Here's the latest example of "cultural" and "information control":
End Of Road For GOTMILF License Plate "Offensive" vanity tag yanked by Washington officials
JULY 21--This is the story of GOTMILF. In May 2002, Michael Syravong filed the below "personalized license plate application" with Washington's Department of Licensing. GOTMILF was Syravong's first choice among the three possible personalized tags he listed on the state form (he would have settled for SUPL8EZ or RCKSTAR). Asked for the meaning of GOTMILF, Syravong wrote, "Manual Inline Lift Fluctuator," which he would later claim was some kind of automotive gizmo. The 25-year-old software engineer's license plate choice was, amazingly, approved by bureaucrats who obviously never saw the film "American Pie" and were clueless about the acronym's real meaning. Unfortunately for Syravong, however, two offended citizens knew that the plate was actually his sly play on the Got Milk? slogan crossed with the raunchy acronym. In February, 21 months after Syravong got the personalized plate for his Toyota (pictured above), an aggrieved Washingtonian e-mailed a complaint to state officials. A second beef was received in April from a disgusted Snohomish parent who did not want "my children seeing this and inquiring as to what it means." Acting on the first complaint, state officials wrote Syravong seeking his response to the complaint. Fighting to keep GOTMILF, he responded with a letter that desperately tried to explain away his license plate. Despite Syravong's invocation of Bill of Rights protections, members of Washington's Personalized Plate Review Committee were not swayed by his argument--and even hinted that he may have committed a crime (making a false or misleading statement to a public servant) when he submitted his original plate application. In April, the state review committee voted to cancel Syravong's tag. He got the bad news in an April 13 letter chiding him for providing "inconsistent information regarding the definition of the plate." Stripped of GOTMILF, Syravong was forced to replace his distinctive tag with PUNISHR. We're counting the days until a motorist writes in to complain that Syravong's new plate advocates domestic violence or has S&M undertones. (9 pages)
This is what you get if you allow people to "control information and culture".
"One of the more interesting aspects of Libertarian politics is a dedication to the principles of the constitution of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and other such things"
There was a time when "Libertarian" meant being aware of the holes in those documents as well.
I see that time has passed. Big surprise.
I guess Bob Black is more right than ever: "Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke dope."
But then the big-L "Libs" were always just "limited statists" - and never as "limited" as they wanted you to believe.
"there are some religous radicals out there who blew up some large buildings somewhere"
Are you referring to Bush here?
Otherwise we're talking a meaningless point here. You can have "moderates" who are "moderate" because they don't have the nerve to actually ask the important questions. You can have "radicals" who are simply brain-washed, as you correctly point out.
The issue is not whether you are "radical" or "moderate" but whether you can see what is in front of your nose AND make reasoned judgements about what isn't.
Whether you are "radical" or "moderate" is a social distinction which is irrelevant to whether you are CORRECT or not.
"If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large."
In a word (okay, three words): No, you don't.
There is no such "right". Never has been, never will be. And that's even leaving aside the fact that "rights" are fictions.
"People who have something to say, have a right to be heard."
Much as I'd like to claim that "right", the same is true: No, they don't.
Any statement or position has the same Darwinian chance of survival as any other - i.e., it is based on the power and sapiental authority with which you present it. You ain't got enough "juice", you don't get heard. That simple.
Why do you think Bush gets away with whatever crap he wants to spout on any given day? Because the primate betas defer to him as the alpha male. If he was your boss or some asshole you met in a bar, you wouldn't give his statements the time of day.
The original definition of "terrorism" as produced by the People's Will party of Russia specifically stated that it involved attacking elements of the state - NOT civilians.
Only when STATE-SPONSORED "terrorism" arose did civilians become "legitimate" targets and the term morphed to mean what it seems to mean today - violence against uninvolved parties for political or social ends. This is a perversion of the original and appropriate meaning.
"War" is an activity engaged in by ethnic or national groups or states - not individuals or small groups (even political ones)(although of course the term can be used colloquially in such a context.)
OTOH, one could say that "terrorism" is the most efficient way to conduct "war", in some sense. As the US military is learning (again) in Iraq.
Well, while Libertarians have been described as "Republicans who smoke dope", conflating the two is not appropriate. While some "Libertarians" - such as Representative Ron Paul - have subsequently become Republicans while retaining SOME Libertarian outlooks, most Republicans have nothing to do with Libertarianism.
Republicans are "conservatives" (in the United States sense - in Europe they would be referred to as "liberals"), not "Libertarians". They are also not "laissez-faire" - they are "capitalists" - or even more precisely "state capitalists". They believe that capitalists should control the state and the state should control everybody who isn't a capitalist. This is similar to Hitler's view that the superior man should control the state, not the reverse.
Republicans also believe that social control is necessary. Libertarians invariably do not (in most cases.)
Therefore there is no "paradox". As usual, what seems to be a "paradox" is merely a misperception.
If you live in a cannibal tribe, why would you want to control this "cultural behavior"? Cannibals tend to eat other tribes, not their own people (tends to indigestion, I think - not to mention a shortage of warriors to capture the other tribe's people).
On the other hand, if you're in the other tribe - or better yet, some white guy who wants to take over the tribe's land - maybe you want to control this behavior?
Which makes you the problem - and means you should be eaten.
There is NO "dangerous" information. There are only dangerous PEOPLE who might misuse information. Controlling the information is hardly the most efficient way to control dangerous PEOPLE.
This should be first-grade obvious, but most humans - especially citizens in the US, the "freest nation on Earth" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) - seem oblivious to these simple facts.
"control of information and culture is sometimes necessary."
This is the guy's fundamental problem. Such control is NEVER "necessary".
He has the same problem as Lawrence Lessig. He's trying to oppose excessive control with both hands tied behind his back because he supports the basic notion that control is "necessary".
Gonna lose that one.
It always amuses me to see humans saying, "I support all the basic principles on which our civilization is founded" - while at the same time saying, "Gee, I wonder why everything is so fucked up?"
Given the level of competence in Iraq, I'd say your analysis is right on. Bush and Rumsfeld (put together) definitely are about as smart as Max. And the result has definitely been chaos.
Actually, my favorite "anarchist" movie is "The Magnificent Seven". The seven gunfighters are a private protection agency hired to protect the villages from an extortionist "government" (the bandits). In the end, the people rise up and defeat the bandits themselves, thus learning the necessary personal responsibility which is the core of anarchism.
(And, yes, I know the story is originally Japanese. There is also a Japanese anarchism movement which goes back quite a ways.)
Do note he also said "Property is freedom" (or something like that, I forget the exact set of quotes.)
Some people think he was just being French. Others that he was actually making a point that whether you consider property theft or not depends on what property and how you acquire it and other constraints on the concept.
Government is a monopoly on coercive behavior, as a definition. In practice, government is an extortion/protection racket. Government says, "You give us everything you have and do exactly as we tell you, and we'll protect you from the 'bad guys' inside and outside our borders - and if there aren't any 'bad guys', we'll pass some laws to make some." It's rule based on fear.
And you don't need an "ever-ready" police/military to defend against 'bad guys'. All you need is for people to be prepared to defend themselves and to be able to cooperate in that defense. In other words, the simple act of learning to defend yourself and being prepared for aggression is sufficient. As the US military is about to learn in Iraq, I might add.
It's only when you delegate your own defense to someone else that you become vulnerable to coercion by your "Praetorian guard".
Just because some left anarchists decide to vote the free-market anarchists out of the movement doesn't make it true.
Free market anarchism has a history in the United States which is just as illustrious as the left anarchists. Left anarchism arose in Europe and never had a clue about the free market because most Europeans never had a clue about the free market.
Anarchism is against exploitation, but private property is not exploitation. It is the natural state of humans. "Capitalism" as it has been historically practiced may indeed be exploitation, but "capitalism" as historically practiced is NOT the "free market" either. "Anarcho-capitalism" is actually a poor term for "free-market anarchism".
Those anarchist who wish to abolish private property have no clue about either property or freedom. It is these so-called "anarchists" who have always led directly to coercive state socialism. You cannot have freedom without private property. Totally impossible.
Communism with political freedom is an oxymoron, despite Marx's quaint notion of the state "withering away". And "Libertarianism" has always been associated with social freedom - not many Libs support drug laws.
In any event, it's irrelevant since radical Transhumanism will do away with conventional economics and the biological conditions giving rise to them.
"Libertarian" is a co-opted term. The original meaning of "libertarian" (small L) in Europe was "anarchist".
A bunch of US political philosophers co-opted the term in the 20th Century (most of them followers of Ayn Rand) to mean free-market statists (an oxymoron, but no surprise there).
A few (very confused) anarchists continued to maintain membership in the Libertarian Party even when it became clear that, to use Bob Black's words, the Libertarians were little more than "Republicans who smoke dope".
You are correct that all anarchists are "libertarian" in the old meaning of the term. Anarcho-capitalist is the better term for anarchists who support the free market (Murray Rothbard and the like). But this is NOT synonymous with Libertarian as the term is used these days.
"a strong, but decentralized, democratically republican form of government with a strong, non-intrusive rule of law"
If you ever find one in reality or anytime in history, let me know. And don't even think of referring to any extant nation or the early United States.
I'm not holding my breath. Utopia is more likely to come first.
In fact, the entire concept is an oxymoron. All government is and must of necessity be both coercive and imperialistic. It is only the degree of coercion and imperialism that varies - and must always grow worse over time. The United States is a textbook case.
In other words, you're saying that the natural state of humans is to be "aimless".
And you're also saying that the natural state of humans is to form dominance/submission hierarchies.
Correct on both counts.
Which is why radical Transhumanism supports anarchism as a political philosophy, but does not assume anarchism can work any more than any other social organization. The term "social organization" when applied to humans is an oxymoron. It's either a dominance/submission hierarchy or it's chaos.
As Bill Burroughs said, "The human problem has not solution." What he meant was, it has no HUMAN solution.
There is a Transhuman solution. And we will apply it.
Christianity has absolutely NOTHING in common with anarchism. At its base, Christianity is not only a coercive concept, it is irrational (like all religions) and its origins are fraudulent as well.
I am aware that there is a so-called "Christian anarchism" movement (which is even tinier than the regular anarchism movement). It's a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron - and for morons only.
I understand that what you mean is that the so-called ideals of Christianity are similar to those of anarchism in social relations. But this is merely window-dressing and irrelevant to the central core of the two philosophies. Anarchism cannot and will not accept any "submission to God" nonsense. Bakunin is the most well-known condemnor of Christianity in the anarchist movement. The idea of a "Christian anarchist" would cause him to spin in his grave.
In fact, this is probably why Nietzsche couldn't stand "anarchists" even though he was probably the most anti-state philosopher outside of the anarchists themselves. He always conflated them with "whining Christians" - since most of the European anarchists were left anarchists entirely oriented to socialism and the abolishment of the rich. I think if he was more familiar with the anarcho-capitalist crowd, he'd have cut anarchism a little slack.
"the dream of such a society holds the implicit faith in mankind's ability to achieve such a state."
And this is where radical Transhumanism parts company with anarchism. We recognize that humans have no ability to do this. It's simply not in primate hierarchical dominance/submission neurology. Human fear trumps all reason. Always.
However, if you do away with human nature, anything becomes possible. This is Transhumanism. Or at least radical Transhumanism - most of the so-called "Transhumanists" are closet "Humanists" with very little "Trans" in their makeup.
Thank you for mentioning the anarcho-capitalists. This faction tends to be all but ignored in discussions of anarchism. But they have a long and influential history in the United States, if less so in Europe.
While virtually all anarchists oppose coercion, many historical anarchists believed that only violence against the state - even crime - was the only proper way to destroy the state. They were never successful, however, because their tactics tended to be simplistic.
The first use of a car in an armed bank robbery was committed by the Bonot Gang in Paris around the turn of the 20th Century. This was also the first car-jacking - that's how they got the car.
Buenaventura Durrutti executed bank robberies - ahem, this is, "revolutionary expropriations" - throughout Mexico and South America before returning to Spain to help lead the Spanish Revolution.
It's only the modern "armchair anarchist" who eschews violence - and the pointless "punk anarchist" who uses irrelevant violence such as throwing bricks through Starbucks windows.
There is also a branch of anarchism which is based on the free market and opposes socialism.
"the idea that everyone will just rise up and whipe out the nation-state system and then live in harmony with no government just comes off a tad naive."
Yes, this idea is naive. There are, however, other means to destroy the state (and religion and most other coercive human institutions as well). We radical Transhumans will use them instead.
You are correct, however, that the depth of anarchist thought is considerably greater than the average moron comprehends.
Oh, Jesus Baron Von Christ, spare me from another "armchair anarchist"!
Oh, wait, you're right. "Real" anarchists - i.e., actual "anarchists" that exist - don't do these things.
Which is why REAL anarchists don't exist. (Except me, and I did my time in the Federal joint.)
Get a clue. If you're NOT SHOOTING "undercover police officers", you AIN'T an "anarchist". You're a PUNK.
And I mean that in the prison sense.
And, yes, most of the so-called "anarchists" in this world are punks.
(Actually, throwing a brick through a Starbucks window is so irrelevant it qualifies for "punk" status as well. Throwing a firebomb - or better yet, ten pounds of C-4 - through a Bank of America window is much more like it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the latest example of "cultural" and "information control":
End Of Road For GOTMILF License Plate
"Offensive" vanity tag yanked by Washington officials
JULY 21--This is the story of GOTMILF. In May 2002, Michael Syravong filed the below "personalized license plate application" with Washington's Department of Licensing. GOTMILF was Syravong's first choice among the three possible personalized tags he listed on the state form (he would have settled for SUPL8EZ or RCKSTAR). Asked for the meaning of GOTMILF, Syravong wrote, "Manual Inline Lift Fluctuator," which he would later claim was some kind of automotive gizmo. The 25-year-old software engineer's license plate choice was, amazingly, approved by bureaucrats who obviously never saw the film "American Pie" and were clueless about the acronym's real meaning. Unfortunately for Syravong, however, two offended citizens knew that the plate was actually his sly play on the Got Milk? slogan crossed with the raunchy acronym. In February, 21 months after Syravong got the personalized plate for his Toyota (pictured above), an aggrieved Washingtonian e-mailed a complaint to state officials. A second beef was received in April from a disgusted Snohomish parent who did not want "my children seeing this and inquiring as to what it means." Acting on the first complaint, state officials wrote Syravong seeking his response to the complaint. Fighting to keep GOTMILF, he responded with a letter that desperately tried to explain away his license plate. Despite Syravong's invocation of Bill of Rights protections, members of Washington's Personalized Plate Review Committee were not swayed by his argument--and even hinted that he may have committed a crime (making a false or misleading statement to a public servant) when he submitted his original plate application. In April, the state review committee voted to cancel Syravong's tag. He got the bad news in an April 13 letter chiding him for providing "inconsistent information regarding the definition of the plate." Stripped of GOTMILF, Syravong was forced to replace his distinctive tag with PUNISHR. We're counting the days until a motorist writes in to complain that Syravong's new plate advocates domestic violence or has S&M undertones. (9 pages)
This is what you get if you allow people to "control information and culture".
Depends on why you did it.
If it was pointless, it was chaos.
If it was a deliberate effort to shuffle people's thinking, it was anarchism.
Like David Steinberg once said, "Groucho Marx was the only true revolutionary anarchist."
Nicely put.
Agree completely.
Order and chaos are both necessary and which creates the other is irrelevant, they are one whole, the yin-yang of the Taoists.
The only difference between destruction and creation is one of perspective and purpose.
The "chaos" wing of anarchism has as long a history as the leftist "social control" wing and the "free market" wing.
"One of the more interesting aspects of Libertarian politics is a dedication to the principles of the constitution of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and other such things"
There was a time when "Libertarian" meant being aware of the holes in those documents as well.
I see that time has passed. Big surprise.
I guess Bob Black is more right than ever: "Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke dope."
But then the big-L "Libs" were always just "limited statists" - and never as "limited" as they wanted you to believe.
"there are some religous radicals out there who blew up some large buildings somewhere"
Are you referring to Bush here?
Otherwise we're talking a meaningless point here. You can have "moderates" who are "moderate" because they don't have the nerve to actually ask the important questions. You can have "radicals" who are simply brain-washed, as you correctly point out.
The issue is not whether you are "radical" or "moderate" but whether you can see what is in front of your nose AND make reasoned judgements about what isn't.
Whether you are "radical" or "moderate" is a social distinction which is irrelevant to whether you are CORRECT or not.
"If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large."
In a word (okay, three words): No, you don't.
There is no such "right". Never has been, never will be. And that's even leaving aside the fact that "rights" are fictions.
"People who have something to say, have a right to be heard."
Much as I'd like to claim that "right", the same is true: No, they don't.
Any statement or position has the same Darwinian chance of survival as any other - i.e., it is based on the power and sapiental authority with which you present it. You ain't got enough "juice", you don't get heard. That simple.
Why do you think Bush gets away with whatever crap he wants to spout on any given day? Because the primate betas defer to him as the alpha male. If he was your boss or some asshole you met in a bar, you wouldn't give his statements the time of day.
The original definition of "terrorism" as produced by the People's Will party of Russia specifically stated that it involved attacking elements of the state - NOT civilians.
Only when STATE-SPONSORED "terrorism" arose did civilians become "legitimate" targets and the term morphed to mean what it seems to mean today - violence against uninvolved parties for political or social ends. This is a perversion of the original and appropriate meaning.
"War" is an activity engaged in by ethnic or national groups or states - not individuals or small groups (even political ones)(although of course the term can be used colloquially in such a context.)
OTOH, one could say that "terrorism" is the most efficient way to conduct "war", in some sense. As the US military is learning (again) in Iraq.
"As long as everyone participates, and doesn't turn a blind eye to what goes on, it will not be a problem."
Thank you for demonstrating that this has already become a problem.
Well, while Libertarians have been described as "Republicans who smoke dope", conflating the two is not appropriate. While some "Libertarians" - such as Representative Ron Paul - have subsequently become Republicans while retaining SOME Libertarian outlooks, most Republicans have nothing to do with Libertarianism.
Republicans are "conservatives" (in the United States sense - in Europe they would be referred to as "liberals"), not "Libertarians". They are also not "laissez-faire" - they are "capitalists" - or even more precisely "state capitalists". They believe that capitalists should control the state and the state should control everybody who isn't a capitalist. This is similar to Hitler's view that the superior man should control the state, not the reverse.
Republicans also believe that social control is necessary. Libertarians invariably do not (in most cases.)
Therefore there is no "paradox". As usual, what seems to be a "paradox" is merely a misperception.
If you live in a cannibal tribe, why would you want to control this "cultural behavior"? Cannibals tend to eat other tribes, not their own people (tends to indigestion, I think - not to mention a shortage of warriors to capture the other tribe's people).
On the other hand, if you're in the other tribe - or better yet, some white guy who wants to take over the tribe's land - maybe you want to control this behavior?
Which makes you the problem - and means you should be eaten.
There is NO "dangerous" information. There are only dangerous PEOPLE who might misuse information. Controlling the information is hardly the most efficient way to control dangerous PEOPLE.
This should be first-grade obvious, but most humans - especially citizens in the US, the "freest nation on Earth" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) - seem oblivious to these simple facts.
"control of information and culture is sometimes necessary."
This is the guy's fundamental problem. Such control is NEVER "necessary".
He has the same problem as Lawrence Lessig. He's trying to oppose excessive control with both hands tied behind his back because he supports the basic notion that control is "necessary".
Gonna lose that one.
It always amuses me to see humans saying, "I support all the basic principles on which our civilization is founded" - while at the same time saying, "Gee, I wonder why everything is so fucked up?"
Can you say, "Morons"? I knew you could.
Given the level of competence in Iraq, I'd say your analysis is right on. Bush and Rumsfeld (put together) definitely are about as smart as Max. And the result has definitely been chaos.
Actually, my favorite "anarchist" movie is "The Magnificent Seven". The seven gunfighters are a private protection agency hired to protect the villages from an extortionist "government" (the bandits). In the end, the people rise up and defeat the bandits themselves, thus learning the necessary personal responsibility which is the core of anarchism.
(And, yes, I know the story is originally Japanese. There is also a Japanese anarchism movement which goes back quite a ways.)
Google for "Proudhon".
"Property is theft" is one his quotes.
Do note he also said "Property is freedom" (or something like that, I forget the exact set of quotes.)
Some people think he was just being French. Others that he was actually making a point that whether you consider property theft or not depends on what property and how you acquire it and other constraints on the concept.
Wrong.
Social defense is not government.
Government is a monopoly on coercive behavior, as a definition. In practice, government is an extortion/protection racket. Government says, "You give us everything you have and do exactly as we tell you, and we'll protect you from the 'bad guys' inside and outside our borders - and if there aren't any 'bad guys', we'll pass some laws to make some." It's rule based on fear.
And you don't need an "ever-ready" police/military to defend against 'bad guys'. All you need is for people to be prepared to defend themselves and to be able to cooperate in that defense. In other words, the simple act of learning to defend yourself and being prepared for aggression is sufficient. As the US military is about to learn in Iraq, I might add.
It's only when you delegate your own defense to someone else that you become vulnerable to coercion by your "Praetorian guard".
Quite wrong.
Just because some left anarchists decide to vote the free-market anarchists out of the movement doesn't make it true.
Free market anarchism has a history in the United States which is just as illustrious as the left anarchists. Left anarchism arose in Europe and never had a clue about the free market because most Europeans never had a clue about the free market.
Anarchism is against exploitation, but private property is not exploitation. It is the natural state of humans. "Capitalism" as it has been historically practiced may indeed be exploitation, but "capitalism" as historically practiced is NOT the "free market" either. "Anarcho-capitalism" is actually a poor term for "free-market anarchism".
Those anarchist who wish to abolish private property have no clue about either property or freedom. It is these so-called "anarchists" who have always led directly to coercive state socialism. You cannot have freedom without private property. Totally impossible.
Communism with political freedom is an oxymoron, despite Marx's quaint notion of the state "withering away". And "Libertarianism" has always been associated with social freedom - not many Libs support drug laws.
In any event, it's irrelevant since radical Transhumanism will do away with conventional economics and the biological conditions giving rise to them.
Excuse me.
"Libertarian" is a co-opted term. The original meaning of "libertarian" (small L) in Europe was "anarchist".
A bunch of US political philosophers co-opted the term in the 20th Century (most of them followers of Ayn Rand) to mean free-market statists (an oxymoron, but no surprise there).
A few (very confused) anarchists continued to maintain membership in the Libertarian Party even when it became clear that, to use Bob Black's words, the Libertarians were little more than "Republicans who smoke dope".
You are correct that all anarchists are "libertarian" in the old meaning of the term. Anarcho-capitalist is the better term for anarchists who support the free market (Murray Rothbard and the like). But this is NOT synonymous with Libertarian as the term is used these days.
"a strong, but decentralized, democratically republican form of government with a strong, non-intrusive rule of law"
If you ever find one in reality or anytime in history, let me know. And don't even think of referring to any extant nation or the early United States.
I'm not holding my breath. Utopia is more likely to come first.
In fact, the entire concept is an oxymoron. All government is and must of necessity be both coercive and imperialistic. It is only the degree of coercion and imperialism that varies - and must always grow worse over time. The United States is a textbook case.
Someone once called this "sapiental authority", i.e., authority based on knowledge, wisdom or skill.
This is the only authority to which anyone should defer - and only after due consideration.
In other words, you're saying that the natural state of humans is to be "aimless".
And you're also saying that the natural state of humans is to form dominance/submission hierarchies.
Correct on both counts.
Which is why radical Transhumanism supports anarchism as a political philosophy, but does not assume anarchism can work any more than any other social organization. The term "social organization" when applied to humans is an oxymoron. It's either a dominance/submission hierarchy or it's chaos.
As Bill Burroughs said, "The human problem has not solution." What he meant was, it has no HUMAN solution.
There is a Transhuman solution. And we will apply it.
It is very final.
Christianity has absolutely NOTHING in common with anarchism. At its base, Christianity is not only a coercive concept, it is irrational (like all religions) and its origins are fraudulent as well.
I am aware that there is a so-called "Christian anarchism" movement (which is even tinier than the regular anarchism movement). It's a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron - and for morons only.
I understand that what you mean is that the so-called ideals of Christianity are similar to those of anarchism in social relations. But this is merely window-dressing and irrelevant to the central core of the two philosophies. Anarchism cannot and will not accept any "submission to God" nonsense. Bakunin is the most well-known condemnor of Christianity in the anarchist movement. The idea of a "Christian anarchist" would cause him to spin in his grave.
In fact, this is probably why Nietzsche couldn't stand "anarchists" even though he was probably the most anti-state philosopher outside of the anarchists themselves. He always conflated them with "whining Christians" - since most of the European anarchists were left anarchists entirely oriented to socialism and the abolishment of the rich. I think if he was more familiar with the anarcho-capitalist crowd, he'd have cut anarchism a little slack.
"the dream of such a society holds the implicit faith in mankind's ability to achieve such a state."
And this is where radical Transhumanism parts company with anarchism. We recognize that humans have no ability to do this. It's simply not in primate hierarchical dominance/submission neurology. Human fear trumps all reason. Always.
However, if you do away with human nature, anything becomes possible. This is Transhumanism.
Or at least radical Transhumanism - most of the so-called "Transhumanists" are closet "Humanists" with very little "Trans" in their makeup.
Thank you for mentioning the anarcho-capitalists. This faction tends to be all but ignored in discussions of anarchism. But they have a long and influential history in the United States, if less so in Europe.
While virtually all anarchists oppose coercion, many historical anarchists believed that only violence against the state - even crime - was the only proper way to destroy the state. They were never successful, however, because their tactics tended to be simplistic.
The first use of a car in an armed bank robbery was committed by the Bonot Gang in Paris around the turn of the 20th Century. This was also the first car-jacking - that's how they got the car.
Buenaventura Durrutti executed bank robberies - ahem, this is, "revolutionary expropriations" - throughout Mexico and South America before returning to Spain to help lead the Spanish Revolution.
It's only the modern "armchair anarchist" who eschews violence - and the pointless "punk anarchist" who uses irrelevant violence such as throwing bricks through Starbucks windows.
Ahem.
Excuse me.
There is also a branch of anarchism which is based on the free market and opposes socialism.
"the idea that everyone will just rise up and whipe out the nation-state system and then live in harmony with no government just comes off a tad naive."
Yes, this idea is naive. There are, however, other means to destroy the state (and religion and most other coercive human institutions as well). We radical Transhumans will use them instead.
You are correct, however, that the depth of anarchist thought is considerably greater than the average moron comprehends.
"Real anarchists don't do such destructive acts."
Oh, Jesus Baron Von Christ, spare me from another "armchair anarchist"!
Oh, wait, you're right. "Real" anarchists - i.e., actual "anarchists" that exist - don't do these things.
Which is why REAL anarchists don't exist. (Except me, and I did my time in the Federal joint.)
Get a clue. If you're NOT SHOOTING "undercover police officers", you AIN'T an "anarchist". You're a PUNK.
And I mean that in the prison sense.
And, yes, most of the so-called "anarchists" in this world are punks.
(Actually, throwing a brick through a Starbucks window is so irrelevant it qualifies for "punk" status as well. Throwing a firebomb - or better yet, ten pounds of C-4 - through a Bank of America window is much more like it.)
Right. You're done with the ruminant evacuation.
/. nerd boy.
Have a nice day.
Another clueless