself an anarchist, yet also believe the only way you can achieve your goals is through the state. I anxiously await your paper on the subject, because I just can't comprehend it as is.

We both should work together to kill those in charge, establish an anarchist state in alaska, and partner with islamic extremists to end US imperialism

I refuse to partner with a group of people that believe my death will bring about their paradise.

[Rothbardian]

I anxiously await your paper on the subject, because I just can't comprehend it as is.

Oh, don't you worry, it will be our foremost classic in the field...Cardosi and I will be working on it soon

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I don't support this letter.

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.

The problem I see is the following:

You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind. If agorists are what you describe as cancer, then the entire world is a nuclear wasteland. When most people say you need to be open-minded, what they mean is that they want you to agree with them. But that's not what I mean. I think you actually need to be more open minded in the true sense. I am perfectly willing to accept that some people will honestly find political action to be worthwhile, despite the fact that I think it does nothing. But I won't call them a cancer that needs to be severed from libertarianism as a whole.

This actually brings up an interesting question. How can you anyone claim that one specific tactic is best? Tactics have to be employed by people. Think of people (h) as elements of the set of humanity (H). By saying political action is absolutely best, you claim that

∀h∈ H ∀Z∈A (P(h) > Z(h))
Where P is a function that takes a person as an input and spits out a measure of the effectiveness of political action as an output. Z acts in a similar way, except it can represent any possible activity (the set A).

So for all people, compared to all activities, political action is the best way to be effective? It's trivial to disprove this. I am an element of H, and I know that P("me") < Z("me") when Z takes the function of persuasion at the personal level.

[Seth King]

I don't support this letter.

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.

The problem I see is the following:

You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind. If agorists are what you describe as cancer, then the entire world is a nuclear wasteland. When most people say you need to be open-minded, what they mean is that they want you to agree with them. But that's not what I mean. I think you actually need to be more open minded in the true sense. I am perfectly willing to accept that some people will honestly find political action to be worthwhile, despite the fact that I think it does nothing. But I won't call them a cancer that needs to be severed from libertarianism as a whole.

This actually brings up an interesting question. How can you anyone claim that one specific tactic is best? Tactics have to be employed by people. Think of people (h) as elements of the set of humanity (H). By saying political action is absolutely best, you claim that

∀h∈ H ∀Z∈A (P(h) > Z(h))
Where P is a function that takes a person as an input and spits out a measure of the effectiveness of political action as an output. Z acts in a similar way, except it can represent any possible activity (the set A).

So for all people, compared to all activities, political action is the best way to be effective? It's trivial to disprove this. I am an element of H, and I know that P("me") < Z("me") when Z takes the function of persuasion at the personal level.

Is somebody taking a discreet mathematics course this semester? 

[Tom J]

If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.

And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?

What I think JSNTS is trying to say is that the an-coms don't consider seizing private property to be coercion because they believe privately owned property to have been seized using coercion in the first place. This is basically like how an-caps wouldn't consider seizing state property to be initiation of coercion because state property is established using coercion in the first place.

Does it matter if the ancom’s belief is not true, and the ancap’s belief is true?

[Rothbardian]

You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Is somebody taking a discreet mathematics course this semester? 

No, but I studied it in the past and find it very interesting and useful. If I have to dust off the predicate calculus and propositional logic, you know it's business time.

You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind.

What? I deconstruct your argument and I get an emoticon as a response? This is not what I was expecting from you...

[Rothbardian]

What? I deconstruct your argument and I get an emoticon as a response? This is not what I was expecting from you...

You didn't deconstruct my argument. My wink was merely because I felt your statement is funny. Political action (which includes things like teaching people, etc.) is the only way to get things done Liberty-wise. The black market is just a part of life; black markets do no more to help than any other market exchanges, presuming that we're not talking about revolutionary force against the State (i.e., another form of political action). Coups have overthrown the state (political action). Men have educated themselves and others on Liberty for revolution (like the American Revolution). That was political action too. You're assuming that I'm defining political action extremely narrowly. Not at all. It includes things like party politics, revolutions, counterrevolutions, populace pressure, coup d'états, ideological converting, party cadre structures, etc. etc. These are the only ways to make change; the Marxists, for one thing, have demonstrated how Power can be revolutionized to an ideology. Classical Liberals have demonstrated a revolution against Power, which succeeded in bringing about the Industrial Revolution even. So politics are as fundamental to Liberty -- and always have been -- as butter is to bread. Black market exchanges (eg, want some weed?) do no more to bring down the State than legal exchanges. It's just all the leftist sectarians who are against politics, holding us back.

I stand by my statement: political action is one of the only courses of action to take for Liberty (that makes sense).

[Rothbardian]

No, but I studied it in the past and find it very interesting and useful. If I have to dust off the predicate calculus and propositional logic, you know it's business time.

As an Austrian, you know someone is prevaricating when they are using math and applying it to human action. (By the way, I'm skilled in calculus myself).

[Rothbardian]

I should say, in a democratic (or representative republic) system, unfortunately only party politics are going to work, rather than some of the other stuff I mentioned. Though education et al. are important too. As Rothbard writes

More important, I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action.  Religious or philosophical conversion of each man and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem of power, the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in statism and are not likely to give it up.  Violent revolution will not work in a democratic political system.  Konkinian agorism is no answer, as I have shown above.  Education in liberty is of course vital, but it is not enough; action must also be taken to roll back the state, specifically to repeal State laws. Like price control or the withholding tax.  Or even like marijuana laws. Despite their widespread nonenforcement, there are always some people who get cracked down on, especially if the police wish to frame them for other reasons.  Tax rebels are admirable, but only in “micro” terms; the taxes are still there, and the wage-earners pay them.  Tax rebellion is not a strategy for victory. Single issue lobbying groups (e.g. antidraft organizations, taxpayer organizations, gold standard groups, etc.) are fine and admirable, but they do not complete the job.  For two basic reasons: (a) because they are single-issue, and therefore cannot educate anyone in libertarianism across the board, and (b) because they cannot do the vital job of repealing the statist laws.  They can only urge the repeal of the draft, for example; they can’t actually do the repealing.  Why should we cut ourselves off from this necessary and vital step of doing the repealing?  Of course if one believes with Bob LeFevre that it is equally immoral to repeal as to impose the draft, then the repeal of anything is out of the question. But I will shout hosannahs for any repeal of statism, and do not concern myself with the “coercion” of those who’d like to keep the draft and are deprived of it.