💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › aiden-gonzalez-a-new-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:02:16. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: A New Anarchism Author: Aiden Gonzalez Language: en Topics: Anarchism Notes: The original PDF included sources and additional information and clarification. I don't know how to insert footnotes
I can conclude with utmost certainty that statism will prevail — and
modern day libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists are complicit. The
former's culpability is prima facie; they still want a monopoly on
arbitration and violence present to undermine the very property rights
they claim to enshrine. The latter, while rejecting the state, still
have a tendency to besmirch their positions with the soil of statism.
The following, however, doesn't apply to all self-identified
Anarcho-Capitalists, but enough to warrant concern. Some may associate
themselves with the current statist economy (by calling themselves
"capitalists"), favor Immigration restrictions, and/or associate
themselves with Statists over their anarchist neighbors. How can liberty
prevail if Statism infects these supposed libertarians? The short
answer: liberty will remain submerged in the filth of Statism unless a
shift in perspective takes place.
What is this shift I assert needs to take place? A shift that is
consistent with libertarianism and rejecting statism in all forms. I am
referring to a new anarchist and libertarian thought that consistently
encompasses liberty; I call it Anarcho-Coeptism. "Coeptis" means
"enterprise" in latin, a nod to our position on markets. The 4 Tenets of
Coeptism are very easy to grasp, but may very well be undesirable for
many people. However, it is the path to embracing liberty and a society
sans coercion.
Individualism
Every individual owns themselves and the product of their labor and
agency; if this wasn't the case, each person would be a slave as another
active agent would own them. This hegemonic relationship I described is
slavery. This, however, brings forth a contradiction — or inconsistency;
who gets to own slaves and who is to be a slave? The person trying to
answer this self imploding question will make different rules for
different people; this is a logical fallacy known as special pleading —
where an individual establishes a set of principles, but exempts
themselves or others from them. In other words, each individual owns
themselves and the product of their labor.
This framework of objective logic is called "First Principles" — a set
of axioms or propositions that do not require empirical data to
substantiate. In other words, logic is objective as there is no "your
logic" or "my logic" — hence the reason why logical fallacies exist. The
self ownership axiom, therefore, is a logically sound axiom and is
valid. Since self ownership is valid, private property is also valid. To
claim I am not in possession of an item I legitimately obtained is to
claim someone else does, which violates the self ownership axiom.
Since private property and self ownership are valid, a corollary
conclusion from these facts is aggression is invalid — aggression being
any action that involves a victim. If I were to steal your wallet, where
is the justification for it? Since the wallet is yours, why can I claim
ownership of your wallet without your consent? A contradiction emerges
yet again: who gets to use aggression and who should be the victim of
it? The same special pleading ensues, and thus all forms of aggression
are invalid. This rejection of aggression is the Non-aggression
Principle (NAP), the foundation of libertarianism. This axiom perfectly
evinces the assertion that the state, or monopoly on violence and
arbitration, is illegitimate.
The state extorts each citizen with violence and claims ownership over a
portion of their income — taxation. Most of the laws that they pass
actively aggress upon the individual instead of protecting them — such
as drug prohibition, licensing laws, or building a home. Any cognizant
individual will realize the state's conduct and existence undermines the
NAP, self ownership, and property rights. This would mean every citizen
is a chattel slave to the state. Therefore, any justification for the
state is a form of special pleading and is invalid. In order for a free
society to exist would necessitate the abolition of political authority.
Free Markets
The free market is an interpersonal, decentralized, and voluntary series
of exchanges. Individuals realize they can mutually benefit from one
another if they exchange something of value to one another. In order for
the trade to occur, each individual needs to know what the other party
has. For the sake of argument, Zidane has good X and Gundyr has good Y.
The two can make the evaluation of forgoing that good or keeping it.
Another important variable for the exchange to take place is Zidane
needs to value good Y over good X and Gundyr must value good X over good
Y. If this wasn't the case, the exchange wouldn't happen because for
Zidane to value good Y the same as good X, he wouldn't forgo good X
because he is already satisfied with good X, and obtaining good Y would
leave him no better off with or without the exchange manifesting. In
this way, both individuals gain as a result of the exchange — or
mutually beneficial to both parties. No one gains at the expense of
another as a result of a voluntary exchange.
To even exchange goods, one needs to have ownership over the good. Else,
how did, say, Zidane come into possession of good X? The existence of
private property, therefore, must exist if people can exchange goods or
services.
As these markets evolve, more people get access to a desired good or a
good in demand. The system of mutual benefit improved the lot of the
ordinary man tenfold. The market reduced poverty and created technology
that no one has seen before. People do this to gain a profit and to
avoid losses. The two prospects counterbalance each other, effectively
making each entrepreneur aware of how well they are performing. The two
ensure the entrepreneur allocates resources effectively and fulfills the
demand of each consumer. If not, they face losses and eventual
bankruptcy. This weeding out of inefficient entrepreneurs allows for the
most optimal allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses.
The resources — or capital goods — shift to another sector where another
entrepreneur or firm can make use of.
When there are prices, there is a medium of exchange. In order for a
good to become a medium of exchange, it needs to have exclusively
exchange value. In other words, the value the two parties accept is the
price for the seller’s good. These mediums of exchange only have value
because the actors in question value it; in other words, it's wholly
subjective. Mediums such as gold, silver, Bitcoin, Monero, etc are all
mediums of exchanges because the actors decided there was an exchange
value.
Prices, at first glance, are akin to a barricado, but they are
reflections of consumer demand and preferences. They tell the provider
of the good how much people are willing to forgo to procure the good.
They also communicate to other producers of the same or similar goods
the price people are willing to forgo. This nexus of information guides
the entrepreneur or producer of goods what to charge and whether or not
to lower the cost or improve its quality The process I described above
is "competition". This dynamic, rivalrous process improves the quality
of goods and services as well as reducing prices of the goods. This is
why many people today can purchase necessities such as food with
relative ease. This is also why there exists technology that's only
getting better with time. This technology allows for people to have a
better standard of living and makes their life much easier. Capital
goods such as ovens, toasters, cell phones, refrigeration, etc make us
all wealthier in the process.
The free market does not exclude worker co-ops and communes. They fit
right in with the free market, provided they are a viable form of
organization. Voluntarily joining these forms of organization is an
extension of self ownership and free association. There are multiple
ways of organizing a business, and a free society welcomes all of them.
Anything deviating from decentralized and voluntary exchanges will
result in centralized coercive exchanges — or hegemonic relationships.
If the market never existed, people would find it easier to pillage or
war with their fellow man. The market is harmony and mutual benefit; the
state creates caste conflict and exploitation.
The a priori examination I went through is "Praxeology" — the method of
the Austrian School of Economics. Praxeology asserts that humans act; if
someone were to deny this fact, they would be acting, as denial is an
action. With “human action” as my foundation, I logically deduced what
it means to exchange and how competition functions. Economists who study
in this field happen to be the most correct when it comes to examining
the economy and how it functions. To learn more, I suggest you read Man,
Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard. That being said, the free market
and Austrian Economics is integral to Coeptism
Anti-State Action
Here is where a Coeptist and Ancap will separate. Instead of just
harboring the beliefs of Individualism and free markets, Coeptists take
it to its logical conclusion: any action will and shall never involve
the state in any way. Coeptists will never advocate for voting or
immigration restrictions as these actions involve the violence of the
state to enforce.
Civil disobedience and protesting the state is the move Coeptists will
undertake to ensure his liberties are secure. This can include evading
taxes, owning illegal guns, buying from people without a license,
setting up get-togethers without state permission, etc. If such actions
took place on a large scale, the state can't sustain itself. Every
individual must defend themselves or their property from the state. This
means, if an ATF trooper attempts to deprive the individual of their
firearms, then it would be perfectly legitimate for that individual to
shoot and kill the ATF trooper. They are extensions of the state — or
Plokámi — that sets up castes with violence. Therefore, any push for
societal change that involves the state is counterproductive and
requires violence and coercion to uphold.
Anarchist Unity
The existence of right unity makes me concerned, and the fact that some
ancaps are for it makes me even more concerned. It is the notion that
anarchists can ally vis-á-vis, politically, with conservatives,
constitutionalists, monarchists, paleoconservatives, right populists,
and neoconservatives to shrink the size and scope of state influence.
Going down this route would imply the state would be more ethical if it
was operating on a "smaller" scale and is a desirable end goal. This,
again, goes against anarchism's ultimate goal: abolishing the state.
Coeptists see this doublethink and strive to patch this gaping hole in
logic. We see our anarchist brothers as allies, not undesirables. They
may seem antagonistic towards the prospect of private property or free
markets, but if the Coeptist manages to convince the fellow anarchist
that the Coeptist society can include common ownership, then the
Coeptist has made a new ally. The other anarchists want statist tyranny
to end as much as us, so why shouldn't we reach out to them?
There will be pigheaded social anarchists, however. They might denounce
us as "capitalists" and "evil". There might be more antagonism towards
us than we may anticipate or want to believe. However, if Benjamin
Tucker, an Individualist, can work with Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a
mutualist, then the anarchist alliance is absolutely possible; it might
be an uphill battle, however.
Closing Thoughts
Our ethics are sound, our economics are sound. We must retain individual
liberties that no one, including political authority, shall pervade.
This paper didn't go over strategy or how a free society will operate.
That, however, doesn't hobble or invalidate the axioms I put forth.
I want to see a world where people freely associate with one another,
sans coercion. A functioning free market that provides the goods and
services that individuals desire, and at a price they agree to. A world
where the social anarchists may homestead their property to their
comrades to enjoy a stateless, classless, moneyless life. A world where
mutual aid shall succor the unfortunate. A world of actual prosperity
and human satisfaction, where we reach this "Coeptis", we yearn for.
The state shall not perpetuate itself any longer!
Are you with me?