Free markets, and fuck you

30 September 2009 by Mike Gogulski
Posted in mind control, philosophy | 64 Comments »

I’m republishing, here, an essay — or, perhaps, diatribe — by Jessica Pacholski.

I don’t have to agree with every word, or even understand the full context of where she is coming from.

What I do understand, however, is the frustration at dealing with people who seem to have nothing better to do than run around pointing out the “not real”-anarchists, painting themselves into ideological purity corners and doing precisely nothing to build the links to trust and camaraderie necessary to create a new society — nay, in fact, acting daily to smash and sunder those links, before they can even be forged.

No, this does not mean that there is no place for philosophy, philosophers, or philosophical discourse. What it does mean, to me, is that people who already recognize they have a fucking enormous common enemy already in the form of the State (caps deliberate) really ought to set aside all this fucking bullshit, get together as human beings, and see what kind of society they can build… themselves, for real. Right fucking now.

Yeah, I’m impatient. I suspect that Jessica is too, and good on ‘er for being so.

I was recently told that I’m not a “real” anarchist by several people who call themselves anarcho or libertarian socialists. Most people like to think of themselves as being reasonable and logical, rarely is this the case. A side effect of this is that once they have an idea they are usually pretty dogmatic in their ideologies. Many accuse others of this same trait and are lacking enough self awareness to see how wedded to their own ideas they actually are, this is just the pot calling the kettle black.  As for me I am trying to augment my education, on my own time and under my own direction. The result is that I expand my mind and explore new ideas. As I learn I grow. However, once I find an idea that I see as logical and cogent I am tenacious about it. Is this rigidity? Maybe it is, however my ideas can be swayed if the counter point is reasonable and logically coherent. However, most of the debates I have had recently have offered nothing of the sort, they are emotional and reactionary arguments made by people who believe they are being logical. It’s a case of rationalization usurping being rational.

Recently I was called “authoritarian” because I am an agorist. According to my critic I am more a “classic liberal than an anarchist”.  I would like to ask the question: And your point is? Classic liberalism is the basis of the libertarian philosophy when taken to its logical conclusion is market anarchy, agorism.  It is the belief that people should not only be free politically, but economically as well. The original leftist radicals were laissez-faire capitalists, they believed in the right to property, the free trade of goods and tolerance to diverse ideas. I am a believer in a totally voluntary society, I see the free market as the ecosystem where people are free to exchange goods and services according to any arrangement they wish. Agorism includes syndicates, co-operatives, straight barter, mutualism, etc., as long as it is peaceful and voluntary. Ergo, if a group wished a communitarian approach to their survival, I would not be opposed to that, as long as they respect my choice to own personal property. I have no wish to tell people how to live, on the contrary I want people to live however they want. So, if someone thinks that makes me “authoritarian” I would love to know exactly what is their definition of “authoritarian” or if it’s simply an accusatory they lob at anyone who disagrees with them.

I have also been accused of being pro hierarchy because I don’t believe in social ownership of all property. This is based on the premise that all hierarchies are bad, including voluntary ones.  I ask, would you rather a nurse or a surgeon do brain surgery on your child? Or even better would you rather a doctor right out of med school do the surgery or the head of neurosurgery? Experience and talent count in most spheres and people are rewarded on merit. This doesn’t bother me, I do not waste my energy cursing all hierarchy, what I oppose is forced hierarchy. If I choose to work for someone else, I enter into a voluntary association to our mutual benefit. There are times when another person has better judgment and expertise that I do not possess. I can earn a living by offering my skills and talents to an employer in exchange for not having the full responsibility of the company on my shoulders. If I choose to learn the skills of my employer, through such employment, I am being paid to learn them. In the final analysis I have bettered my own situation either way. How is this unfair or coercive? If I feel I am being mistreated I can leave and if I don’t perform my duties competently I can be dismissed. Those are all terms of the contract. The truth is there are situations that I think a chain of command is necessary, that someone with experience has to make decisions and there are decisions that aren’t subject to a vote. To deny that is to deny human nature and the existence of reality.

I was also informed that I advocate the use of “mercenaries” because I advocate private security. Of course I advocate private security, I’m an anarchist, who else would supply security without a state?  It would be illogical to call myself an anarchist and support public policing and standing armies. Those are the functions of a state. There is a glaring lack of understanding involved in this, they don’t seem to understand that thousands of people and companies already employ their own security from private contractors and they don’t use them as mercenaries. All you have to do is look at all the private security firms already operating to see that this is an alarmist’s argument. For the record it has been the state that has had a long history of employing assassins and mercenaries. Blackwater isn’t contracted by private citizens, it’s contracted by the government. Our military has long been used as mercenaries by the corporations and the central bank  that own our government in this country, how exactly has the state stopped the use of mercenaries then? I don’t see the logic there. No one company in private sector could ever amass the wealth necessary to do this in a truly free market, that is why certain corporations have commandeered the mechanisms of the state for this purpose. They need our taxes to finance their monopolies and international dominance, the military- industrial complex is the unholy union of industry and state. It’s not capitalistic in nature it’s a result of a mixed economy, in other words we already have a socialist economy known as corporatism. Without this union the opportunity to control the peoples of this country, and others, would be impossible. It is the state that makes exploitation of the many by the few possible.

What I have found is that it’s those people who call themselves anarcho socialists that are not really anarchists at all, they still want a state structure and they are just deluding themselves. They just want to engineer a perfect society and as one critic told me he favors the Platonic idea of democracy and the people taking over the mechanisms of the state. How can you be anti state and pro Platonic social engineering? I have come to believe that the whole premise of socialism rests on a hatred of humanity at its core, an idea that humanity is inherently evil and people must be made to act differently. This is why the ends of every socialist revolution have been tyranny and genocide, the means define the ends and the anarcho socialists have historically resorted to violence to advance their ideas. Emma Goldman found out the hard way where her beliefs led, she was horrified by the bloodshed. Of course Kropotkin made excuses for the brutality of the Bolsheviks saying that the “statists” had taken control but the syndicates would soon rise and help finish the evolution from state to anarchic socialism.

It never materialised, why? Because the fundamental idea of socialism and communism rests on public sector power, it has to, you cannot have common ownership without a common use of force to ensure compliance to the ideal. Collective use of force is government. Ultimately socialism becomes the ultimate purveyor of public power, not personal power. It is the only outcome that can happen when your premise is that the whole is greater than the individual. It makes human life cheap, they are nothing more than eggs to break for the omelette of Utopia. When we lose our sense of unalienable individual rights all rights become provisional, this way of thinking leads not only fascism but to super fascism. That’s why I no longer believe that socialism is humanitarian or preferable to free markets. From everything I have learned I’ve come to think that the free market is the only economic system that can keep people free, no other way is possible because there is no freedom of speech, press, religion, or right to privacy, without the right of private property and economic freedom. There is no greater good served if you are not protecting the rights of every individual. You cannot protect the rights of humanity when you don’t believe every  human life is valuable, no matter what rhetoric you use.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

  1. 64 Responses to “Free markets, and fuck you”

  2. By Aaron on 30 September 2009

    I have noticed quite a bit of this vulgar dialogue, and I tend to stay out of it, myself. I’m willing to work with anyone that is willing. The rigidity on both sides of the propertarian dispute is uncalled for.

    But I do agree in that, of course, there is a place for the discourse. But, for the same reasons that I don’t go around hurling insults at minarchists, I try not to be a total asshole about it.

    Also, I know that this isn’t precisely the point, but it in a sense, it is. The author (Jessica) shouldn’t be so rigid so as to conflate socialism with government. Or to assume that socialism is incompatible with free markets. Or that all “anarcho-socialists” (scare quotes) are baby murdering bandits. Etc. Counter-productive.

  3. By Mike Gogulski on 30 September 2009

    @Aaron: *exactly*!!!

  4. By Yosef on 30 September 2009

    If I disagree with the methods or what they may lead to, I see no sense in setting aside my “philosophical differences” to work with someone using those methods.

  5. By Mike Gogulski on 30 September 2009

    @Yosef: At least in my context, you ran into conflation fail here. We’re talking about arguing crap all day long versus actually doing things. But here you are skipping to presumptions about what we’ll actually do. And, what, you prefer the state to this? I don’t believe that.

  6. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    Shame on you Gogulski. In the span of a few weeks, you have degenerated from a sensible, radicalism-embracing person to a raving capitalist lunatic.

    23. Can’t we just work together to smash the State now and worry about these details later?

    The short answer is no. The ancap wants to abolish the State; the ansoc wants to abolish all hierarchy, of which the State is only one. The former will attack the State while supporting other authority, and the latter will attack all authority. A typical anti-political ancap views a political End the Fed petition as one that fails to strike the real problem, statism, the same way an ansoc views a movement to end the State as failing to strike the real root problem of hierarchy and authority.

    The ansoc view is that “anarcho-“capitalism is a form of micro-statism, with the belief in property (as opposed to possession) leading one to authoritarian conclusions. So it really makes no sense to demolish the current State only to replace it with the authoritarianism of property.

    The view of “anarcho-“capitalism being a gross contradiction in terms, also comes into play. If “anarcho-“capitalism is a contradiction, that renders the term meaningless, and thus “anarcho-“capitalists have no actual consistent position, and thus cannot be said to actually stand for anything consistent, with their opposition to one authority and support for similar authorities.

    Also, if “anarcho-“capitalists advocate different alternatives to the State, their course of action will differ. They may advocate hierarchical business structures as a part of agorism, or take action based upon the belief in private property, and those means are found to be completely counter-revolutionary by the ansoc. Ansocs will advocate tactics such as advocating labor unions and syndicates, cooperatives, mutual banks, worker strikes and takeovers, while the ancap will often view those as ineffective at best.

    And many “anarcho-“capitalists are more than willing to work and collaborate with minarchist statists, while at the same time they have no interest in working with left-anarchists. So the attitude that ansocs ought to shut up about property and hierarchies and work with ancaps to fight the current State, is rather hypocritical.

  7. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    “Anarcho”-capitalists support sexual harassment

  8. By Mike Gogulski on 30 September 2009

    François, …

    François… no, wait… I’ll start again.

    François: “…;….”. Damn. Fail.

    François: [fill in the blank]

    Oh, fuck it. You fill in the blank. I really can’t be bothered.

  9. By Mike Gogulski on 30 September 2009

    Yes, yes, I’ll be sure and add your input to the stack of directives from anti-life creeps which keeping piling up…. and act on it. REAL SOON NOW.

  10. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    HAHAHAWHUT? ANTI-LIFE CREEPS? What, have you turned into a Randian now? Or are you anti-abortion now?

  11. By Jim Davidson on 30 September 2009

    It is clearly possible to be anti-state and anti-property at the same time. It just doesn’t seem to be very relevant, since the desire to redistribute property so frequently seems to overwhelm the anti-state impulse and the anti-propertarians end up making an exception, just for a while they plead, with the best of intentions, and go ahead and use the state to smash up property rights.

    So pardon me if the history of the last few centuries makes me very skeptical about the extent to which zealous anti-property people are really committed to being anti-state.

    I share Jessica’s thought that agorism and market anarchy don’t make much sense as strategies if you don’t believe in private property. What’s the point of trade and commerce if stealing from me is just as good? How do we arrive at an alternative to plunder when you say that I’m not allowed to own the fruit of my labor?

    For many years I have wondered about the rumor that planning is a threat to freedom, and the apparently related rumor that leadership is a threat to freedom, or that organisation (aka division of labor) is a threat to freedom. It seems to me that people can use tools like guns and computers to do all kinds of things, some evil, some good. The tools – and these include conceptual tools like division of labor and written plans – are not in themselves evil. So why is it necessarily bad to use hierarchy if it gets somewhere?

    I think classical liberalism is provably a dead thesis. Governments are not instituted to protect rights. This has been proven false. Governments are instituted to take stuff from the productive people and make it the stuff of the people who run the government. Alvin and Heidi Toffler called this idea “surplus order” or order for the benefit of those who run the state.

    It pleases me very much to make common cause with those who seek to end war, even if I cannot see eye to eye with them on other things they might wish to end. I think the worst excesses of the state, and its worst crimes, involve war. The greatest state-built “fortunes” are based on the corrupt allocation of military contracts. And the great motivation for endless stupid wars are these huge budgets that aren’t supposed to be questioned because of the threat of being considered unpatriotic.

    I hate racists, but if I had to work with racists to end war, I’d do that, and then work to end racism. I hate anti-propertarian ideology – because of its close links with past statist abuses. But if I can end war by working with anti-propertarians, I’ll do that, and then we can have a nice chat about the merits of market clearing prices.

    In many ways, I don’t think that a consistent ethical philosophy without private property, individual liberty, and respect for life, makes any sense. I haven’t seen any way to divorce any part of those three things from my opposition to the coercion and fraud of the state. Much of what I really hate about the state is how it attacks property, liberty, and life, by turns.

    Mike, if there is something to do to move forward with ending the state, today, sign me up and let me know how to help.

  12. By Yosef on 30 September 2009

    @Mike: *sigh* Conflating or no, my point still stands. With an issue this big, discussing it seriously seems like it should take a priority, not a back seat.

  13. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    Jim Davidson? The same one who said to my friend Noor on Facebook recently:

    Jim Davidson 28 septembre, à 01:38
    I absolutely don’t want to hear another word from a filthy fucking state-funded university dwelling communistic bitch anti-propertarian shit like yourself, thanks. And you did bother responding you worthless liar.

    Jim Davidson 28 septembre, à 01:55
    Tell it to the millions you slaughter in the name of nationalising their property. Last I heard you were deriving benefits from a taxpayer funded university in Bloomington, Indiana, because you are such a principled anarchist, is that right? You seem just like a state communist to me. So does Roderick Long, for that matter.

    Jim Davidson: super-aggressive maniac, sexist, racist, imbecile of the first order. A perfect friend for Gogul.

    (the famous left-libertarian Roderick T. Long will be rather surprised to learn that he is a state communist, or so says the maniac Jim Davidson)

  14. By Jim Davidson on 30 September 2009

    It seems to me that there is one essential difference between the authority of the state and the so-called authority of the market. The state demands that you obey. The market asks whether you would consent.

    Finding a market clearing price is an extremely cooperative act. It takes real effort for participants in a market to find a market clearing price, and this ability turns out to be irreplaceable – no command economy has ever found a substitute.

    Anti-propertarians say that I don’t have any right to my possessions, including my body, my mind, my thoughts, or the fruit of my labor. This seems bizarre and irrational, to me. If these things aren’t mine, then why are they yours to distribute by your weird anti-state socialistic ideology? Since you are taking from me what appears to be mine without my consent, to redistribute according to your “fair” system, isn’t your system imposing your authority on me?

    It seems to me that private property is an essential element in freedom. If you take what is mine without my consent, I don’t really care whether you are the state, or a thief, I’ll shoot you down like a dog just the same. Or, as Mike puts it, “and fuck you.”

    Would one of you didactic anti-propertarians please explain to me how agorism is supposed to work if I’m not allowed to offer my services in free exchange? Or how your anti-propertarian system differs from slavery if you can demand services from me without my consent?

    Mike, I think you may have missed it just a bit. I think you just have to respond to some of these people with “go fuck yourself” and move on.

  15. By Jim Davidson on 30 September 2009

    It looks like you have had e-mail correspondence with someone who was tired of e-mail correspondence, Francois. Perhaps now would be a good time to respond to my ideas, or, much better still, go fuck yourself.

  16. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    Interesting tactic: first post big reams of posturing, and then challenge your opponent to engage him or else. Did you get that idea from the Creationists?

    Which part would you like me to engage, Jim? The part where you associate capitalist markets with consent, when consent cannot exist without viable alternatives and viable alternatives cannot exist under capitalism, the part where you make the even more bizarre claim we want to “redistribute” bodies and thoughts, or the part where you associate property, which is ultimate control over objects and the people who use them, and freedom, which is its opposite?

    Tell you what Jim. Make one coherent claim and I’ll answer it. None of what you wrote makes any sense.

  17. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    The purpose of me posting your lunatic ravings was simply to show your real personality behind all this posturing. You are a very nasty person, much like Gogul.

    I am not dishonest like you. Insofar as I go, what you see is what you get. I don’t expect you to understand that, though.

    That being said, the offer I made on my previous comment still stands. Can you uphold your part of the bargain?

  18. By AlaskanAnarchist on 30 September 2009

    The comment section of an article about the stupidity of sectarian bickering has degenerated into sectarian bickering. Lulz…

  19. By scott on 30 September 2009

    A) Emma Goldman’s beliefs did not lead to Bolshevism. To conflate anarchism with authoritarian socialism or state capitalism is absurd and unhelpful.

    B) Jessica’s view on the employee-employer relationship is painfully naive. It’s not a “voluntary association to our mutual benefit” but class exploitation. People don’t work (usually shit) jobs “voluntarily” because they have nothing else to do or because they’re too dumb to be the boss. They do it in order to survive.

    C) To turn her argument around that communitarian living requires government in order to be enforced – if that’s the case, who will enforce the rules of her “anarcho”-capitalist world?

    Your introduction does not gel with the contents of her rant. You claim to want discourse and solidarity while she is calling anarchists “super fascists.” Can’t have it both ways.

  20. By scats on 30 September 2009

    jeebus. doesn’t anyone read the Anarchist FAQ anymore?

  21. By mb2p on 30 September 2009

    “Anti-propertarians say that I don’t have any right to my possessions, including my body, my mind, my thoughts, or the fruit of my labor.”

    No. That statement is simply false. All anti-proprietarians favor these. As Marx said,
    “Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labor, the other on the employment of the labor of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only.”
    Like Marx or not (and social anarchists are not exactly buddies of the Marxists, despite what Ms. Pacholski might think), this quote gives a good intro to the “anti-proprietarian” stance(ie anti-the second kind).

    Anyway, I can’t really agree with the essay. I’m all for uniting with people who don’t agree with me on everything but I can’t ally with someone who thinks that, for instance if workers reclaim the factory they work at, they should be “shot down like dogs”. Any more than I could ally with neo-nazis.

  22. By Anna Morgenstern on 30 September 2009

    I can get together with a bunch of statists, for example, if our common goal is to destroy the Federal Reserve.
    I can get together with a bunch of “anarchists” whose principles I don’t agree with, if our common goal is to destroy the state.
    Do I think there is much more to be done, if the Federal Reserve goes down, hell yes.
    Do I think there is much more to be done, if the government of the USA goes down, hell yes.
    But taking out the major “elephants in the room” surely will make it easier to accomplish whatever else we’re up to.

  23. By Anna Morgenstern on 30 September 2009

    Even if it meant I had to turn around and fight my former “allies” immediately after that stepping stone was accomplished.

  24. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    If we can eliminate all of them? Sure. But elimination is not the main objective. There is little we can do against hierarchies that have accumulated centuries of wealth and power (overt and covert). When one loses out, another wins out.

    Crowding them out is the most obvious alternative. And THAT requires agreement. We can’t ally with the ancaps because their means are immoral, and the means *are* the end.

  25. By Brainpolice on 30 September 2009

    Part of the problem with the relativist “can’t we all just put aside philophical differences and unite against the state” meme is that it seems to reduce to fake solidarity. It is usually predicated on the ancap’s bargaining power, or to put the matter more directly, on the assumption that it’s the ancap’s property framework in which the “pluralism” towards the socialist is supposed to be manifested.

    Another issue is that saying that we should unite against the common enemy may very well be misleading, in that the qualitative analysis of what that common enemy is may very well be quite different. How can people unite against “the state” when they don’t exactly agree on what “the state is”? If I think that your property norms logically entail, by consequence, the sufficient conditions for a “state”, then pluralistic “anti-statism” between us is illusory.

    To take the matter even deeper, whether or not anti-statism is fundamental is in question. For those leftists with very “thick” inclinations, it isn’t. The goal being sought isn’t merely negating “the state” (and only in the fairly narrow sense of the modern democratic nation-state to boot), it’s the movement towards a more just social order in general, of which anti-statism is only one conclusion that is part of a bigger picture. Simply because someone nominally opposes the state doesn’t necessarily mean that we ultimately have compatible goals in the long-run; they could be in favor of virtually everything that one objects to. Sacrificing all of one’s values at the altar of anti-statism is a problem with most of libertarianism.

  26. By Brainpolice on 30 September 2009

    I used to be of an “anarchist without adjectives” mindset (and, keep in mind, the open-ended interpretation of an w/o adj. being promoted is not what was intended by the initial an w/o, in which I essentially was apathetic towards inter-libertarian conflict and concluded that the conflict was irrelevant. The problem, in retrospect, is that this was a simplistic reaction in which I was valueing conflict resolution for its own sake, and as a sort of rationalization for the intellectual laziness involved in not deeply thinking through the philosophical conflicts inside of libertarianism.

    I came to the realization that if you put aside essentially all of your values simply because of a nominally shared opposition to a single institution, and that if you form a completely open-ended broad coalition of self-proclaimed “anti-statists”, what you end up with is an unstable hodge-podge of people with completely different social goals that will inherently fragment as it plays out. Not only that, it conceptually devolves into absurdity, with things like monarchy and nationalism being snuck into anti-authoritarian movements on the grounds of an illusory “pluralism”. This attitude opens itself up to “entryism”.

    What this kind of “voluntaryism” ends up doing is stretching the meaning of freedom to the point of absurdity out of its desire to be all-inclusive. Everything about “the state” that one may have initially set out to oppose can be repacked in a new, relativized framework, and libertarianism ends up looking like a shallow and hypocritical doctrine to the extent that it does this. And it often entails a strange line drawn in which anti-statism and non-aggression is treated as an absolute categorical imperative, while beyond this dividing line all questions of value are left to relativity. I’ve never seen a libertarian sensibly rationalize this line.

    There are real conceptual and practical tensions involved here that I don’t think can be simply swept under the rug in the name of “pluralism”. Problems aren’t solved by ignoring them. There is a fundamental structural level of analysis that most libertarians, as well as the open-ended interpretation of anarchism without adjectives, does not take into account. If you think that a vague commitment to opposing the modern democratic nation-state is sufficient to produce a free and flourishing society, you’re wrong.

  27. By b-psycho on 30 September 2009

    Sure, some people have different views of what an anarchist society would look like. But the amount of people that still think of post-state society as a chaotic shithole is the more pressing matter. That said, Jessica’s rant seems to turn on a dime from pointing that out to perpetuating the problem, IMO.

  28. By Aaron on 30 September 2009

    I shouldn’t have read the comments, as I knew what they would devolve into.

    I must say, a lot of propertarians, in general, need to get a clue as to what anti-propertarians stand for. I do find it frustrating that many ancaps appear to learn the basics of ancap theory, never bother to learn anything else, and then act like they have any idea what they are talking about. It’s embarrassing. To reiterate the point here, STOP BEING DOGMATIC. Other ideas do, in fact, exist. We should stop throwing logic to the wind. (And I do understand this tendency, as I, too, was once a wet-behind-the-ears rigid-as-fuck ancap)

    @Brainpolice: You bring up some very legitimate points. In my experience, though, absolutism is a very inefficient way to rouse support. Can we not benefit from practicality as well without sacrificing principle or ends? Am I inconsistent as a mutualist because I cooperate with right libertarians? Am I inconsistent because I live and work within a capitalist system, and would necessarily continue to do so in the absence of government?

    I cannot imagine so, and I cannot imagine why doing such things necessarily entails an impediment to my proposed ends. Agreement on anti-“statism” does not necessarily entail ancap as the ultimate ends; opposing government does not mean “capitalism wins”. Social constructs change over time, and I see no logical reason to assume that cooperation with capitalists will result in the inability of society to collectively see the immorality and institutional violence of capitalism. Why, as far as I can think, the nature of any successful movement to abolish government would most likely be conducive to such constructs.

    If we can achieve a “stateless” society, albeit one based in capitalist micro-statism, is this not still progress? My work may be incomplete, but have I not reached one inherent goal of that stateless society, having abolished government? How can I go about life assuming that the end of government will come about simultaneously with the end of capital as a productive force?

    The question of stickiness of property, or of whether real property exists, will be inevitable in a stateless society. If the ancaps think that all stateless societies will simply conform to, for instance, a Lockean conception of property, they are frankly, absurd. Likewise, if ansocs think that all stateless societies will simply conform to, for instance, a Proudhonian conception of property, they are frankly, absurd.

    Is conflict inevitable (for any reason, and not necessarily propertarianism)? Yes.

    Do we need to cooperate with one another? No, but I see it as a necessity towards achieving my own ends, specifically. I can’t speak for other ansocs in that respect. And I also would not be so dogmatic so as to assume that my own ends will not change.

    Do we need to actively antagonize one another? No. Some appear to think that we do.

  29. By The New Anarchist on 30 September 2009

    What frustrates me the most is that everyone is arguing about what color the drapes need to be before anyone’s even broken the foundation.

    That’s what turns me off about a lot of these conversations. They’re not relevant yet, but they could be. In another setting, I’d love to dive in and start going at the finer points but the ultimate Causes are still there. And I’m ready and passionate about dealing with those.

  30. By Zargon on 30 September 2009

    “I must say, a lot of propertarians, in general, need to get a clue as to what anti-propertarians stand for.”

    Ok, what do you stand for? What it means to me causes bad outcomes in an obvious set of simple conflicts, but maybe it means something different to you than it does to me. A link to the executive summary works just as well too.

  31. By Jim Davidson on 30 September 2009

    I was informed by the anti-propertarian anarchist collective that I am not allowed to make any arguments against you, Francois, since I don’t own my body, my mind, my ideas, or anything else. Since the collective has ruled, who am I to challenge it? Are we not all then slaves to the collective?

    The or else, Francois, is to be ignored. You obviously want to attack me personally, which is why you put out of context parts of some personal correspondence here, and which is why you angrily denounce me as aggressive for saying things with which you don’t agree.

    I don’t submit to the authority of your collective. When your collective comes around to collect the fruit of my labor, I’ll kill everyone in reach in order to keep my property. I don’t expect you to like it nor to understand it. I expect you to resent it, and die like any other thief.

  32. By Francois Tremblay on 30 September 2009

    “I was informed by the anti-propertarian anarchist collective that I am not allowed to make any arguments against you, Francois, since I don’t own my body, my mind, my ideas, or anything else.”

    Property ownership is not the same as control. You can control something without it being your property. So your little satire is pointless.

    “Since the collective has ruled, who am I to challenge it? Are we not all then slaves to the collective?”

    Which collective are you referring to?

    “You obviously want to attack me personally, which is why you put out of context parts of some personal correspondence here, and which is why you angrily denounce me as aggressive for saying things with which you don’t agree.”

    I do not “denounce” you as aggressive. I think your words speak for themselves.

    “I don’t submit to the authority of your collective.”

    Which collective is that?

    Are you still stuck in the delusion that I, and all other leftists, are automatically communists? You little retard, you.

    “I expect you to resent it, and die like any other thief.”

    How ironic, since you are the one stealing resources from your own society.

  33. By Db0 on 30 September 2009

    Two things

    1. My views on why we (LibSocs) can’t be allies with AnCaps

    2. Mike:

    What I do understand, however, is the frustration at dealing with people who seem to have nothing better to do than run around pointing out the “not real”-anarchists,


    What I have found is that it’s those people who call themselves anarcho socialists that are not really anarchists at all,


    But seriously, Jessica’s tirade as others pointed out before me is simply based on her not even bothering to understand the criticisms that LibSocs are making.

  34. By Jim Davidson on 1 October 2009

    It amuses me endlessly that the arrogant shits who pass themselves off as anarchists say things like “not even bothering to understand the criticisms that LibSocs are making” and then take the time to explain, politely and cogently, “Are you still stuck in the delusion that I, and all other leftists, are automatically communists? You little retard, you.”

    Of course you are all communists. By which I mean liars, thieves, and mass murderers. Francois Tremblay is Stalin.

    The part I still don’t get is how can I be able to control resources that I own, and that’s okay with Francois, but I am not allowed to steal resources from society, even though I both own and control those resources.

    It seems to me that the anarcho-shitheads want to claim a collective interest in everything because they have the mentality of two year old children. Everything is “mine,” they think, because they have discovered the word “mine.” lol

    They offer no theory of property that allows me control over my body, ideas, mind, and the fruits of my labor but also allows them control over the same things. They simply assert that what I call my property is not allowed to be called my property because it offends their sensibilities. Which is good.

    I enjoy offending scum fucking thieves, liars, and mass murderers. Francois, go to hell you vicious communist psychopath.

  35. By Db0 on 1 October 2009

    Get lost troll

  36. By Francois Tremblay on 1 October 2009

    Hmm. What was that I was saying about you being a raving lunatic?

    I rest my case, your honor.

  37. By Nataliya Petrova on 2 October 2009

    A pox on both the houses of Jim Davidson and Franc here. Mike G doesn’t deserve Franc’s character assassinations.

    Noor does not want to kill ANYONE. There is no evidence to support that smear whatsoever ~ apart from a mistaken understanding of mutualism. I was tagged as agreeing with her for simply objecting to Jim’s exceptionally cruel insults and nonsense equations of mutualism with Stalinism. I even stated I agreed with him on the nature of property rights. I had even been arguing respectfully with Noor about her preferences prior to their argument. Nevertheless, I was accused of being a property hating mass murderer without any evidence whatsoever. A person who has read my work would know this is a baseless character assassination.

    But sure; let’s all keep being aggressive dicks towards each other. That will surely change minds and resolve intellectual disagreements. We can have a Salon or a saloon where “fuck you commie bitch” becomes an acceptable part of discourse.

  38. By DixieFlatline on 2 October 2009

    Nice statement by Jessica.

    I don’t care about solidarity. Solidarity means arguing with people who disagree with you on almost everything except the state, instead of collaborating in market action with the people who do more than talk.

  39. By Francois Tremblay on 2 October 2009

    Agreed. I have no solidarity with ancaps. The means are the end: if we ally with people who use immoral means, we are setting up an immoral society.

    People like Gogul are setting up hierarchies to fight against hierarchies. They are getting us nowhere. We need to ridicule their ideology and dissociate ourselves from them.

  40. By Mike Gogulski on 2 October 2009


  41. By Francois Tremblay on 2 October 2009

    Gogul, stop your fucking posturing and think with your head. You are acting like a pouting child.

  42. By Mike Gogulski on 2 October 2009

    (scratches belly) (looks around for misplaced potato chips)

  43. By Francois Tremblay on 2 October 2009

    Tell me when you’re done with this childish posturing, Gogul.

  44. By DixieFlatline on 2 October 2009

    Franc, I read that you are into human extinctionism.

    Good luck with that project!

  45. By Francois Tremblay on 3 October 2009

    Thank you, although it’s not “my project.” I am not part of VHEMT, just a supporter.

  46. By Jim Davidson on 3 October 2009

    Of course you anti-propertarians want to kill everyone for daring to have our own property. None of you are interested in consent. You aren’t voluntaryists, you are statists. You don’t wish to be called statists, so you pretend there is a hierarchy to be destroyed.

    But when asked to join forces to oppose the state, Francois refuses. Why? Because he wants to use the state to separate people from their property. And he wants to use other coercive means. He denies it can possibly be my property, and that it must belong to my neighbors, whether I give my consent or not.

    There can be no peace with anti-propertarians. They are liars, thieves, and mass murderers. It doesn’t matter what they say about it. Because, of course, it doesn’t matter whether I consent or not, whether I agree to be a part of the collective or not. The collective is more important than me, therefore my consent is irrelevant to mass murdering state communists like Noor and Francois.

  47. By Francois Tremblay on 3 October 2009

    If we’re communists, does that make you a fascist? You’ve already got the sexism and racism part down pat.

  48. By DixieFlatline on 4 October 2009

    Franc, I should be honest with you. I think extinctionism is incredibly stupid.

    When I was wishing you good luck with the project, it was somewhat tongue in cheek.

    PS, you didn’t refute Jim’s last statement about anti-propertarians. Is it true?

    @Jim Davidson, you seem like a real asshole. I like that.

  49. By The New Anarchist on 4 October 2009

    “But my property is not a thing, since this has an existence independent of me; only my might is my own. Not this tree, but my might or control over it, is what is mine.”

    Anyone want to play ‘Name That Author?’

  50. By Mike Gogulski on 4 October 2009

    Smells like teen Stirner…

  51. By The New Anarchist on 4 October 2009

    Yay, you win!

    Give up your right to property if you want, whoever is on that side of the argument but mine will have to be taken by force (and quite a few others’ I would hope)

  52. By Francois Tremblay on 4 October 2009

    “Franc, I should be honest with you. I think extinctionism is incredibly stupid.”

    A spurious and pointless statement.

    “PS, you didn’t refute Jim’s last statement about anti-propertarians. Is it true?”

    I am not interested in talking to raving lunatics, which is why I am not replying to anything he writes. But for the sake of understanding (for the possibility that you are actually reasonable, which seems rather slim), the answer is definitely no. I am not interested in killing anyone.

  53. By Mike Gogulski on 4 October 2009

    Taken by Force, you say? Awesome Scorpions album, from the time when they didn’t suck. “Sails of Charon” still rules.

  54. By The New Anarchist on 4 October 2009

    I might be too young for Scorpions. Sounds 80s-ish.

  55. By Mike Gogulski on 4 October 2009

    That album’s from the 80s. Sails of Charon

  56. By The New Anarchist on 4 October 2009

    Was that made to be watched while high? Cause I have the sudden urge to get high and watch that.

  57. By Mike Gogulski on 4 October 2009

    Dude… Play the video, close your eyes, pretend you’re getting high and watching it. Works purty well!

  58. By The New Anarchist on 4 October 2009

    Thanks! That sounds like a good idea.

  59. By John Galt on 4 October 2009

    Labeling someone crazy doesn’t respond to their arguments. It cops out by saying the ideas don’t matter because they come from a crazy person.

    I’m curious how he gets to be a racist by calling both Noor Mehta and Roderick Long state communists. Aren’t they of different ethnicity? This would also seem to let out the claim of him being sexist. He’s clearly an asshole, even Dixie Flatline could tell.

    The funniest part is that anyone takes an extinctionist seriously. I think Francois should support extinctionism by immediately killing himself.

  60. By The New Anarchist on 4 October 2009

    ::pulls out the popcorn::

  61. By Mike Gogulski on 4 October 2009

    WTF where did you get popcorn? I lost my potato chips at least 2 days ago on this thread…

  62. By The New Anarchist on 4 October 2009

    Takes a little imagination and time traveling but ultimately, you can smuggle any type of salty snack into an anarchist comment-war.

  63. By Mike Gogulski on 4 October 2009

    Aw man… right now I need a really salty, stinky cheese… bryndza isn’t cutting it, quite…

  64. By Life, Love, and Liberty on 5 October 2009


    Roderick Long isn’t a mutualist on property rights…

    I am curious to know whether or not he is an acceptably ally now.

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. 30 September 2009: Tweets that mention Free markets, and fuck you --

    comments rss Comments RSS

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Core Dogma