An•arch•ei noun One with no ruler.
I am an individualist, I accept that the collective does not exist. I am an atheist, I accept that gods cannot logically exist in reality. I am a voluntaryist, I accept the immorality of violent orderless social organisation. I am a vegetarian, I accept that killing animals is not in line with the non—aggression principle. I am also a fairly decent writer, photographer, web designer, and graphic artist. Read More

Resist

anarchei:

Note: You can purchase a printed copy of this poster in various sizes from my RedBubble store.

A remix of an old favourite.

Project: Posters


Reblogging because I redesigned the resistance symbol to match the stickers I made recently.

Resist
anarchei:


Note: You can purchase a printed copy of this poster in various sizes from my RedBubble store.
A remix of an old favourite.
Project: Posters


Reblogging because I redesigned the resistance symbol to match the stickers I made recently. Resist
anarchei:


Note: You can purchase a printed copy of this poster in various sizes from my RedBubble store.
A remix of an old favourite.
Project: Posters


Reblogging because I redesigned the resistance symbol to match the stickers I made recently.

Resist

anarchei:

Note: You can purchase a printed copy of this poster in various sizes from my RedBubble store.

A remix of an old favourite.

Project: Posters


Reblogging because I redesigned the resistance symbol to match the stickers I made recently.

Freedom

anarchei:

Note: You can purchase printed copies of these posters in various sizes from my RedBubble store.

Just some posters I put together after seeing a repost of a rough piece I made not long ago, based on someone else’s sketch (Uptiltheylearntoshout did the sketch and posted the original piece I made). Respectively, the symbols are for anarchism, straight-edge, and exchange. Basically this collection is meant to stand for the integrity of body, mind, and social interaction, which can only be achieved when one is free. As a side note, while I do not personally identify as straight-edge, I would certainly qualify for the label.

Project: Posters


Reblogging because I just redesigned the graphics for these posters to be more like my current fascination with 70s-esque style and less reminiscent of certain Marvel superhero team logos.

Freedom
anarchei:


Note: You can purchase printed copies of these posters in various sizes from my RedBubble store.
Just some posters I put together after seeing a repost of a rough piece I made not long ago, based on someone else’s sketch (Uptiltheylearntoshout did the sketch and posted the original piece I made). Respectively, the symbols are for anarchism, straight-edge, and exchange. Basically this collection is meant to stand for the integrity of body, mind, and social interaction, which can only be achieved when one is free. As a side note, while I do not personally identify as straight-edge, I would certainly qualify for the label.
Project: Posters


Reblogging because I just redesigned the graphics for these posters to be more like my current fascination with 70s-esque style and less reminiscent of certain Marvel superhero team logos. Freedom
anarchei:


Note: You can purchase printed copies of these posters in various sizes from my RedBubble store.
Just some posters I put together after seeing a repost of a rough piece I made not long ago, based on someone else’s sketch (Uptiltheylearntoshout did the sketch and posted the original piece I made). Respectively, the symbols are for anarchism, straight-edge, and exchange. Basically this collection is meant to stand for the integrity of body, mind, and social interaction, which can only be achieved when one is free. As a side note, while I do not personally identify as straight-edge, I would certainly qualify for the label.
Project: Posters


Reblogging because I just redesigned the graphics for these posters to be more like my current fascination with 70s-esque style and less reminiscent of certain Marvel superhero team logos. Freedom
anarchei:


Note: You can purchase printed copies of these posters in various sizes from my RedBubble store.
Just some posters I put together after seeing a repost of a rough piece I made not long ago, based on someone else’s sketch (Uptiltheylearntoshout did the sketch and posted the original piece I made). Respectively, the symbols are for anarchism, straight-edge, and exchange. Basically this collection is meant to stand for the integrity of body, mind, and social interaction, which can only be achieved when one is free. As a side note, while I do not personally identify as straight-edge, I would certainly qualify for the label.
Project: Posters


Reblogging because I just redesigned the graphics for these posters to be more like my current fascination with 70s-esque style and less reminiscent of certain Marvel superhero team logos.

Freedom

anarchei:

Note: You can purchase printed copies of these posters in various sizes from my RedBubble store.

Just some posters I put together after seeing a repost of a rough piece I made not long ago, based on someone else’s sketch (Uptiltheylearntoshout did the sketch and posted the original piece I made). Respectively, the symbols are for anarchism, straight-edge, and exchange. Basically this collection is meant to stand for the integrity of body, mind, and social interaction, which can only be achieved when one is free. As a side note, while I do not personally identify as straight-edge, I would certainly qualify for the label.

Project: Posters


Reblogging because I just redesigned the graphics for these posters to be more like my current fascination with 70s-esque style and less reminiscent of certain Marvel superhero team logos.

Question

susannalycke:

Hi! I'm using your Xeruulon theme on a side blog. I followed Disqus' instructions on how to manually add Disqus comments, but the comments box appears on the home page (just before the previous/next page) as well as on each permalink page. I would like to have the disqus comment box only on the permalink page of each post, do you have any advice on how to do that?

Try wrapping the Disqus code with this:

{block:PermalinkPage} {/block:PermalinkPage}

That should ensure that the comments box will only appear on post pages.

Question

luke-absurd:

You say that spanking a child is a violation of the non-aggression principle. But how do you reconcile the sometimes necessary use of force (if not in the form of hitting), vis-a-vis paternalism, to prevent the child from seeking the course of action highly destructive to their well-being, despite her desire to seek it? E.g removing them from harmful situations (child protection), forcing them to medicate (like for an infection), etc. When reasoning won't work. Or do you really think it will?

luke-absurd:

anarchei:

Reasoning is always the best place to start, however in some situations there simply isn’t time to use reason, such as those that are dangerous or life-threatening. In these cases it all comes down to what the child would have consented to had they the experience that comes with being an adult. If it were necessary to restrain the child from walking into a busy street, for example, it would be justified on the grounds of self-defence by proxy.

This same logic applies not only to children, but to other adults as well. We do not accuse those performing first aid or emergency surgery on an unconscious person of violating the non-aggression principle, because on the balance of probabilities it is assumed that they would want their life saved. Basically, if the action is moral for an adult to use against another adult, then it is moral to use against a child.

A justification for forceful interaction then is assumed (tacit) consent according to the force-initiator’s framework of desires applied to the one who is forced. You’ve hence justified the entirety of governmental paternalism; “for their own good.”

My apologies for not making this clearer. The assumption is that consent will be given after the use of force in order to justify its use. If consent is not given, then the use of force was not justified and therefore immoral. The situations I outlined were essentially lifeboat scenarios where getting consent beforehand would have resulted in more harm been done. All other interactions would still require consent beforehand. This in no way justifies governmental paternalism, since most acts of the state do not involve situations that are time-sensitive and therefore would necessitate consent before any use of force.

Question

luke-absurd:

You say that spanking a child is a violation of the non-aggression principle. But how do you reconcile the sometimes necessary use of force (if not in the form of hitting), vis-a-vis paternalism, to prevent the child from seeking the course of action highly destructive to their well-being, despite her desire to seek it? E.g removing them from harmful situations (child protection), forcing them to medicate (like for an infection), etc. When reasoning won't work. Or do you really think it will?

Reasoning is always the best place to start, however in some situations there simply isn’t time to use reason, such as those that are dangerous or life-threatening. In these cases it all comes down to what the child would have consented to had they the experience that comes with being an adult. If it were necessary to restrain the child from walking into a busy street, for example, it would be justified on the grounds of self-defence by proxy.

This same logic applies not only to children, but to other adults as well. We do not accuse those performing first aid or emergency surgery on an unconscious person of violating the non-aggression principle, because on the balance of probabilities it is assumed that they would want their life saved. Basically, if the action is moral for an adult to use against another adult, then it is moral to use against a child.

Murray Rothbard, For A New Liberty

While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: The State.

Too Many Cops, Too Little Justice

Too Many Cops, Too Little Justice

When Is Government A Legitimate Authority?

Michael S Rozeff:

What bestows legitimacy upon a government? Views differ. I take John Locke’s view as the conventional one. Chapter VIII of the Second Treatise of Civil Government, sections 95-122, treat this question. Locke argues that citizens tacitly consent to governments in a social contract. In my opinion, neither tacit consent nor social contract are defensible grounds for declaring a government to be legitimate.

Contracts should have explicit terms and signatories. For what reasons are governments to be thought of as established by a tacit rather than an explicit consent of those governed? For what reasons are governments to be thought of as arising from a non-explicit social contract, whatever that is? There are no justifiable reasons that I can think of. Locke endorses consent of the governed, but then he completely buries it under the ideas of implicit tacit consent to an implicit social contract.

If someone should say, as they have said in criticism of libertarian thinking, that “representative government is a legitimate authority”, my response is simple. If that government is legitimate, then let that government have a referendum on its existence. Let people who are claimed to be tacitly consenting have the opportunity to dissociate themselves from or associate themselves with this government. What possible objection could there be to such a procedure if government really is supposed to be via consent of the governed? But since governments do not do this and use force to suppress breakaway movements and secessions, and since they use force to gather their taxes and impose their laws that extend far beyond the suppression of criminal activities and violations of property rights, often themselves violating property rights, I can only conclude that they are afraid that many of their citizens would reject their legitimacy if asked. So that by their own deeds and failures to obtain consent, so-called representative governments provide strong evidence that they are not the legitimate authorities they claim to be.

From a citizen’s point of view, if he is forced to pay taxes and obey unjust laws of a government he rejects, such a government is no different than a criminal enterprise that extorts money from those under its control. For such a citizen who does not consent to that government, taxes are robbery. Hence, if some critic of libertarian thought says, as they have, “The fact that taxation is a legitimate function of representative government is indisputable,” I would argue that taxation cannot be a legitimate function of a representative government if that government is not legitimate, and for those of its citizens that do not consent to that government, it is indeed not legitimate. If governments wanted to represent people legitimately, they could seek subscribers who would pay fees in lieu of taxes. That they do not do this but instead throw people in jail or steal their property if they fail to pay taxes shows again that governments are not the legitimate authorities they claim to be.

Taxation with or without representation is robbery to the non-consenting persons because they do not agree to the representation that is being claimed as a proxy for their consent. If someone tells me that I am being represented because a group of other persons have voted in someone who then declares a law imposing a tax on me, my response is that this procedure has no different result than if they all donned sheets and masks, appeared at my doorstep on horseback, and threatened to burn my house down unless I paid them tribute. Unless I have agreed to be associated with the system of voting and its outcome, it is to me tantamount to naked force. Telling me I have been represented, tacitly consented and entered a social contract is some kind of psychotic fancy.

See Also

EconPop: The Economics of Back To School

In this episode of EconPop, Andrew discusses the 1986 “slob comedy” classic, Back To School. Subjects include human capital and the “value” of education.

See Also

Frédéric Bastiat

The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

Redbubble