A day in the life of an anarchist “equally” consists of frustration and inspiration, from my own experience. Frustration, due to the all-too-common statism that surrounds “us,” and inspiration thanks to, perhaps, reading a chapter from one of George H. Smith’s books or articles.
Nonetheless, it remains, that the life of an anarchist is not easy. Anarchists (even if they are inconsistent in their application of living without rulers within their own daily live) consistently deny the existence of such an authoritative institution like the State. They reject the deifications, the rituals, and, at least, they honestly recognize the history of their enslavement, if not outright reject such a lifestyle; some simply can’t due to financial or familial restrictions.
All that said, anarchists have a hard enough time as it is.
When I came to this philosophy, I figured I was mostly alone. Here in what I consider to be the Communist State of Illinois, I was proven to be correct, but the relationships I have formed since that time have proved that determination to be otherwise.
Since that time I have also been keeping up-to-date (until recently) on the actions and ramifications of those within the Constitutionalist Patriot movement. They have been riddled with in-fighting, snitches, and various infiltrations for as long as I can remember. Due to that, they have been largely unsuccessful in “restoring the Republic,” (or their Constitution back to the original intent of the Framers) and have been far too successful in being tossed in rape cages (i.e. government dungeons) for committing victimless crimes.
To put it simply, there is a lack of security culture and, ironically, way too much faith in the police extortionists and veterans—because, let’s face it, the indoctrination those ex-government serfs experienced is hard to overcome, especially considering the decision to join is purely voluntary on their part (the draft has not yet been reinstated, other than compulsory registration for it.
One of the things I’ve loved about the anarchist community is that I’ve seen minimal quibbling. When someone was trolling or was blindly added to some group, it’s quite obvious to see as most have no understanding of the philosophy, whatsoever. Typically, there are enough folks refuting the nonsense that I never have to even consider getting involved.
Although, the events of yesterday have left a bad taste in my mouth. Granted, maybe it was just a coincidence, or maybe I just haven’t borne witness to it. Perhaps the latter is false though, considering recent discussions with others who are far more active on Fascistbook than I am.
First off, I will discuss the two disconcerting events that prompted me to write this article, and following that, I will provide my personal advice.
1) This one was the hardest to see. Reason being, it was emblematic of the man-hating, straight-hating social justice warriors, whom, so far as I’m concerned, are actively trying to end the human race.
How can something not in existence give consent to said existence? Are “we” to completely ignore the biological ramifications of a completely natural desire (like sexual libido)?
How can something not in existence have self-ownership? How is consensual sexual intercourse an act of aggression or a violation of self-ownership, considering, again, this “being” does not yet exist, if it will at all?
To take the statement made in the aforementioned post to its logical conclusion would require the ignorance of basic science and biology. The only way to continue the human race is for women to produce children. This person, and many others, believe in “peaceful parenting,” which is said to be an intergenerational “solution” to the problem of statism. How could this possibly be a “solution” if voluntaryists, most of which abide by logic and reason, toss out the idea of reproduction based off of such an absurd statement? It is because of performative contradictions like these is why there is a growing visibility of libertarians who are explicitly rejecting “peaceful” parenting on the grounds that it is a false solution to the fake grievance of the purported spanking/child abuse “epidemic.”
Considering this was a Fascistbook post with no further explanation or defense of the statement (as of this point), I would posit that it was a spur of the moment thing, with little to no thought.
The self-evident fact that it brazenly violates argumentation ethics makes it more similar to authoritarian diatribes rather than libertarian insights into the human condition.
I would be open to further discussion on this subject on Liberty Under Attack Radio provided that such “advocates” had the courage of their convictions to go on the public record and bravely risk being dialogically estopped once they start contradicting themselves.
2) This next one is less serious and a bit comical.
Just as Christians utilize the proverbial “Golden Rule,” I use the non-aggression principle (NAP). It’s a mental check of sorts: “Is this [blank] hurting or defrauding anyone?” It hasn’t to this point, but it’s still a check. That said, it has never crossed my mind before watching a sporting event. To take it to the extreme that the commenter did, is to rule out most things of sustenance, as well as most any, if not all, forms of entertainment. I wonder if this person owns a television with Comcast or DirecTV? FCC much?
Conclusion
1) I do think philosophical discussions are important, and I encourage them. Without a philosophical grounding, people tend to blow with the winds of political expediency. Even if it’s an SJW-esque statement concerning the NAP’s alleged inconsistency with childbirth, by all means, discuss it.
But, if I could, let me make one recommendation: don’t post a status saying “Giving birth is a violation of the basic voluntaryist principle,” and leave it at that, as if it were aximoatic. Such philosophical discussions are not intended to be had over Fascistbook, and for good reason. A lot of things are lost in translation and hardly ever is an agreement ever come to; most of the time, it leads to ad hominem attacks or other common fallacies. That, and writing a blog post or doing a podcast costs literally nothing now, and I think are more productively conducive to public discourse.
Such subjects, in my opinion, should be reserved for radio shows (preferably ones where listeners can call-in live), podcasts, or Google Hangouts, where ample time is allowed for all participants to provide their thoughts, as well as time for rebuttals; I recommend Oxford Style Debates, personally.
2) I’ve spoken out publicly, on far too many occasions to count, on the importance of consistently living the principles of voluntaryism; of course, that would be the NAP and self-ownership, the foundations of said philosophy. I’ve called out people for their inconsistencies on live radio shows, as well as on Fascistbook. This ranges from the oxymoronic concept of “anarchist politicians,” to anarchists working for the government, and more.
As Samuel Edward Konkin III so astutely said, “It is thus the most crucial activity of the libertarian theorist to expose inconsistencies.”
That aside, this one is so ridiculous I can’t even fathom it. Just because someone enjoys watching movies, a sporting event, or whatever that promotes statist concepts, therefore means the person is a statist?
One word: nonsensical.
The belief in authority spans the entire globe, ranging from the economy, security, arbitration, all the way to public education. It encompasses nearly all facets of all individuals’ lives, obviously not counting the agorist, underground economy. It would behoove these “critics” to examine reality, for as the fictional Professor Bernardo de la Paz said in Robert Heinlein’s novel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:
“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame…as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”
Although, that is no excuse to compromise on one’s principles, simply watching a sporting event does not imply said individual is a principle-violating statist, especially if they are watching the game via illicit means.
Personally, I do as much work as possible within the alternative media. Unlike corporate media, it is just me: I do everything. I handle the website, the preparations for the radio show, produce as much content as humanly possible, and handle the funds for all of the above. For me personally, entertainment (i.e. relaxation) is necessary to prevent me from burning out.
Calling out someone for their inconsistencies is necessary, but it’s time to start living in reality. The fallacious belief in authority is here; that does not mean “we” have to be miserable.
Whether it’s “in-fighting” or infiltration doesn’t much matter to me. Constitutionalists want government and they’re getting tossed into rape cages by the very same government they are attempting to reform.
Anarchists are more radical. They don’t believe in such an institution and want to abolish the belief in authority from the minds of men.
Everyone should practice security culture and vet the people they allow into their groups, both online and offline, but it is especially important to anarchists. “We” are a direct threat to establishment; reform is not option.
Summarily, anarchists deal with enough shit as it is. Most of what “we” do is attempt to draw individuals into this peaceful philosophy. There is no better way to make it less attractive than to nix reproduction and entertainment from the equation.