I’d just like to introduce, to anyone hasn’t had the pleasure of an introduction, the timeless, charming, sarcastic and - most importantly - relevant blogger, Miss Priss. So relevant, in fact, that the word itself is underlined, which you can easily fact check by returning your eyes to the previous sentence. She’s a good read and well worth your time. Anyone who writes an entertaining poem for their introduction has to be worth your time.
And yes, she is for hire, but only in the bedroom.
It is a favourite pass-time of the critic to claim that Anarchism is a game for young adult men below the age of thirty and adolescent boys. Aside from the obvious fact that this is more or less (more) an ad hominem attack directed at the philosophies credibility rather than it’s arguments by complacent individuals who’d much rather advocate the nuking of thousands of people than think logically about an argument. It should duly noted that those who make this statement are themselves older individuals, who seem unwilling to question the status quo on the basis that they already have stuff. Another interesting point that ties into this analysis is the observation by some Anarchists that after the age of around 30 (give or take a few years), many people refuse to even consider the idea that the state is not the best (let alone moral, ethical and efficient and safest) system to pledge one’s allegiance to. Instead they tend to support an organisation which makes a business out of stealing from us. The question that both these observations produce is, what is it that makes many individuals aged 30+ more reluctant to accept a philosophy which advocates their own personal liberty - so long as they do not coerce another?
The way I see it, around the age of 30, individuals have finished their schooling and have been working for some time. They have begun to amass wealth and their recent success in production creates a bigger dependency on the state for the continuation of that accumulation - rhyme entirely intentional. Here is the key point; they have stuff. Those who would shun liberty seem to fear the risk it brings with the prospect of removing the government. It’s completely understandable, to a degree. More or less; no government may mean no stuff. For this reason they cling to the notion that the government protects their property and keeps everything alright, for they have something to loose. It doesn’t matter that the government may systematically steal from them on a regular basis on false pretence. It barely makes a difference how the government consistently fails in its duty to provide security. It matters little that governments, all conceived from the same notion that it is permissible to coerce others, routinely kill thousands of people a day world wide. What matters is, as it stands, they have stuff that may not be there when there is no government. To them the question is, ‘what’s the point in freedom if I starve?’, and that is a very valid point.
However, before I address that, allow me to make the second observation. From innocent childhood, people have been taught to believe government is good, cops are good and that ‘people need leaders’, when really you’ve never met the politicians that parade around as your leaders, most police are thugs - little kings with delusions of grandeur - and you grow up only to be robbed by government and forced to bare the brunt of the mistakes when politicians play with the economy. The point is they’ve been brought up to believe that government is good. Most have been introduced to bad arguments for liberty from their child hood - Anarchism is no government which is chaos and Anarchists are chaos loving bomb throwers - while being presented with strong, simple, arguments in favour of the state. The moment the subject of a society without government is brought into a discussion, the kneejerk reaction kicks in, they regurgitate a line from their past and you have just witnessed psychological inoculation against an attitude or idea. Genius, isn’t it?
This psychological state coupled with the persons eagerness to, understandably, not risk their stuff, provides a great basis for mindless support of the modern day welfare-warfare nation-state. That is why you’ll often notice that modern day Anarchists, with the various exceptions, are young and generally students in some capacity. They don’t have stuff to risk, they want their freedom and the potential gain far outweighs the potential risk. However, in order to communicate ideas with anti-state implications, one must break through the psychological inoculation and argue that a persons stuff may not necessarily be at risk. Counter Economics is just one in many methods which support this statement. For those who don’t know, it is a theory the proposes to use multiple black and grey markets to form a Counter Economy, allowing money to enter and remain in the counter economy, maintaining and creating infrastructure while starving the state of tax income. Through Counter Economics, security is provided on the market in all forms and it is entirely possible and very likely that an individual may acquire more stuff (gain) even while working against the state, by purchasing and/or providing security on the market. The idea that it is not just profitable, but right to benefit while putting the state at a disadvantage is a commonly unthinkable idea, but Agorists have thunk it.
Not only is the ill-conceived notions that Anarchism is a philosophy which advocates chaos, disorder and destruction a lazy and insulting assumption, but it is also unfounded. Unfortunately though, the information a person is fed during the early periods of their life coupled with the slow process of accumulating stuff leads people to avoid questioning the status quo, or risk dealing with sorting out contradictory attitudes they have come to accept.
The following is an excellent extract from a piece by Per Bylund that details exactly how the current system is in no way free or voluntary. It is well worth a read.
But most of the harm caused to other people are the effect of the state’s actions or choices made by individuals sanctioned by the state. War and taxation are the obvious examples of the state’s terrible impact on people’s lives. If there were no wars (and wars are only fought by or on states) and no taxation, the possible alternatives for people would be much more numerous.
Choices are however also limited in other ways: certain thoughts are not allowed to be uttered, certain ideas cannot be made into goods and services, certain beneficial relationships are prohibited. Freedom of speech is limited, which means there is a constant constraint put on individuals in their actions and discussions, which in turn leaves a lot of great ideas unthought; a great many fantastic goods and services are never thought of or tested “thanks” to intellectual property privileges, “health” restrictions, and the prohibition of certain substances no matter how they are used or what they might entail; people may not sell or rent their bodies or futures, they may not marry unless granted by the state, they may not write contracts unless the contents thereof are explicitly allowed by government.
Add to this the fact that there is a ruling class of people - politicians - who do not produce anything at all of value, while they use the powers they have taken to restrict people’s lives and consume the values created by others. Politicians are no doubt the scum of the earth, not only because they are usually the dumbest people of society - but because they add absolutely nothing to the wealth of the people. They are parasites and the effect of having them around is the effect of any parasite: they restrict your actions and feed off of your health and wealth.
There is also a class of people who benefit greatly from the political class and its infringements on people’s lives and liberties. This class works very closely to politicians and they support each other in a system often referred to as corporatism (sometimes capitalism, not however the free market kind). While politicians are generally stupid, they do realize that they gain from cooperating with the wealthy - the wealthy, who have almost without exception gained their wealth through the exploitation of market opportunities created by government-granted privileges (read: patents, barriers to entry, etc), support politicians and the political system and get privileges in return; politicians enrich themselves through the help of the wealthy, and make sure their powers are kept intact and increased through the horse-trading with the privileged class.
Whatever is left untouched when these two classes have taken what they desire is what constitutes other people’s possible choices. Individuals cannot find opportunity to accumulate wealth simply because wage laws and regulations make sure that establishing a business entity is difficult and costly, while wages when working for others are kept at a low level. What this means is that people suffer while some get rich because they can yield the power of the state.
Read the rest here
