The Anarchist Township

Fight the war, fuck the norm!

Month: June 2010

Blog Roll Call for the week of 6/14/10


It seems as if the reason for invading Afghanistan would be a lot further than terrorist hobgoblins and so forth if this little fact was known by Washington beforehand.

And if that last link was known by American officials beforehand then it seems like this short little blurb about it is completely on the mark.

It appears as if the Pentagon is gearing up to do more spying on individuals who more than likely are not terrorists but just free thinking people who don’t support the government, out of the flames of an old disbanded organization comes a new one.

‘” The new Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Operation Records section will be housed in DIA’s Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center, or D.C.H.C., formed after the demise of the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, according to an announcement that appeared Tuesday in the Federal Register.

The “activity” was disbanded, but evidently not its records database, which seems to be headed to the new unit. One of the criticisms of CIFA was that it vacuumed up raw intelligence on legal protest groups and individuals from local police and military spies.”‘

There’s a mysterious idea going around that the government and BP could possibly be colluding and working together…nah that’s impossible! Well… maybe.

“A silly question, though: were you or I the subject of an ongoing investigation for possible criminal wrongdoing in the deaths of nearly a dozen people, countless wildlife and the livelihoods of many Gulf coast residents, ya think the president would be declaring how important it is for everyone that we, the accused, continue to be as “strong and viable” as we were before the alleged crime? To ask is to . . .”

Well I guess it could make sense but I’m still not convinced…

“To say the partnership between BP and the federal government is “unlikely” is about as naive a thing as one could write; it’s like remarking how “surprising” or “disappointing” it is that Obama hasn’t rolled back the power of the presidency since becoming . . . president. The Defense Department, the single largest energy user in the US with a carbon footprint greater than many countries, purchases the majority of its oil and gas from BP. ”


On the other hand what if the deposit WAS not known about in Afghanistan?

Well it still wouldn’t really matter.

“Now, the multinationals will swap supplies with governments and rent non-governmental military contractors to seal perimeters. This isn’t a long shot, by any means. Genocide and mass displacement will occur with any effort to tap these resources during occupation and without occupation, the resources won’t be significantly tapped. Do the math.

We’re not saying this hostile takeover is moral, ethical, legal or acceptable in any way. We’re saying it’s stupid to treat this story as irrelevant because it’s a long-term endeavor. It’s actually the long-term aspect of the endeavor and the obstacles along the way that foreshadow the atrocity of expediting access to the resources. We’re saying that there’s no reason to act as if corporations and governments will cease to be atrocious.”

From one blog to another, 16 burning questions about the BP spill bring up some good points.

Andrew Napolitano as a statist troll.

Are you a libertarian and ailed with a bad case of favoring restriction on free movement? Less has a potential cure for you on Anarchy Without Bombs located here.

Although I’m not in total agreeance with what is said here I think Ann constantly makes some valid points under her “class war” rhetoric, one such article can be found here.

Rad Geek People’s Daily

How ridiculous can your understanding be of a freed market place? Well apparently Charles can help you figure it out.

That’s it for this week, no blog posting for next week as I am off to The Porcupine Freedom Festival! 🙂

What can we draw from Libertarianism? (Part 3 of 3)

Part 1 and two are located here and here.


There are so many important questions to get from libertarianism that it’d be tough to ask them all and condense them into three parts, but I’ve done this as not to dwell on issues I feel have already been solved by other more intelligent speakers and spokesman for liberty than I am as of right now. Rothbard for instance has wrote on common criticisms of libertarianism and other thinkers have also come to the defense of libertarianism in many forms. Roderick Long has called libertarianism in it’s simplest form (or perhaps just overall for that matter) a theory of justice that dictates that all of man must be treated equally in authority and titles and positions should be irrelevant to the dictots of what justice is in a free society. That is of course, my own wording of what I think libertarianism stresses. But what specific form of libertarianism should be embraced and why is it logical to do so? First off libertarianism offers a comprehensive but simple look on life, that people’s bodies are their own and no one’s but, this eliminates the idea of slavery and the idea of any war on drugs, after all just like Bill Hicks said, “It’s not a war on drugs, it’s a war on personal freedom…” And so any libertarian who really supports individual freedom and liberty must oppose the drug law even on the most extreme sides, “conservative-libertarians” who consider themselves a little more “liberal” than others are nothing but paleo-cons, just dressed up. They generally support closed borders, a limited war on drugs, interventions minimized and so forth, the consistent libertarian as far as I can see is actually an anarchist, one who uses libertarian ethics to their advantage to explain how justice should be treated in society. But when is the time to use libertarianism?

When is the time to use libertarianism?

Libertarianism should not be used as an excuse for violence based on libertarianism or a justification for every single judgment you make though chances are it’ll be involved in some way and that’s fine but don’t make it the central point at every step. This is of course considering Dr. Long’s theory about what libertarianism is correct, it’s a theory on justice to be sure but it’s also the statement that individuals own their own body, property and labor and no one has a right to it but themselves, though this could be easily applied to matters of justice as far as I can see it. Libertarianism should be used when the question of what to do about justice and individual freedom comes up, or rights if you prefer. Libertarianism offers answers both to the question of justice and also to the questions of individual freedom and they are often a lot more lucid and easy to understand (though difficult to grasp at times) than the ideas of statism. But why is this? Because the state’s ideas of justice is forcing people to abide by it’s rule and not letting them have any alternate choices in the matter and then force justice down their throat, whether they want the accused to be punished means nothing to the state in many cases and when it does the state usually won’t play by the individuals respect for the liberty of others. The idea of justice for the state is monopolistic, coercive, a moral evil and unnecessary even in utilitarian reasoning, just see David Friedman’s reasoning in his essays and works and talks. Regardless of those kinds of considerations there’s many ways to use libertarianism and many ways to get there but the goal must be the same and the enemy as well: individual liberty and government.

The main tenets of libertarianism

I do not contend of course that all of these are correct or that I necessarily agree with them, just that they are the central ideas behind libertarianism or at the very least some of the most spoken of ideas by libertarians.

1) A good starting example is something I’ve already discussed here and there which is the principle of self-ownership, this is the idea that we own ourselves and no one else can claim such ownership to our bodies. This ties in with libertarians support for people being able to kill if they really want to and no one having a supposed right to stop them through the use of force because they’re not hurting anyone besides themselves and it’s their own bodies so it’s perfectly fine. But does this mean libertarians want such a thing to happen? Well, one would think it’d be easy to say no to such a ludicrous idea but the selfishness of libertarians or supposed selfishness of them I should say is often a common criticism of libertarianism, but as Dr. Long has asked Who’s the Scrooge? Dr. Long makes a great case that the people who oppose libertarianism as selfish are actually mistaken and the state is actually the most self-involved entity in the world, though he doesn’t say as much this is a conclusion I can draw myself. Not only are libertarians interested in other people’s affairs they must be or else what’s the point on having a theory on justice? The self-ownership idea helps libertarians some of the fundamental of such a theory on justice and although I have some of my own problems with it which were actually remarked by libertarians for example how we can actually own ourselves but still deny that ownership of others. But I like to phrase it that we have responsibility over our own body inherently and therefore we also own our body and no one else has the right because we’ve constantly labored with our own body in our own self-interest and volition in mind and therefore no one has such a right to our body unless we grant it.

The NAP or ZAP

Another idea of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) or alternatively the Zero-Aggression Principle (ZAP) is the idea that no one has the right to use force on you, not a group and not an individual either. Force can only be used in defense and it is here that force is justified and no where else. Now I like this principle but I’d like it as that just a principle, certain libertarians like to escalate this idea to some sort of axiom or automatic truth, I doubt the existence of such things to begin with but to say that a principle can be sudden raised to an axiom is a big leap. As far as the principle goes I only agree with half of it anyways, I am not a strict pacifist but I am a philosophical one and do not agree that any moral value from violence can be attained or that it should be sought for, I respect the idea of self-defense as a practical and efficient necessity for maintaining life but I do not and cannot at this time avidly support violence in any way. Overall however I do agree with this principle, or at least half of it, I am not strictly a libertarian in all senses, I do use a lot of the ethical principles it has but I do not consider them all completely valid and as I’ve pointed out already in my opinion at least they have some flaws.

Negative Rights

The last major principle I shall talk about is the idea of negative rights, of course there being negative rights there are also positive rights and I shall discuss the difference between the two now for those unaware. Positive rights are generally advocated by people who support government with an exception or two thrown in, positive rights are generally obligations people owe to others for some mysterious reasons, like, the right to work or to go to school. Generally these rights have unintended consequences that stem from that which is seen and that which is not. In today’s society people are forced through government to give other people these “rights” that they have. Libertarians reject this notion straight out if they are consistent, they will rise and say, “This is nothing but slavery dressed up!” Ask them if the state is enforcing slavery what does this say about the state and then you’ll see the consistent libertarians still standing and the inconsistent ones sitting down. Now, I’m not saying being inconsistent means you’re impure or you’re some sort of demon or something inconsistency will always be with you but the most you strip away the better at the philosophy you want to live your life by will be. Just don’t strive to be perfect.

Libertarianism as a historical revisionism

Many libertarians are not satisfied with the ol’ “History is told by the victors” and often times will revise history to their own liking as most people try to, Kevin Carson for example didn’t like the history of the theories on capital and so he wrote some of his own thoughts on the matter. Joseph Stromberg and others like him have also such as Gabriel Kolko have also done some revisionism in their works and tried to make the seemingly good natured and benevolent US government a lot less so and of course others have also done this. But how far does libertarianism fair? Well clearly not too well as long as the public education system is kept in place and the shit from there keeps going into young impressionable mind luckily people like John Taylor Gatto also have done work on such an area, I recommend looking him up for some of his work. Other writers such as Rothbard, Mises and so forth have also had a hand in shaping the history of libertarianism and telling the history of other things such as the stagflation in Germany or the fall of the Soviet Union and so forth and of course libertarians later on had different historical perspectives on such individuals themselves and their own opportunities in life to make a difference from a libertarians view. Clearly the avenue of historical revisionism is one libertarians have taken in stride at least among a lot of it’s prominent speakers and has gotten help from others as well in such endeavors. This is a road that should be traveled at least once or twice by any libertarian or at least the works of other libertarians should be used as referenced as points to make to others and help them better understand where we as libertarians come from.

Concluding thoughts

From here where do we go? Both libertarianism and market anarchism have been discussed and dissected and looked into, multiples of it’s thinkers have been brought into the open for hopefully people to see, rediscover, or even just refresh their memory on what they had to say and learn from them and apply it to their lives. libertarianism and market anarchism both have applications in real life and that’s what I’ll seek to discuss next, the intricacies of how both theories on justice intertwine and compliment each other through different thinkers and thoughts on life.

Overview of series: The who, what, where, when, why and how of libertarianism.

1.) Libertarianism is the simple idea that individual liberty should be maximized and oppression should be minimized to the fullest extent possible, this can range from a limited government to none at all and in my own opinion the more consistent libertarian will consider anarchism the better choice. Libertarianism is a “thick” concept in that it opposes much more than just governmental oppression but it also as libertarianism should also oppose social oppressions such as racism, sexism, homophobia, militarism and support things like radial individual feminism, sexual liberation, and so forth.
2.) These focuses necessarily put Libertarian on more of a “left” playing field and history backs this up as traditionally those who favored less power for the state were on the left side of the French Assembly. Besides that the current spectrum does nothing to really tell much about libertarianism only bare boned generalities that only have relevancy at points here and there. Left and right should only be considered in the French Assembly sense and if this is the sense that is used, clearly anarchists and libertarians are left. The classic essay Prospects for Liberty: Left and Right by Murray Rothbard and the 40 years later edition of it by Roderick Long both back this claim in a more substantial manner and deeper historical look.
3. Libertarianism is a philosophy that has a theory on justice and also proposes that individual liberty should be the most sought after goal in any society seeking justice of any substantial kind. Things such as the NAP, self-ownership and negative rights back the libertarians assertion of favoring a free society in many ways and the historical revisionism of fellow libertarians can also give them a good idea of how to present their ideas to a literally captive audience.

Blog Roll Call for the Week of 6/7/10

Free Dissent

My own blog post concerned my own personal standing, thoughts on the idea of monopoly capitalism and some notable anarchists quotes, it can be found here.


Gary Chartier releases yet another doozey of an essay explaining how a stateless society could organize legal regimes under a polycentricist order which is here.

Perichoresis Zine

My own blog post about Alan Moore explaining how art can be literally defined as magic.

*I apologize about the lack of blog posts but anarchoblogs does not seem to be working at this time and that is where I derive many of my blog posts.

Where is libertarianism? (Part 2 of 3)

In this particular post when I ask this question I mean where is libertarianism on the political spectrum properly understood

Part two of a series, see part one here.

An introduction to the political spectrum, Left or Right?

Often times people need a reason to put people in certain categories and this can be done for many reasons, sometimes it’s for self-esteem either to lessen the other (You dirty capitalist!) or for the pride of one’s own (I fight for labor!) or it can be analytical and simply be used as a tool to ascertain how to react to other people’s statements. For example a person who supports the political construct called the state would necessarily immediately consider anything one who identifies as an anarchist as someone who is crazy, precisely because they oppose all that they stand for. This also works the other way around although the anarchists I usually see can make logical arguments and seem to keep in mind that the state-supporters are rational human beings like them just misguided from their own point of view. But what good is the current political spectrum? In one of his earlier videos Alex Strekal deconstructs the political spectrum of today and other spectrums like the Nolan chart and he also adds the terms capitalism and socialism and how their anti-concepts.
Now I would like to make a stab at the idea of political spectrums themselves, Strekal also did another video on the anarchist spectrum and concluded that most anarchists would avoid the extremes and always cling to some essence of the pluralistic attitude of “anarchism without adjectives” while also adhering to their own economic preferences. Now I have my preferences as well but I do consider myself a “left” libertarian or anarchist with libertarian ethics if you will but where does this put me on the common left right chart? Well, if we go back to the standard chart, communists on the far left, liberals right from that, centrists right from that, conservatives right from that and finally fascists where do the libertarians by themselves without a preference of right or left stand? Clearly as Strekal pointed out they do not stand anywhere on such a chart but ironically Strekal years later in a not too distant blog from the past said that there is use in the left-right spectrum, saying that:

“A left/right distinction, although things obviously get much more specific than these two terms, is useful insofar as the integrated social philosophies of particular libertarians are inevitably colored by different values or norms in a way that forms distinct views that simply cannot be reduced to a vaguely defined opposition to aggression or the state. Once one begins to disambiguate that, “thickness” of some sort is already at least implicitly entering the picture. The moment that one forms a libertarian philosophy that excludes certain norms from compatibility or defines freedom in specific terms, the alleged “neutrality” of libertarianism begins to dissolve.”

What Strekal means here is that the left-right paradigm is useful for attributing certain economic and personal preferences to people, for example when you say someone is “right” politically on a matter you think they’re conservative about it, you think about the nuclear style home (though you may not put it in such terms) you think of the church and you think of support for big business and poor support for the workers. When someone says they’re “left” you may think of more support for unions, bigger government, more public programs, more open polices on sexuality and rights for persecuted minorities and the poor etc. Now whether these attributes are right or wrong is irrelevant to the point being made, the fact that humans can make such notions about people before they even know them is a powerful thing. If misused like it is today it can also however lead to disastrous results, this is why some libertarians like using salesmen like rhetoric to gain the attention of both sides of the mainstream spectrum but this again leaves the libertarian in no-man’s land where do they stand? Right or left? Well since as I’ve already said the current “right” “left” political spectrum obviously does not take into account the libertarian or anarchist then how can it say to be a true spectrum? Of course then people can say more obscure political philosophies and claim they belong as well but I think the spectrum should be as modern as possible and anarchism and libertarianism are a very modern issue if the things like the Tea Parties (I’ll be it a poor representation of it in substance) and the Free State Project (It lacks substance in some areas but overall seems to be the best out there nonetheless) then the ideas of both philosophies. are still very relevant and should therefore still be considered.

So with some ideas of how the left and right work where do libertarians fit in? Once again not in the current chart, but what about The Nolan Chart as Strekal pointed out in the first video I linked of him deconstructing the political spectrum this is a slightly better choice for where libertarians may stand but this also has it’s flaws, for example do the far left really commit themselves fully to personal liberty and do the far right to economic liberty? And how do libertarians end up on the top anyways? It makes sense that they’d be at the polar opposites of statists, but here statist is being used as a term for maximum government and not just government at all which is really what a statist would actually be, someone who supports the political organization known as the state even in the slightest. So what are the libertarians? All right and left minarchists? This hardly seems like a fair assessment of libertarians when anarchists are apt to take the libertarian ethic and philosophy to it’s logical end and apply it to their own thought. And speaking of the anarchists where are they? At the top of the libertarian diamond? The left? It’s never pointed out. Once again this chart although slightly more useful should only be used with people unfamiliar to the ideas of political philosophy and not anyone who wants to seriously address the ills of society within the context of a political spectrum.

Capitalism or Socialism?

So where does this leave us? Well the next chart Strekal goes for is capitalism versus socialism and he proclaims that both are anti-concepts or as Roderick long put it in his lecture Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: Forty Years Later

“Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as “anti-concepts,” that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the “package deal,” referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not. Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I’ve become convinced that the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety.”

Alex Peak of Little Alex in Wonderland also did a wonderful take on the issue of where libertarianism stands called Left: Against The Capitalistical Imperative in which he borrows a phrase from Immanuel Kant who spoke of an imperative in certain thoughts that necessitate due to the origin of the original though, Peak offers the idea that capitalism necessitates or rather contains an imperative for a state to push capital well past it’s means without it in order to dominate over labor and become the prevailing force in society. And if we look at papers like The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand by Kevin Carson or Joseph Stromberg’s The Role of State Monopoly Capitalism in the American Empire to help back us up I think they both do a stellar (Yes, I just said stellar) job of reinforcing such a belief. Of course I don’t expect anyone just to go on Carson’s words, although most libertarians may not like him much (And I don’t personally care for him either though I admit not to reading any of his works and only having a slight interest in Das Kapital) Karl Marx made good points in the way he said the ones with the property take advantage of the propertyless peasants, of course his remedies were all wrong from a libertarian or anarchist point of view but even so Marx had his moments which I think Carson used the most of in his paper that I just cited.

Regardless where do libertarians or where should they stand in terms of the debate on socialism and capitalism? Well I certainly agree they might as well be anti-concepts by now, I really don’t like to get into the debate as some of my fellow anarchists and libertarians like to about socialism and capitalism but when I have to I try to make my stance notable such as in the note where I explained Why I’m NOT a capitalist and shall always refuse to call myself such. Nevertheless I’d never call myself a socialist without some clarifications if I had to, occasionally I’ve played around with the term free market socialist but I don’t like to get into this debate so I just like to call myself an anarchist in favor of freed markets with a tendency towards the benefit of labor and not capital. Still this puts me in the individualist and anarcho-libertarian-socialist tradition and there I get into other problems with semantics but for now I’ll just reconcile my own belief system as left-market anarchism and leave it for my allies and opponents alike to figure out what that means.

Now, I personally if anywhere could see a libertarian embracing socialism but unfortunately what most do is embrace capitalism as a sort of end all trait which makes them somehow support markets and free markets at that even though the term started as a pejorative for bossism and control over workers by Hodgskin and Marx! But of course this isn’t reason enough to abandon a term, after all the term “anarchism” was used as a pejorative for chaos and lawlessness (and here the one’s supporting the state finally have good reason to call us that since it’s actually backed by history) before Proudhon and other thinkers used it in a more positive light meaning opposition to coercive authorities of any sort, state or otherwise. Now of course anarchism has many meanings just like any word, but one word it is not as I’ve mentioned earlier is NOT chaos and lawlessness, all societies need laws and order and it’d be foolish for anyone to have a serious philosophy advocating a lack of both. How do libertarians advocate capitalism? As Gary Chartier points out, Advocates of a freed markers should oppose capitalism and not embrace it, he makes the proper distinctions so why can’t libertarians just throw away the word capitalism once and for all? Well this is due to a lot of clinging thanks to the mess left by thinkers such as Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand and even Murray Rothbard, who’s constant switching from left to right and back again made it difficult for his followers to have ascertain what was really the anarchist position. Now please do not think I do not find any three of these writers work undesirable in any way for this fact alone I’ve read some of Rothbard’s work here and there and heard some things from both Mises and Rand (mostly from Rand supporters and supporters of Mises and general quotes) but I realize they both have good things to offer but what they did with the word capitalism is what concerns me here and nothing more.

With Rand she made the word capitalism libertarians original friend (even though she hated libertarians and thought they “stole her work”), Mises added on to this by saying that the liberal who supported free markets enemy was the socialist and with all of Rothbard’s switching at times he was calling socialism the enemy and at others the bosses and the state and some intercepted Rothbard’s philosophy of “anarcho-capitalism” as a right one in the political sense. This all confuses the libertarian and leaves some like Walter Block to take the middle of the road approach and say that libertarians are neither left nor right but do support capitalism well I think once again terms must be clear and we must know what libertarians stand for and where they stand. So if anything libertarians seem to be left, but if you don’t believe me and my reasoning so far other libertarians such as Darian Worden proclaiming Libertarians are Left! And Sheldon Richman with his article on the FFF called Libertarianism: Left or Right? Charles Johnson also added to the discussion with his talk of how the revolution that libertarians should support would be one made of people and therefore a sort of revolution in the politically “left” sense of it. And finally Brad Spangler just plain out said we are socialists on his blog site here.

I feel confident with all of this plethora of knowledge behind me to say that I do not support capitalism or socialism but support a freed market place and whatever comes out of it so long as it comes out peacefully, voluntarily and cooperatively as well as through free competition.


In the end I think it’s easy to see how in his classic essay Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty Murray Rothbard made it seem like it was the left that the libertarians should favor and that’s what I also believe, as Charles Johnson pointed out:

“Freedom is not a conservative idea. It is not a prop for corporate power and the political-economic statist quo. Libertarianism is, in fact, a revolutionary doctrine, which would undermine and overthrow every form of state coercion and authoritarian control. If we want liberty in our lifetimes, the realities of our politics need to live up to the promise our principles — we should be radicals, not reformists; anarchists, not smaller-governmentalists; defenders of real freed markets and private property, not apologists for corporate capitalism, halfway privatization or existing concentrations of wealth. Libertarianism should be a people’s movement and a liberation movement, and we should take our cues not from what’s politically polite, but from what works for a revolutionary people-power movement.”

And I think this idea of liberty being a progressive a truly progressive idea with ties to the historical French Assembly left and historically more with leftist attitude of decentralization then this puts the Libertarians on the left with the statists on the right. From there it breaks down to a right and left view of libertarianism and from the left of libertarianism comes the left and right of anarchism which is the final spectrum to look at before I conclude this blog post.

Anarchists are Left-Libertarians in the sense that they have a need for social justice of sorts in society, favor decentralization, empowerment of the workers over bossism, opposition to xenophobia of all sorts, advocating the notion equal liberty in authority, against militarism and oppose corporations and what is falsely called the free market and I can say I agree with all of these points.

And therefore I deem myself a left-libertarian!

(Late) Blog Roll Call for the Week of 5/31/10


Here we have one of many anarchist responses to the concept of memorial day, check it out, it’s a decent look at why the “service” the men and women of the army do is nothing of the sort.

What happens when a joke political part is taken seriously? See for yourself here. I think it’ll be interesting to see what this party does to say the least but I doubt it’ll be anything extraordinary, they’ll either be corrupted themselves or the other parties will make majorities to halt their actions. I guess this just makes it more of a point about how useless politics is to freedom.

The federal reserve continues to bail out the bigger banks and leave the smaller ones further in the dust, this also empathizes the money money monopoly the state has and holds through privileges, find the link to more info here.

Shawn Wilbur has a good addendum to Kevin Carson’s “In a Truly Free Market, BP Would Be Toast” (Which can be found here) which is located on his own personal blog site Out of the Libertarian Labyrinth how the issue of markets and government goes deeper into the effects of the ecology of the planet.

I do think that anyone who believes the market alone, or government alone, or any combination of market and government will solve he problems posed by the Deepwater Horizon spill—without there first being a profound examination of the problems in precisely ecological terms, and with all the sacred cows of both market and government banished to other pastures—probably needs to go back to the drawing board.

A fellow anarchist on guns.

Division by Zero makes an insightful post on his blog here about self-management being the key to freedom not bosses.

I usually enjoy Neverfox’s blog and this post is no exception (though I profess to not reading too much of him but what I HAVE read I usually enjoyed) here he discusses the Nanny State actually pretty literally as he talks about the employing class using the state to further reductions in the employees options. Of course some right-libertarians may disagree with this working, as Neverfox remarks:

“See, laborers just happen to be stuck with this crappy set of options–the employing classes have absolutely nothing to do with it. And the owning classes just happen to have all these means of production on their hands, and the laboring classes just happen to be propertyless proletarians who are forced to sell their labor on the owners’ terms. The possibility that the employing classes might be directly implicated in state policies that reduced the available options of laborers is too ludicrous even to consider.”

Austro-Athenian Empire

Roderick Long’s only notable post for this week was for me a round up of articles that were done on BP which can be found here.

Free Dissent

I made a good post on Free Dissent concerning The State and Immigration.

Scott Ferrie, in keeping with his extreme leftist posts, posted a few barn burners (I can’t believe I just used that phrase) located here and here . And while I certainly don’t agree with them entirely (especially the first) I still think they’re topics worth discussing.


Gary Chartier is back with a vengeance with this post on how people can do things without the need of the oppressive state especially via a bottom-up means of organization.

That’s it for this week, hope everyone had a nice one!

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén