The Future of the SJW and Its Related Movements

I recently read a very timely article from Evan Stern over at FEE entitled “Why I Left the Left.” When discussing the evolution of his radical meetings away from the concepts of being anti-statist, and adopting more social justice oriented goals, he states the following: “Special privileges to be heard were conferred to the most oppressed within the group. This led to a bizarre new struggle within the movement over who might lay claim to being the most truly oppressed.”

Been making that very point myself now, for quite a while. This SJW movement and its like kind can only end 1 of 2 ways, or some combination of the two.

1. It is defeated by an outside force–science, imo, is going to be the deciding factor, provided scientists keep gnawing at the SJW’s heels.

2. They eat each other.

Ultimately, there has to be a supreme “victim,” from which all other victims bow down, and take their marching orders. It has already started in feminism, where white feminists (especially female ones) are being told to shut up because their feminism doesn’t adequately address the increasingly complex world of “poc feminism.” Hence the need for “inter-sectional feminism.” If you are a white gay male, your troubles may be oppressive, but you don’t have the “oppressional currency” to purchase more positive rights than a transgendered poc.

It’s hilarious in how transparent their own bigotry is, but it is totally lost on them. They think they are being saviors, when their own bad guys are their own selves.

Open This Content

We’ll Always Need Philosophy

I think one reason why we will always need philosophy, and why science won’t ever surpass it in terms of usefulness (not practicality, but usefulness) is that philosophy can’t be bought.

Here’s what I mean by that. With science, and hard, observable discoveries, there is always the chance that your work can be corrupted somehow. Edited, changed, or otherwise modified to make it say something it doesn’t. Usually for political or economic gain.

But philosophy is just smart dudes swapping ideas about life, death, and everything in between. When there is no space for economics and money, there is no room for bribery. There are no results to edit, or to fabricate.

Logic and epistemology can be countered by other logic and epistemology, and then we just do it over again.

You never hear about philosophers being bought out to big [insert anything].

But you do with scientists and theologians.

To clarify, science has this funny thing where if enough scientists claim a thing to be true, and produce seemingly passable papers or essays, the theory becomes generally accepted as hard fact, and life then works now through that newly discovered lens.

You don’t have that with philosophy. Nobody listened to Kant’s essays in philosophy symposiums, where he presented the findings of deontology, and other philosophers in attendance said “well, that looks good. I guess we all do philosophy from the point of view of deontology, now.”

But we do that in science. Enough scientists get together to convince the rest that we are in a heliocentric universe, and then it no longer is questioned. (I am not questioning that particular fact, as I am not qualified. Just using it as an example.)

Another example is Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. An idea is given sufficient weight by either enough scientists in that field to be significant, or a single mind can carry that weight, and the theory becomes virtually unopposed.

Open This Content

Anarchy, By Definition, Is Voluntary

In light of a conversation on Twitter today, I wanted to make this point.

Anarchy means “no rulers.” This is key.

It is key because if your brand of anarchy requires you to dismantle, or take, or otherwise forcefully remove from me that which I voluntarily acquired as mine (i.e. – property) (and regardless of whether or not you see it that way – your p.o.v. is irrelevant) without my approval, you have placed yourself and your philosophy above me as a person. I am now a serf, and you are my ruler.

So any brand of anarchy that claims that moniker, while simultaneously attempting to take your stuff, via force, is unequivocally anti-anarchy. These ideas are diametrically opposed on a basic and fundamental level. No amount of logical twists and turns will make this anything other than what it is. You can be against property. That’s fine. But as soon as you make a violent move against me, or seek to take my property without my permission, you are destroying the very foundation of what it means to be an anarchist.

Which brings me to my next, congruent point – anarchy without voluntaryism or voluntarism is not anarchy. Again, if you do anything to me without my permission, you are placing yourself and your desires above me. You have sought to make yourself a ruler over me. This is no anarchy. And there are no two ways about it. Voluntary interaction is a cornerstone of the anarchist philosophy, necessarily.

Anarchy, in order to be anarchy, requires voluntary interactions, and egalitarianism (in the form of rights). These are necessary and sufficient conditions in order to meet the demands of anarchy.

Remember – anarchy = no rulers. No rulers = everything is voluntary, by matter of definition, fact, and necessity.

Open This Content

Why Aren’t You An Anarchist Yet? Questions and Suggestions

In light of yesterday’s bombshell revelations, I have two questions and a suggestion.

Question 1: In the last 20, 30, 40, or however many years you can go back, how many times have you said “because of Thing A, I am thankful or grateful that we have government?”
By contrast, how many times have you said “Freaking government–always finding some new way to screw us over”?

Question 2: If you have found yourself saying the latter statement more times than the former statement, I ask you: why are you not an anarchist yet? What more do you need? Government isn’t just impractical, ineffective, inefficient, and dangerous in theory. If nothing else, it becomes demonstrably more true by the day. So why aren’t you an anarchist yet? What is holding you back? Some sort of divine reverence for your country’s founders, or founding documents? The ironic belief that, somehow, regular people need rulers, corrupt as they may be? Or perhaps, like the vast majority of people, it is simply how things always have been, and you have never given it much thought. Does one of those sound like you?

It is my hope that in light of yesterday’s, and the subsequent, revelations from WikiLeaks, that more and more of you begin to awaken to your awful situation.

But for those who may not yet be there, or ready to accept–I offer a suggestion. No, not to read a book (although, depending on the literature, that is a fantastic place to begin) or some other long, and drawn out deep intellectual exercise.

Instead, I ask that you watch a documentary, subscribe to a few YouTube Channels, and have a willing mind that is both open, and teachable, yet questioning.

The Documentary is called “Sirius: The Disclosure.” (It’s primarily about UFO and E.T. cover-ups, but the implications surrounding liberty and the nature of government are incredibly relevant. There are other subjects touched on too, like the FED, and 9/11.)

It is 2 hours long, and is worth it.

One of the YouTube channels is High Impact Flix. The videos are insightful, hard-hitting, asking the real questions, and are entertaining. And if you aren’t pumped up to fight for the cause of liberty (or at least against leftist hypocrisy) after each one, then nothing (but my blog) will do it for you.

I also want you guys to check out a relatively small YouTuber (whose videos betray an astoundingly high production value) by the name of Mouthy Buddha. Again, great conversational videos that should get people questioning the world around them, and he deserves way more subs than he currently has. (As do I!) His video “Why I am a Spiritual Agnostic” explains me down to the genetic level. Notice his use of the Tao, which is something I’ve mentioned quite a bit on my own Twitter, and a topic you can expect an exploration on regarding its intersection with Anarchy soon. 😉

Lastly, but not least(ly?), I want you guys to check out my guys over at Bring Your Own Anarchy. Loud, in your face, always drinking good stuff, and never without an astute thought regarding the world around us – these aren’t your 60’s anarchists. This duo is smart, engaging, insightful, and their twitter account is in point. If you’re new to anarchy, or a hardened vet, these are guys you should be listening to. This is another channel that has way less subs than it deserves.

So why are you not an anarchist yet? There is every reason to be, and the statists are running out of legitimate reasons to not be (if they ever were legitimate in the first place).

Open This Content

Questions For Anarchists That Are Harder Than They Like To Admit

One article type I’d like to spend time exploring on this blog are those questions that people commonly throw at Anarcho-Capitalists as critiques of their system. Sometimes those “critiques” are invalid, or based on ignorance or mistakes in logic. Questions like “Isn’t anarchy chaos?” These are not very good critiques, and with the most minimal of effort, even the most ardent of critics of Anarcho-Capitalism (or Anarchy, generally) can find satisfactory, factual, and well-reasoned responses. And I think it is because of the commonality and persistence of these kinds of questions that Anarchists brush aside with simplistic (not necessarily a bad thing, but if “simple” comes off as “platitudinous” or “high-horse,” we do a disservice to ourselves, and our philosophy) answers, perhaps not even willing to consider the points made by the other sides in the discussion.

I’ve noticed these types of responses too, ever since I got involved in politics, with every ideology I have ever subscribed to. It isn’t just Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists, but that’s the ideology I am subscribed to currently, and because of my faith and belief in it, I think it’s important to take some time to answer these kinds of questions. Also, I think it’s important for me here at this blog specifically because the intent of this blog is to illustrate how a real Anarchist society can be built and ran. Questions pertaining to justice (another blog on that coming), law, persecution “under the law,” etc…are real issues that need responses. This blog post – as are most others – are my attempts at wading through waters that are a bit murkier than Anarcho-Capitalists give them credit for. So, on to some context!

Germany Considers Law Invalidating Underage Marriages With Refugees

The link above is an article from FOX describing how Angela Merkels government is looking into a law that would invalidate marriages of refugees to those who are “underage” – marriages to children, to be blunt. It is a CDR response to the growing alt-right movement in Germany (and Europe and the United States and elsewhere…) to try and (too little, too late…?) assuage Germans who are angry at a government seemingly more concerned with foreigners than its own people.

I posted the article to an Anarchist FB page I am a part of and have been active on for years. These are people I respect, admire, and in some cases, even work for (kind of). When I post these kinds of things, they more often than not, go ignored by the majority of members, but occasionally I’ll catch the attention of one or two, and this post was no different. The post itself, and their answers were the catalyst for this blog.

In the post, I asked the question “Wicked punishing the wicked? Statists interfering with freedom of religion? Tyrannical religion oppressing children? Thoughts?” The page is filled with active LDS (Mormons), former LDS, inactive LDS, and LDS of all varieties, and the line “Wicked punishing the wicked” is taken from the Book of Mormon, and infers that God’s justice sometimes comes by wicked peoples destroying, or raiding, or somehow assaulting other wicked peoples. In this way, good people have no need to go to war, and it is seen as a valid way for God’s justice to be had. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword, after all. Similar concept. So I posed this question, and without naming names, here are some summarized versions of answers I received.

  • Not my marriage, not my problem (word for word)
  • No sweeping laws fix things
  • What about other marriages?
  • What if the girls are conditioned to obey?
  • Use social shaming and education for the men and women instead
  • Cultural differences – Mary was married to Joseph at 14
  • Cultural differences justify a non-universality of application of principle
  • Abuses of liberty to one may not be so for another; culture determines that

Keep in mind, the thread is ongoing, so answers from people may change, and new ideas could be put forth. But as it stands right now at 9:47am Pacific time, those are the answers I have received.

I can’t speak for anybody else, but none of those answers are satisfying, and are full of the platitudes (at least in my mind) that I spoke of earlier. These are girls – children – being married off to much older males, who have every intent of having sex with (i.e. – in this case, raping) these girls. So I would like to go into the broader issue at play here, and maybe try to find a reasonable, non-statist, answer to these questions, and maybe even respond to these answers along the way.

Of course, the broader issue is immigration. In America, the phrase is “illegal immigration.” I know of no one who is against immigration, only the kind they view as “illegal.” Statists of the conservative and alt-right persuasion view it as a property rights issue. America is their home. The people voted on certain laws to protect their boarders, and by extension, their homes from people who want to come here and live off of the government, or commit crimes. If you don’t want to do those things, do it legally. (My wife – from Germany – is a legal immigrant.) Like the immigrant crises in Europe, Germany especially, the issue also revolves around the concept of entitlements. Illegal immigrants in America are some of the most well-treated and taken care of in the world. According to some estimates, Texas alone spends 1.9 billion a year in for Medicaid and other healthcare programs. College campuses across America are declaring themselves “safe” for illegal immigrant students, in a deluded response to Donald Trump’s presidential election. E.U. nations are well-known for their lax attitude towards immigrants – illegal or otherwise – even to the detriment of their own populations and peoples (Here’s looking at you, Sweden).

Illegal immigrant crimes are often reported with the line “…was deported 8 times….” Or some such idea. The American media has made a habit of, when reporting crimes of “illegals,” you can bet that will be a tag-line. Citizens often call for harsher penalties against illegal immigrants, but those calls are often ignored in the interest of not exceeding in punishment the crime, which is a constitutional mandate. Citizens argue that the constitution was meant for citizens, not illegal immigrants. The back and forth, and confusing media narrative serves only to divide (and conquer) and stir hatreds in people that likely wouldn’t have existed otherwise. Of course, that’s the whole point, but it is also all the more reason people should get a straight and reasonable answer on this issue. And while I do not believe the answers above from some of my fellow Anarcho-Capitalists are good answers, I do believe the philosophy of Anarchy I embrace here can provide those answers, and does, and I think it speaks to the heart of how I would like to see an Anarchistic society come about and be sustained.

The Foundation for Economic Education has done a fantastic job at describing the economic benefits of immigration. For Anarcho-Capitalists, there is no such thing as “illegal immigration.” Immigration is a fundamental human right. And immigration is more of a net good than it is a net bad. I want to be clear from the get-go – I believe this to be true, myself. Period. No “but.” I just believe this to be true.

The existence of a state, however, makes this position difficult to sustain if you have laws which limit immigration in the first place. Especially if there is some sense that the government wants to enforce those law, which people then depend on. And when those laws are no followed, or well-meaning Americans who simply wish to see those laws respected see the same government call them racist for demanding that, we can see the beginnings of a major culture war brewing. Which is why education must first happen before hard anarchy principles can be fully adopted. But liberty, always, must be protected, first and foremost. If people are dead, they don’t have liberty. Protecting liberty protects lives. This must be first.

So, in regards to the article I posted, let’s go over those answers.

– Not my marriage, not my problem. This answer is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly, it falls into the trap that many Anarcho-Capitalists fall into, and it serves to give detractors ammunition. It tells the world that Anarcho-Capitalist are selfish, and don’t care about anybody else. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and this blog and the philosophy I espouse are proof of that. More than that, an attack on the liberty of one is an attack on liberty, period. And an attack on liberty attacks the liberty of all. It may not be your marriage. It may not be your problem, but the attack on liberty via the forced marriage and rape of a child is. Liberty is congruent to natural law. And there must be a response. Those who are innocent, and have their liberty violated must be protected. Violations of liberty demand justice and that justice can come in a variety of forms, but seeing as we’re currently relegated to a world of Nation-States, our options are limited. In this case, let the wicked (Government) punish the wicked (Pedophiles). We keep our hands clean, and justice is served. But in no way is this “not our problem.” In my anarchist-society, justice would be (especially if the liberty violation was rape) up to that given society to decide, but no doubt it would be swift, and market-determined.

–  No sweeping laws fix things What about other marriages? What if the girls are conditioned to obey? If children are being forced into marriage, sexual or otherwise, do we protect them by making laws dissolving them immediately, or wait to educate? When does protecting those who are innocent come into play? If education (which we support here) comes AFTER someone’s liberty has been violated, do our principles really support or sustain liberty? Sweeping laws may not fix things. Especially man-made laws. And it is true that education must happen. But how can we educate about the greatness of liberty when we do nothing to protect and sustain it simultaneously? At that point, our “education” is just lip-service. Protection of and education of liberty must happen simultaneously. If we educate about it, but don’t protect it at the same time, we come off as platitudinous. Liberty is real. Not a platitude or a nice word we can just throw around.

– Use social shaming. I am a big proponent of this tactic. It has worked wonders for the left in the last few decades. But while I do see it as a valid method of winning in the market place of ideas, it’s not sustainable as the only method, as the American Left seems content to believe, especially in the media. It needs to be backed up with exposition on our principles. Contrarianism is not the goal, especially if no intellectually honest descriptions of our own beliefs are given as a valid alternative. Progressivism has failed. Progressives know this. But they have nothing but ridicule. And their time has come. They are losing the political war. Let’s not follow in their footsteps. We can use the tactic, but we cannot stop there. Our ideas must be backed up with intellectual honesty, and an insistence on being critiqued, so that our ideas can come back stronger, and more solid than before. In other words, we cannot be the “progressive” American left.

– Cultural differences – Mary was married to Joseph at 14. Cultural differences justify a non-universality of application of principle. Abuses of liberty to one may not be so for another; culture determines that. Should culture supersede abuses of liberty? The principle of gravity applies everywhere. If it is a true principle, shouldn’t it be universal? Liberty is a true, universal principle. When it is violated, something stirs within us to defend it, and right the wrongs done to it. There is a natural response to violations of liberty. Also, one thing this blog is specifically dedicated to is defining liberty, and detailing specifically when its abuses have actually occurred. (Links to essays) Cultural ignorance does not supersede the universality of liberty, just like ignorance of gravity does not save the life of one who jumps off of a cliff with no rope. Liberty is to Anarchists what gravity was to Newton. Like the apple that drops when it is tossed, a natural response happens when liberty is violated. The market of a given liberty-based society determines that. In a society where liberty is not the prime virtue (such as in a Nation-State), justice still demands a response. In this case, allowing the wicked to punish the wicked may be our only recourse. All the more reason to educate about and defend the principles of liberty, to hasten that society’s creation.

Liberty is not merely a buzz-word. It is a real principle, with real reactions when it is invoked or attacked. Liberty always has a response. It’s our job to focus that response into something that is just. When there is no anarchistic society to do that, justice will take what justice can get. Sometimes, that is the wicked punishing the wicked. But make no mistake – justice and liberty will claim what is theirs. We can either live according to that, or we can fight it. But if we fight it, we are essentially saying that we can jump off of a large cliff with no rope, and walk away from it. This is absurd. It is as contrary to natural law as pretending gravity doesn’t exist. Living in harmony with the principles of anarchy will allow us to thrive. But if we cannot protect those of us still innocent, then teaching them about the virtue of liberty after theirs has been violated is dishonest, demeaning, irresponsible.

Open This Content

The Infinite Regress of the Victim Mentality

I recently watched a rather painful video from Stefan Molyneux entitled “But It Wasn’t Real Communism!” In it, a caller tried to (rather pitifully) make the claim that property isn’t a real thing, and that his example of injustice illustrates this fact. The claim was “If I stole a painting from you (Stefan Molyneux), and when I died, I passed it on to my son, who does the painting belong to? You, or my son?” For communists, or general proponents of the idea that property doesn’t exist, this is a slam dunk argument… I guess? The answer is quite simple, and it is “No. If Stefan is still alive, he can claim his property back. But if Stefan is dead, then we might have a different story. If generations have passed, and none have tried to reclaim it, then ultimately it is not Stefan’s anymore. But while Stefan was claiming it, and you aggressed against him, and he is still alive, the painting still belongs to him.” Simple. Just a few sentences, and even that can be condensed. I just wanted to be clear. But the caller’s “point” was that land “taken” by “whites” doesn’t actually belong to them; it belongs to the people they stole it from, and they should give it back. Of course, this all presupposes the whole concept of property in the first place, but let’s continue with the primary point for now.

We’ve all likely heard the claim before. White people owe black people reparations – usually in the form of money – for the injustice of slavery. Men owe women for the injustices of sexism and patriarchy. When conservatives make claims regarding borders, national security, and illegal aliens, some leftist, predictably, brings up the idea that Native Americans were here first, so “white” Americans should leave, or go back to Europe, or something.

Now aside from the fact that nobody living today has gone through the injustices of their ancestors, nor has anybody alive today perpetrated those injustices on any living or deceased person today, and therefore, they do not owe any so called “victim” anything, there is another problem with this line of victim based ideology. Namely, there is always another victim further back, to which a claim can be made for “justice.”

This isn’t to say, of course, that great injustices haven’t been wrought against various peoples the world over for one reason or another. In fact, it is to say precisely that. Human beings, throughout history, if nothing else, have shown within themselves the capacity to enact great harm on each other. And for little reason, no less. Whether it’s something as small as “personal offense” or “dishonor,” or for want of power, human beings, as seems to be our collective history, have perpetrated amazing amounts of injustice on other people. And so to claim that because one injustice in the distant pass occurred, future and completely innocent people should pay for it is absurd.

For instance, take the argument that modern “white” Americans have no claim to the land on which they reside, because it was “stolen” from so-called “native” Americans. As it turns out, Native Americans aren’t so “native” at all. In fact, there are two theories that argue that a Proto-European group first came to the Americas 25 thousand years ago (one theory says it was by boat off the coast of Spain, and another says it was by the Bering Strait land-bridge and its associated islands), a good 10 thousand years before the Bering Strait land-bridge migration of the ancestors of the native Americans. That group is believed to be an ancient Asian group, perhaps Chinese, which would later evolve into the Native Americans we know today. But what happened to those Proto-Europeans, those people that claimed these lands first? According to one theory, they either assimilated, or were “physically obliterated.” They may have also died out due to stiff competition for natural resources, from these newcomers.

In other words, the so-called “native” Americans massacred them, stole their resources, and bred with the true native’s women, and bred them out of existence. In fact, there are some genetic markers left in modern Native Americans that support this, as well.

So what’s the point of this brief bio-archeological lesson? No, it isn’t to create some new race debates of who did what first, or anything stupid and pointless like that. But it serves to illustrate one very simple thing – this is what humans do, historically. We fight over resources, land, or whatever is needed for survival. And then property itself falls into new hands. And if we want to claim that modern people need some sort of reparation for the sins of our fathers, then we can always go back to even more distant victims of injustice, and just claim “Well, I’ll pay you once you pay me for the injustices my ancestors went through from your further ancestors!” There’s always a more distant victim that we, as humanity, can claim.

At some point, we have to the bigger person, and only charge that true injustice happens on the individual level. Did I attack, beat, and lynch you? No? Then I don’t owe you anything. Were you the victim of something that I actively inflicted upon you? No? Then you aren’t a victim of mine. I am not going to sit here and tell you that you owe me something because something happened to my ancestor by some ancestor of yours. That’s preposterous. You are an individual, and so am I. You did me no harm, and therefore, I am not your victim. If you yourself tried to steal my property, then we have an issue. But if your ancestor stole something from my ancestor, you don’t owe me a thing. Victimhood isn’t inheritable. Neither is sin.

If that is the claim, then we must admit an infinite regress in the logic, as there is always another distant victim, whose injustices must be addressed. And at that point, then we are just trading one injustice and set of reparations for another, ad infinitum. And it is utterly pointless, and just a waste of time.

Tl:dr – Did it happen to YOU? No? Then you are not a victim. You are not owed anything.

Are YOU the perpetrator? No? Then you are not an oppressor. You owe nobody anything.

It’s that simple. And to suggest otherwise is to indicate that you are terrible at forming a coherent thought, and should be ignored.

Open This Content