Rejecting the Religion of Statism Part 2
March 30th, 2010
Video Summary: I was found guilty as I expected. I asked the officer if he had any evidence I had harmed anyone.
Answer: “No”.
“No further questions.”
It was very short. If you want them to stop using tickets as a source of revenue–
Challenge EVERY SINGLE TICKET in court!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Punk Johnny Cash and Pamela Pope, Davi Barker. Davi Barker said: RT @PunkJohnnyCash: Rejecting the Religion of Statism Part 2 http://trunc.it/6qr39 [...]
Good job, Dale!
Me: “Fuck the state.”
Friend: “No way. You don’t know where it has been.”
Me: “Then I’ll wear a condom.”
Glad to get an update from you, Dale.
Well, isn’t it obvious? They’re trying to keep it hush-hush to keep up the illusion of legitimacy.
Ideological statism–the religion of statism–for the win! HUR DUR!
bravo good sir
Should have taken the community service. Less money to the beast.
Gonna see if I still can. He said I have 20 days to change my mind.
Not sure if your “go to court, make it cost them as much as possible” strategy will work. They’ll just make the fines larger.
Have you talked about resistance of the 2010 Census at all?
I am an anarchist who also happens to live in NH. I can tell you with all honesty though that you are NOT an anarchist.
Anarchism isn’t about being anti-government; anarchism is about abolishing social hierarchies. So for example, true anarchists are also against hierarchy in the workplace (i.e. bosses) as well as landlords, etc. The most important thing you don’t seem to realize is that anarchists have always – and will always – been 100% AGAINST capitalism. Why? Because capitalist systems create these social hierarchies like the ones I just mentioned.
You say you reject statism. Good, I do too. BUT you need to realize that tyrannical states are the result of the ruling elite needing a way to protect their private property. That’s the reason why states exist in the first place. If you are really against statism you would also reject capitalism and take up participatory economics.
Read this if you’d like more info: http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
Furthermore, no anarchist would be caught dead supporting a movement like the “Free State Project”. If the FSP was really an anarchist movement it would be called the Stateless Workers’ Solidarity Movement!
@Julia
At the core of my beliefs is a rejection of violence. I’m against all systems, capitalist or otherwise, that advocate violence. The world you describe sounds nice. I’m only concerned with what you’re willing to do to get us there. Anytime someone has a really strict criteria for how people should behave, it raises a red flag for me. How are you going to impose your system? I think you’re on the right track, but possibly falling into the same trap as people who want a capitalist system. I believe that’s the origin of statism. I don’t care if you don’t agree with my labels. Not a big fan of labels either.
The FSP is just a bus to get freedom-loving people to move to NH. There is all kinds of debate within it amongst participants about what to do when we get here. I reject all violent solutions which IMHO includes politics. I’m a fan of peaceful counter economics. Maybe you should join it and have your own voice about that.
Dale, I can clearly tell you that you are not an anarchist. I found your Facebook page and took a look at your fan pages. You have listed: gold, private property, the free market, voluntaryism (a capitalist terminology), private school, the CATO Institute, the Mises Institute, and many others that go along with extreme right-wing capitalist ideology.
Please tell me, when have anarchists EVER supported private property? Have you read the writings of P.J. Proudhon (the anarchist philosopher who coined the term “Property is theft!”)? The entire ideas of anarchism are 100% AGAINST private property! You also have “gold” on your favorites. Anyone can tell you that in a truly anarchist (or communist) society any form of currency – whether gold or fiat or credit or whatever – is completely obsolete. Anarchists have always traditionally supported democratic collective ownership of the means of production (meaning: no bosses), not a system where a capitalist boss has total control over all of his/her workers.
Read the scenario on my blog (it’s under the title “Consider This Please”) and tell me what you would do if you were the boss. I modeled the society in which my scenario takes place after the kind of society the FSP wants to turn NH into. Also, watch the video at the end of the post and answer its contents too.
I’m okay with you not considering me an anarchist.
Julia, “Let’s say the far right-wing reactionaries succeed in their goals and are able to create a society in a state or region where there’s no taxes, hardly any real government, no public services, no state police, no gun laws, and no business regulations whatsoever; however, the region is supposedly capitalist and profit-driven. You are a business owner running a very labor-intensive business and have hired 200 workers (wage slaves) to produce your stuff. One day your workers decide they’ve had enough of your bullshit and decide to unionize; not only that but they also decide they want to take over the workplace and give you, their boss, the boot so they could run the workplace democratically in a non-hierarchal fashion. And to top it all off, because there’s no gun laws in this area each of those 200 unionized workers is able to bear arms in the workplace, so they will easily be able to fight back if threatened. Now I ask you, if that were the case, and there was no state police or anything to prevent this from happening, how would you stop those workers from taking over your business? ”
You cannot be serious. For one thing, the chance that any “capitalist” in an ancap society would be able to hire that many workers for wage labor goes against human nature. How do you figure in a free society that someone would even consider working for wage labor unless they wanted to (and there are a few benefits of wage labor, believe it or not)? Would people not own their own means of production whenever possible and/or contract their services out? There are so many possibilities on how society could function without a government, but most of you social anarchists are so closed minded to any other possibilities that you reject all ideas outside of that collectivist labor-minded paradigm.
Another is semantics. Since the world has changed so much since the early anarchist philosophers, would not the definitions of words have changed since those times?
To me, all flavors of anarchism are working towards their ideal society but have a general dislike for authoritarianism. To say that there is a set definition of what an anarchist is (like the infoshop.com guys like to do) is kinda anti-anarchistic, since, you know, they are trying to be an authority on who can call themselves anarchists. I don’t discount the ideas of social anarchists, even if I disagree with them. I may question tactics and motivations, but I can understand where the ideas come from and respect them. I wish that you guys could do the same for us.
You lost cause your claiming a criminal procedure… and unless you make then claim criminal procedure you cant follow up criminal procedure… you have to get them to one side other wise they can go back and fourth on you…
Dale,
Not bad, I understand your premise but just think about this:
“…I have already put them through more expense…” – well unfortunately the expense you put them through affected all of us – Where do you think the money “they” used comes from? – yes – all of us from taxes, more fines, more rules to make fines etc.
“violent” what violent? Imagine what the road would be like without inspection stickers once a year – would you worry about those who don’t take care of their cars and someday T bone one of us? Now that would be violent. I agree that the system we have allowed to develop through fines and the like has bastardized the intent of the inspection sticker but there are better ways to remediate that.
What has happened to us is the total loss of moral conscience. I don’t doubt for a minute your sincerity that you simply “ran late” in getting the inspection – but what is most important is that you clearly understand the underlying value of such an inspection. The judge, if he was a real judge and understood the intent of the law, would then have let you go with a lecture (if needed) about the importance of a safe car (which I know you know and agree with).
You appear to very articulate and perhaps you should – in fact need to – get involved and perhaps run for office. We all have left the rule making to “those politicians” for way too long. Someone like you and others in America need to regain “by the people, for the people”. In some ways responsibility can make you feel like someone is imposing “their laws” upon you but when you are involved the “their” gradually becomes “our”.
God Bless America – it is all we have and if it’s not right let’s use our energy and get involved – run for office – you may be mayor someday!
Thanx for the suggestions, Mike. There are states that don’t have inspections and they do fine. This is a solution looking for a problem. But while I have a problem with the idea of treating all innocent people as potential criminals and making them prove they’re not criminals (the inspection process), I have even bigger issues with the political process which is an elaborate justification system for violence against innocent people. I won’t present the appearance of condoning something that I consider to be in complete contradiction to my peaceful philosophy. That would be living a lie and is not consistent with living my life honestly as my Quaker beliefs promote.
Love the comics Dale, also appreciate the perspective you bring to FTL.
I love how people who claim to be anarchists think that there is only 1 perfect way to be an anarchist and that if someone elses idea of anarchy isn’t the same then the 2nd person is labeled wrong. Instead of fighting about labels and the correct terms of things, how about you devote your energy to getting rid of the state and it’s inherent violence?
or maybe just dont get pulled over.
Before realizing I was a voluntarist, I was a leftist anarchist. It’s a very self contradictory ideology. One characteristic common to everybody I knew who subscribed to it was a lack of understanding of why individuals produce goods and services in the first place. There has to be incentive, and “solidarity” alone is not going to ensure a consistent supply of nuts and bolts to keep the “means of production” in operable condition.
It’s a perfectly fine fantasy, and if you want to try it you should be able to do so. But don’t expect to be able to “collectivize” the property of those who don’t want to participate.
@Corey Moore
It is not archistic to be able to define what ‘anarchism’ is. If it’s undefinable then the word itself is meaningless. Anarchism is the opposition to rulers in whatever form they may take whether that’s political, social, religious, economic.. whatever. Your claim that having criteria of what an anarchist is is anti-anarchistic is absurd! You’re in effect saying that anyone could call themselves an anarchist even a Monarchist yet we both know that kings are not compatible with anarchism.
There is a set definition of “anarchist”, it is one who opposes rulers hence an (negative prefix) archist (from ‘archos’ – ruler). In other words an anarchist necessarily has to be an anti-ruler.
Julia rightly knows that bosses are economic rulers in which their power and position comes from the State’s use of force. When it comes to ownership of property there are two kinds, ‘defacto’ (matter of fact) and ‘dejure’ (matter of law). Defacto ownership of property is ownership through occupancy and use; possession. Dejure ownership is through legal sanction. Those who own the means of production yet do not themselves occupy and use require a ruler to exist aswell as themselves being a ruler.
Anarchism is compatible only with ownership through occupancy and use (it doesn’t mean markets are incompatible though but bosses definitely are). So, in an anarchistic society the means of production will be owned by the workers because they themselves occupy and use it. Anarchism is socialist and definitely not capitalist
@ Anarchos. Because workers ‘choose’ to work for bosses and are not held in position of employment by force. The boss is not a ruler. He does not force any action or inaction onto the workers. Their are many forms of Anarchism from Social-Anarchism to Anarcho-Capitalism. All these forms are against control of people by force e.g. a ruler or government. What you and Julia seem to define as Anarchism is Social-Anarchism (or Anarcho-Socialism) you are welcome to hold those views though I see Social-Anarchism having many problems including corruptibility (as any democratic system is: 51% can effectively rule the other 49%.). The only thing separating Social-Anarchism from many of the systems today is the defined state versus the undefined in the aforementioned. Read: The Art Of Not Being Governed by Jeff Riggenbeck. He describes through historical evidence how the system of a state did not originate out of the desire for people to protect their property. Here is how Jeff Riggenbach puts it: ” In effect, ironically, the state is the price of civilization — not, as the statists believe, because the state is necessary to safeguard or protect civilization, but rather because it is civilization the state fastens upon like a leech or a tapeworm, because the most civilized societies are the wealthiest and thus the most profitable to loot.”.
Sorry, I made an error in writing my last comment. The author of the book is: Professor James C. Scott. I made a error Riggenbach wrote a review of the book which is the quote I included.
You wrote: “… definition of “anarchist”… one who opposes rulers …. an anarchist necessarily has to be an anti-ruler.”
The problem I see with anarchy is that, instead of people being joined together in ‘tribes’ or ‘bands’ — which must, of necessity have “rules” (and leadership, and thus chiefs / leaders / generals, whatever you call them), y’all would have the world become every man for himself. You would, I guess, just join together for the ‘work of the moment’ as necessary — but still without having any leader?
And when some organized tribe or band from over the hill comes to your lone homestead to take your goods (or you!) — how will you protect yourself, your family, your goods? Join together with your neighbors? Which neighbor gets to decides HOW to fortify and defend your homes and lands? Oh — oops — you aren’t going to HAVE any homes and lands, right? Cause property is bad? And none of you will accede to one of your neighbors becoming the general, because that smacks too much of your hated “archist” idea — your “we don’t need no ruler” crap. And so, whichever group of folks bands together and wishes to ‘take your stuff for their use’ WILL takes your stuff for their use!
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will PLOW for those who don’t!!
If you won’t organize into bands, tribes, states — with all the rules, controls, and management (“archism”) that that entails, then you WILL be taken over and controlled by those who will band together. “Every man for himself” — “every man his own leader” is a fool’s choice, because any group of men who decide to band together will ALWAYS win out over the singleton!
If you want your life to be within your own control, then you need to band together with your *own* people and make sure the government you submit to is YOUR government — not some foreign oligarchy that uses you, your family, your goods, your friends, for THEIR purposes. “We are the world” is a lovely slave’s song *provided to* the slaves so they will stay quiescent in harness; and “every man for himself” is a lovely diversion to keep slaves individualized and powerless. “Anarchy” and “we hate all rulers” is what a SLAVE cries — not a free man!
That very long post has a lot of presumptions about my beliefs that simply aren’t true. It’s obvious from so many of those presumption you haven’t read much of what I’ve written. You’re arguing with your own strawman. If you actually care to learn more about the philosophies (plural) of anarchy, even if it’s just to oppose, this is probably not the best site for it.
This site is good for figuring out where I stand if you want to take the time to read some of what I’ve written. If you don’t want to take the time, that’s fine, but don’t expect me to waste a lot of my time repeating things when I’ve already gone to great care composing my thoughts into articles on this site before. A good start is Anarchy Isn’t The Answer.