40 votes

I have become an Anarchist.

I now believe that all governments are evil, and their only purpose is to supress the majority. The Native Americans lived without government and did well, a lot better than before the rich white men came and killed them off and stole their land. They used sound money as well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
tasmlab's picture

The flaws of man, The dark side of humanity.

There's an interesting dilemma around the "The flaws of man, The dark side of humanity." If man is truly flawed and dark, or even if just a few are, can we trust them to be in government and have a monopoly of force?

We can't assume that only 'good' people will want to be in that special class of people. In fact, we may find that those attracted to government are the most murderous, the most thieving, the most imprisoning. The government, after all, seems to the best at war, taxing and imprisonment.

IMO, I find it necessary to carry several world-views. One ideal and several that may just be incrementally better.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

good questions

There are many possibilities.

1) Free roaming animals could be considered the property of whoever's land they are on. Thus, if a deer crosses from my yard to yours, he becomes your property until shot/captured or until the deer leaves.

2) Free roaming animals could be tagged by the owner that homesteaded them, though I see some problems with this one.

3) Free roaming animals could be considered common property of a community and some rules could be put in place to harvest them (i.e., hunting seasons).

Perhaps each of these solutions could be implemented by different communities. Perhaps another solution would arise. I haven't seen this discussed in libertarian literature before and it is a topic that interests me. Let me know if you have further thoughts on this.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

I used deer as an example

but with a few minutes thought, you can come up with many others...

water rights: how about a stream? a body of moving water that crosses your property, can you put a dam on it?

how high up in the air do you actually own? and into the earth, how far down does your property go? I know the conventional wisdom now, is whatever the EPA says or the latest corporate law to be shoved down our throats, but that's not the real answer...I'm looking for something along the lines of:

how high in the sky does your property extend? answer: as high as can support human breath without a mechanical aid.

how far down does your property go? answer: as far down as the human body can survive the temperature and pressure sans mechanical aides.

as for those tangible, material items on this earth that are mobile,fluid or otherwise transportable that we can lay claim to such as the moving bodies of water and wildlife, I say that those things are there for the public good (more on that later)and that there should be some kind of regulating body (believe me I loathe that word 'regulation' but I don't know what else to call it)

there is such a thing as the public good, I think it gets conflated with that fuzzy idea of group rights most times, but as we all know there is no such thing as a "group right" only individuals can have rights. I digress.

an example of the public good, would be the oxygen that we all breathe. We wouldn't want that to suddenly disappear right? it's there for all of us to breathe... we wouldn't want Pepsi or Coca Cola to bottle it up and sell it to visiting aliens, right? and we know that's exactly what they would do, and I'm not trying to be funny about that either...

so there has to be some mechanism, some document, some explicit agreement of the people inhabiting a given area that there are some things that you can lay absolute claim to and others that must be shared, or recognized in some way that it is part of a whole.

how that squares with the AnCap theory, is what I want to know.

Thanks NY4RP...

It's an interesting question. To be honest - being from a rural area - I don't think this situation is even handled very well under the current system. If there's not a game warden around, a deer is on someone's property, and they wish to kill it, they will even today - whether the neighbor has approved or not. Road hunting is pretty common, as well.

Personally, however, I don't foresee this being a huge problem. Most people prefer to go to the grocery store these days rather than putting in the effort required to hunt and butcher an animal.

Native Americans, apparently, had property rights whereby certain people were allowed to hunt on certain tracts of land.

I don't think modern hunters are as careless as those early settlers that thought game - such as the buffalo - were in absolute abundance. Most modern hunters do so not only for the meat but also for the sport. As the game population decreases, hunting becomes less fruitful which would lead to some kind of balance because of the desire to preserve good hunting. For instance, most hunters I know will pass up smaller deer in hopes that they will be bigger the next year.

I think the only thing that could lead to endangering a game population would be for it to be offered on the market, but even at that, someone would figure out how to raise it on a ranch. Another thing that may threaten a species would be if it turned out to be a pest, but that type of extermination is allowed even today.

However, I don't think there would be much you could do when a neighbor decided to kill a deer on his own property. These days you could call a game warden, but that's a good way of making an enemy out of your neighbor.

I gave it a day or so

to soak, and I wanted to reflect on this topic some more myself. I saw other replies above and answered them with my thoughts, so not to be redundant take a look.

Oh no you di'nt!

But what about the roads?!
But what about the roads?!
But what about the roads?!
But what about the roads?!

Short answers:

Roads existed fine before they were largely socialized and monopolized.

More importantly, why do we need roads for personal conveyance, commuting, etc?

We have immense skies. There's no reason we can't use them for private transportation except the government makes it impossible except for the very wealthy. There is plenty of technology that is old and cheap and safe, notably gyrocopters.

Of course if people were allowed to fly, they wouldn't have any more excuse for their road monopoly would they? Roads are an immensely expensive monopoly. There's no reason to assume we need all the ones we have. However the market is not able to decide this.

Gyrocopters? Psshh. The

Gyrocopters? Psshh.

The answer is mono-rail!


Weird to type at you & it not be an argument;)

Gyroplanes are cheap and would be cheaper if they were allowed to the public and could be mass produced. Even so you can get one cheaper than a luxury car that has a 500+ mile range and runs on unleaded. They can take off in 50', land almost vertically, and can't stall so they can't fall out of the sky like a plane or chopper. If you lose power you will just land.

They are slow, due to the limiting factor that forward speed is turned automatically into lift. IE if you reduce the lift of the rotors you can go faster but then you need more takeoff and landing room, and you increase vertical loss in a stall to the point where you could get hurt. So cruising speed is usually no more than ~100mph for planes that keep all the advantages of gyrocopters.

this actually sounds pretty

this actually sounds pretty awesome. to be honest if i'm flying around in my own personal futuristic flying device i'm not going to complain that it isn't fast enough. the break in development of personal air transportation devices along 19th century futuristic lines was a sad consequence of the rise of mass air transportation and the militarization of the skies. i want a hot air balloon or a pedaled gyrocopter or something bizarre and 1890s-ish.

i will have to research more into these devices. thank you.

House Zeppelin FTW!

House Zeppelin FTW!

Hey thanks for the links on

Hey thanks for the links on AnCap, I will have to go through them in detail to get the full scoop as I am pretty new to Anarchist ideas. I will give you this one- the roads in front of our house are constantly being resurfaced. I looked into it and found out that they get Federal funding to resurface the roads even if they dont need to. Our city would rather waste countless tax dollars redoing our roads rather than risk the government cash flow. lol

In any case, if we are going to make this work well we need Hemp, 3d printing and self sustainable homes. That way production can be as localized as possible. Check out this site on Earthship homes, it is very liberating thinking about never relying on a system for water, sewage and food...


We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I see this all the time. I

I see this all the time. I live in a city that gets road grants all the time. We still have potholes all over. I mean really bad streets.

Why is this? Because the politically connected get continual road work because they are the ones that pay the politicians.

So the same roads get resurfaced over and over, whether they need it or not, and they usually do not.

This is why small towns usually have better roads. In a large city there is a lot more disassociation between politicians and people, and thus a lot more incentive for politicians to favor connected, and all this corruption is easier to hide.

The solution, if you want to fix government is reverse the progressive era move toward more centralized government. Specifically they progressively worked to decrease the ratio of politicians to people. The fewer politicians, the easier to bribe. Most cities used to have similar ratios to small towns. That meant hundreds of burrough and neighborhood representatives in municipal government. Your rep lived in your neighborhood and you knew him and where he lived.

That personal relationship makes it hard to be corrupt. So the progressives 'fixed' it by reducing the ratio.

And it goes without saying, naturally hemp should be legalized.

When analyzing the costs of

When analyzing the costs of travel, air is at a distinct disadvantage because the ground travelers don't have to factor in the infrastructure cost.

I don't know, as you said the market isn't allowed to work, but I agree, we could all be using flying cars.

Exactly. There is a huge

Exactly. There is a huge socialized cost to the infrastructure for automobile travel that makes alternatives 'uncompetitive'.

Just like the huge socialized cost for big ag and big pharma subsidization makes alternatives 'uncompetitive'. And even there, just like auto travel alternatives they try to make alternatives illegal on top.

Good food, good health care, and I submit good travel, and good anything is prevented by our fascist economic model.

Peter Thiel asks why technology has stalled in later decades? It's because of the fascism he supports.

Almost all new tech was in market sectors that haven't been fascised yet. But they are being fascised. Look at our 'choices' in smart phones now. This technology too is stalling and will stall more.

It's sad

when you think about what this experience could be.

It is in fact tragic

It's not just the cool stuff that could have existed. It's the millions of lives that could have been saved.

Just getting rid of the FDA could save millions of lives. (or as an intermediary step making it advisory only)

I always think about this

if we got rid of legal tender laws, and anyone was free to compete with the Fed, then that would put a check on the feds money printing. then they wouldn't be able to fund so much of the tyranny that is hurting us. Monsanto and big ag wouldn't have the outrageous advantages they have now. The MIC. All these corporations that spring up around the central control of the money wouldn't have their money machine.

Certainly the most dangerous

Certainly the most dangerous fascised market is banking. Sadly they will kill anyone who tries to do anything about it and they literally have as much money to do it as they want to print.

It will end, but from it's own weight. They are now and will continue to use their ill gotten gains to try to buy up the world in the global now, and the depression that will follow.


Welcome, to the dark side.

The title should be

I have come to the only logical conclusion, Anarchism or more specifically Anarcho-Capitalism!

Somehow real F A Hayek wasn't

Somehow real F A Hayek wasn't bright enough to agree.

I too am an anarchist.

I too am an anarchist. Although I don't object to conventional wisdom with regard to language.

Welcome Welcome. Just

Welcome Welcome. Just remember there are always rules and regulation even in a free market. It helps me keep my mind when they keep saying stuff like, oh then nobody will educate their kids unless you force them by law etc etc... social norms demand it.

Have you "became a lit-irate person two?"

Became is not the past participle of become. Is there some school where all the liberty types go to learn how not to spell and how not to use proper English?

The founders wanted to model the US on the early Roman Republic. Hence their interest in rhetoric (oratory). What you're describing here in terms of Native Americans is the Noble Savage. It's a quaint idea of Europeans. In reality. there was no Anarchist paradise in the Americas before evil Whitey got here. Sorry

It's pretty easy to be a dick

It's pretty easy to be a dick when one is cloaked in anonymity.

you're cloaked in anonymity

you're cloaked in anonymity too, dic k. lol some people don;t even reflect.



deacon's picture

do anarchists

believe in no or limited government?
do they believe that no one can ever be above them?
do they believe that no man has the authority to tell another what to do,or how to live their own lives?
do they believe that no man can grant another man the right to force
another what they can think or say?
do they believe that a title does not grant man authority over another man?
if the believe in limited gov,does that belief stop when force needs to be applied?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence