Noise is another tricky issue: sufficiently loud noise can kill people, even moderate levels of noise can be very disturbing, especially at night, but insisting on zero noise would require encasing individual properties in some kind of vacuum flask arrangement.
It is impossible to derive the perfect level of allowable noise simply from the axiom of self-ownership, thus as ever we must fall back on social consensus, ie. politics.
New rule: unless you’re in palliative
fucking care dying in a hospital alone you’re not allowed to have someone make you breakfast and serve it to you in bed. Especially not from your girlfriend. You’re not a baby, life’s not a womb, it’s horrible, get the fuck out of bed and sit at the table and face up to the crippling anxiety attack that is modern life. What, does she hold your little cock while you make toilet so you don’t get wee wee all over the floor? Wash you with a fucking rag ?? Have some self respect - god damn couples are disgusting. Fucking away in bed like pieces of shit trying to make some sort of child they have to keep alive. Slaving away in some dogshit job trying to save up for a house - stashing all that money away in a big ol’ treasure chest like some sort of fucking pirate ship man.
Why do you even want a house anyway? Who cares? It’s not the fucking 90s - just go on the internet and just rent a house; it’s easy - stop trying to be like your parents. Owning a house is embarrassing anyway, what, you’re just going to buy some land hmm? Like some sort of colonial shit cunt from England? Got yourself a nice little block of land did ya? Haven’t you done well for yourself? The dream is over, jesus christ, let it go. If this dueling home ownership thinkpiece-narrative between idealistic self obsessed cowardly fuckheads from Gen Y media and pink skinned fat faced racists from The Daily Telegraph doesn’t end soon i’m going to tie a belt around my neck and the doorknob and just go the full Hutchence. You’re not special either you baby boomer cunt - if you had fully charged mobile phones with the internet and delivery cocaine and imported goats cheese and $9 milkshakes when you were younger instead of Chiko Rolls and whatever else it is you had; seesaws at the park, glasses of water, cheap cigarettes, free education, a will to live, all that nonsense, if you had what we have you wouldn’t own your precious fucking house, trust me. You’d be living with me in a sharehouse watching Curb Your Enthusiasm on your laptop drinking tinnies on the floor in your underwear like the piece of shit you really are.
So i was thinking about my extra shift today and I realized in a sense, my employer is not my boss but my customer. I own the resource that is me, my time, my labor, my skillset. My employer-customer says to me “I want that, can I pay you for it?” And I say yes, because not only do I like money, but I like being desired that much that my employer-customer is willing to ask “hey i know this is short notice but I’d like to buy like four more hours of your time and labor on top of the five I’ve already arranged with you, because you’re that important to me and my business.”
And then the meta thing is, as I develop a reputation for not only doing a good job but also meeting emergency demands, my value to the employer-customer increases, and they will pay me more for the product and service I’m offering: myself.
How is that not like the most empowering thing in the world? Fucking hell yeah capitalism.
Does anyone else with 12th house planets feel like a stranger here on Earth? Everyday since I was 8 I sit in solitude and wonder if my souls incarnation here was a mere accident. I float through life, like a ghost. I see everyone and everything indulging in the human experience. The joys, the sorrows and ups and downs that make a human life grand. Suddenly in the last few months I have come to terms after an entire life of looking for home on Earth, there is no home here for me.
I always dream of the far away places where things are more advanced then this. This is more value to life then consumption, ownership and the “self.” I miss home….and home feels like a place I can always go to grow my mind, and share my compassion and there is no ego; no more concern with what I get in return or what is waiting for me in the future. There are just moments to feel comfortable without feeling empty and dead inside.
“The self-ownership rule may seem obvious, but it is held only by libertarians. Nonlibertarians do not believe in complete self ownership. Sure, they usually grant that each person has some rights in his own body, but they believe each person is partially owned by some other person or entity - usually the state, or society. In other words, we libertarians are the only ones who really oppose slavery in a principled way. Nonlibertarians are in favor of at least partial slavery.
This slavery is implicit in state actions and laws such as taxation, conscription, and drug prohibitions. The libertarian says that each person is the full owner of his body: he has the right to control his body, to decide whether or not he ingests narcotics, works for less than minimum wage, pays taxes, joins an army, and so on.
But those who believe in such laws believe that the state is at least a partial owner of the body of those subject to such laws. They don’t like to say they believe in slavery, but they do. The liberal wants tax evaders put in jail - that is, enslaved. The conservative wants marijuana users enslaved.”
Both ancaps and ancoms want an abolition of coercive State power. Disarming the systematic oppressors is how we will end systematic oppression.
2. Human Entitlement to the Product of our Labor
While we disagree on how capital fits into the equation (or if it fits at all), both ancaps and ancoms agree that the product of our labor is an extension of the right to self-ownership and non-coercion.
3. Right to Life
All anarchists agree that humans have an inherent right to stay alive. Where we differ is how that right applies.
Ancaps believe that negative rights, like the right not to be murdered or assaulted, cover the right to live by enabling people to acquire their means of survival without interference. Ancoms, on the other hand, believe that positive rights to things like food, water, and shelterare needed to truly guarantee the right to live.
This is a significant difference, but I believe our intentions are the same - we want people to be able to stay alive without interference.
4. Minority Rights
A core part of anti-Statism is the protection of minorities from State persecution. LGBTQA+, women, religious minorities, people of color, non-binary people, and all other marginalized members of society should enjoy the same inherent rights as everyone else. Both ancaps and ancoms want to dismantle the State to stop persecution of the historically oppressed.
5. Peace and Good-Will
Regardless of our differences in philosophy, I truly believe that most ancaps and most ancoms want to see a world that is better for everyone. We’re tired of hierarchy and coercion being substitutes for voluntary exchange and authentic compassion. A world built on oppression, coercion, thievery, and blind mob mentality is one we’d like to see give way to a brighter future, with the oppressive arm of the State forever broken. And hey, we’re in the minority. Can we really afford to be at each other’s throats? I think we already know the answer.
All scientific inquiry begins with observation and proceeds with logic.
I exist in time as a singular subject of experience and action.
I and I alone inhabit this existence throughout time. None other can inhabit this existence with me.
The same is true of every human individual in existence.
I and I alone have exclusive rightful claim to control and direction of this existence, because no other can produce a higher rightful claim to this existence I inhabit than I can as its sole director and inhabitant.
This produces the strongest ownership claim in the known universe, being completely fixed and unseverable. This is my self-ownership.
The same is true of every human individual in existence.
I own my past and its manifestation in all forms. This is my property.
I own my present and its manifestation in all forms. This my bodily liberty in the theater of nature.
I own my future and its manifestation in all forms. This is my life.
Only I rightfully bear all responsibility and consequence for my existence and its manifestations, as I direct them. This is my personal responsibility.
I and I alone may freely choose with whom I will associate, in any and all ways, at any and all times, to any and all degrees. This is my freedom of association.
When any aspect of my existence is violated, I alone bear responsibility for its defense and restoration, because it is mine alone.
All individuals, without reservation or exception, are equal in self-ownership of, and personal responsibility for, their respective existence in time and all its manifestations.
No individual has the right to rule or otherwise coerce or violate any aspect of another individual’s existence, to usurp their self-ownership.
The only just interaction between individual self-owners is that which is consented to by all parties to the interaction, and engaged in voluntarily.
All individuals, without reservation or exception, and according to their individual preference, possess absolute freedom of association and collaboration for their mutual protection, aid, and benefit and for the protection, aid, and benefit of any others, as they choose, by consent.
These conclusions we come to, through the application of intellect in the form of logic to what is observably true and correct. From these conclusions spring infinite possibilities, restricted only—as is just—by equality of self-ownership, by personal responsibility, and by individual preference. These conclusions underpin spontaneous, uncoerced, natural order on which can develop truly just and civilized society.
This is the meaning of ‘anarchy’, of existence without rulers.
She wonders if color would be so important, if they hadn’t all become friends this way. She wonders if she’d see them in such vivid hues, if they hadn’t become Rangers. She can’t imagine it any other way.
wait i think i got you wrong. are you against abortions? or is the whole "abortion is s murder" thing ironic?
Because I believe the protections of personhood and the claim of self-ownership begin to apply at conception, I do believe abortion is murder. If the protections of personhood don’t apply to the pre-born child, it’s arbitrary to apply them at or after birth (and has the potential to justify infanticide). If the human person owns itself as a child and abusing a child is wrong because children are not property, then taking the life of child at any stage of development, including prior to birth, must also be wrong on the same principle and logic.
But any realistic action to protect that child would also require enslaving or imprisoning unwilling pregnant women. As some pro-choicers point out, if pro-lifers were serious about protecting the pre-born child, it should be wholly ethical to chain the unwilling mother to a bed for up to nine months if letting her roam free means she’s going to seek an abortion in a clinic or a back alley. Women therefore would lose their ownership of their bodies by necessity, and become slaves to those who would preserve the life of the child. This would, tangentially, double-victimize rape victims who have had their ownership of their body violated by their rapist, but also forcing them to carry their rapist’s child regardless of their consent.
I honestly sympathize with both sides of the debate.
In either case, the NAP is going to be violated: abortion is murder, coerced pregnancy is slavery. These are not contradictory views. All I’m currently saying is that I’m not going to pretend one NAP violation is any more or less righteous or justified than the other.
The best solution I can hope for is that artificial wombs and other medical advances will allow for unwilling mothers to give up their unwanted children without killing them. This would allow for the self ownership of both mother and child to be preserved and respected without aggressing on one or the other.
Trump’s lack of awareness, plus a habit of skimming from her sources, often results in spectacularly misapplied quotations — like one from Toni Morrison’s Beloved about the brutal psychological scars of slavery. “Freeing yourself was one thing; claiming ownership of that freed self was another,” is positioned in cute faux-handwritten capitals (and tagged #itwisewords) before a chapter on “working smarter." I.T., standing, of course, for Ivanka Trump.
As Talal Asad (2003) notes, “pain is … often regarded as inimical to reason … [and] thought of as a human condition that the secular must eliminate universally”. When pain becomes the antithesis of reason itself, something that must be “eliminate[d] universally,” pain is associated with a body gone wrong. Pain is rendered the signature of an irrational body that is no longer in control of the rational mind and is thus unable to exercise agency. It is assumed that pain, an emotion, diminishes one’s capacity for reason (moral judgment), reducing one’s self-ownership of [their] body and faculties of reason. Pain reminds us of the materiality and limitations of our bodies. Hence, in secular-liberal theorizing of the body, pain is something negative, something that needs to be eliminated and is seen as a sign of weakness, rather than a condition that allows us to relate to the world in more humane ways.
Shaista Patel, “Racing Madness: The Terrorizing Madness of the Post-9/11 Terrorist Body”.
When you have only a small handful of archetypal, iconic
woman superheroes and action heroes living inside of you, standing out among a
multitude of iconic men who continue to pop up as unchecked and
indistinguishable as dandelions, you cherish every one in a way that would be
hard to explain to someone who simply did not need to see symbolic, non-gender
conforming women to represent the possibilities for new ways of being a woman
in this world.
I am glad I have the dynamic between Alex and Maggie to
remind me to honor my emotions, talk stuff out, and just cry. Cause I am having a profound moment of grief
over Supergirl. I am tempted to tell myself that I did this
to myself and that I should not have taken television trash seriously. And also want to tell myself, it’s a weird
phase, it’s misdirection, what’s happening right now will end soon. But this stuff is important.
Even if I push this aside, I know that it’s incredibly important.
When Supergirl first cropped up, I nearly
cried, simply because Supergirl’s clothing was something that women could
actually wear as a recognizable costume comfortably in cool weather and without
being hyper-sexualized. Then I got to watch Kara struggle to take up space in the
world and not feel responsible for everybody’s feelings, overcome fears that
she would hurt herself and other people if she exerted her strength, struggle
to reconcile disparate identities, and watch herself being used as an icon with
a definition beyond her own will. And I
felt like this show was actually written for women every bit as much as
men. When I saw how a bond between two
sisters formed the arch and defined the narrative arc of the entire first
season, I recognized that choice alone as enough to make this show ten times
more feminist than almost anything on television.
The word I would use to describe the representation of
Kara’s sexuality in season one would be anxious. The show seemed anxious to ensure that she
had a sexuality and would not read as immature or closeted. They also seemed anxious to let that interest
turn into even implied sex. I hoped that
in season two the show would change. I
hoped that the creative team would create a context where they would feel
comfortable allowing Kara’s sexuality to emerge fully and in fulfilling
They did find the context that made them feel comfortable.
e. I never imagined they would craft
such a stylized archetype of recognizable and self-conscious postmodern, white,
straight masculinity to line up with Kara as her romantic and sexual
compliment. Kara’s sexuality in season
two feels like a relief from the tension and anxiety of season one and now
feels like a grinning, uneasy, indirect, continuous apology for the show’s
feminism including the show’s current, beautiful wlw storyline.
Now viewers have become divided between those focused on their
feelings about the threat Kara clearly represents to the personification of a
seemingly fragile, socially unstable, and emotionally underdeveloped man and those
having feelings about the unacknowledged threat that a self-absorbed sexist man
who seems like an anachronism in the world of this show poses to Kara. Kara’s increasing self-definition and
self-ownership no longer serve as a foundation for the show. And while the crucial importance of the bond between
the Danvers sisters still resonates in the show’s conflicts, it no longer forms
the heart of the show.
This may be temporary. This may be what Supergirl is now. That will
be a real loss.
would you agree that democracy leads to communism?
As far as I’m concerned, democracy is communism.
Democracy, through voting, is the expression of how the community or state should manage the lives and property of others. How exactly is democracy compatible with self-ownership and the negative right to own and manage one’s own property when we’re using the ballot to manage other people’s lives and property without their consent?
When we vote to raise taxes to support schools or libraries, we vote to steal. When we vote to recognize only heterosexual unions as legal marriages, we vote to control voluntary associations. When we vote for tough-on-crime policies, we vote for police to assault and imprison nonaggressive people for merely owning plants or feeding the homeless. When we vote for a politician, we vote for slavery, to coerce those who do not consent into being ruled by the one who wins.
All in the name of “for the good of the community”, and this is all approved because of the mythical “social contract” we were born into as “citizens”.
Democracy is not freedom: it is merely a restricted form of communism. How can a democracy protect your rights when all that is required is a majority vote to strip those protections away?
Hell, all it really takes is government just openly ignoring the law. The NSA, FBI, CIA, and all manner of law enforcement routinely disregard the Fourth Amendment in order to exercise their power. The Second Amendment has been violated with regulations on what weapons we citizens may or may not own, and how we may or may not modify them. And no amount of voting or congressional or state-level lawsuits have restored the protections of our rights once the government has forsaken it, either by popular demand (voting) or simple disdain for the rights of the people they are ruling.
Lysander Spooner said it best: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He said that about his experience with the Constitution… in 1870. Our current abuses of government would have him spinning in his grave so fast we should be able to hook him up to a turbine and solve any energy crisis for the next century.
Only once you have understood and embraced your dark side can you fully stand in the light of your being. And what is the dark side but a metaphor for the abyss, the void, the great unknown, the force that plays upon our fears of mortality, and furthermore, how does one even begin to reconcile that which one instinctively does not wish to face? Well, usually the world must thrust it upon us, prying our eyes open to our particular individual brand of previously held blindness through the reality of experience. These moments tend to be rather destructive to our once cherished, perfectly maintained, most safeguarded beliefs about life - this can be an incredibly painful experience. However, if one does not lose oneself in self-pity, these moments can be utilized constructively when seen as points or inner loci within the psyche which - via sadness, depression, or anger - purposefully hurt to make themselves noticed of their unhealed existence; only by mustering up the courage to face our pain and sit with it can we channel, uncover, and integrate the lessons inherently impregnated within the experience as a soul defining force in deepening our awareness of life. One can either absorb theses experiences by reflecting, understanding, and growing from them or one can deny them as the opportunities they are to learn. When one is not whole, the dynamic between ones’ being and the world will naturally conspire to bring upon these rough awakenings through the vessels of drama and calamity. When these experiences happen, they tend to momentarily break down our ego giving us a refractory window in which to either widen our gaze or construct defense mechanisms in an attempt to look away from something that will forever remain unavoidably close. With experience, you will further acquaint yourself with the alchemical process of locating the little white dot of yang within the yin, constructively using pain as a kind of motivational fuel, and transmuting suffering into wisdom. Do not take a passive stance, take creative ownership in your self-destruction, of all that resides within as illusory, delusional, or wishful fantasy. The secret is in exposing our insecurities to the world and going through the painful process of honing these marginalized aspects of our being by steadily owning and integrating them back from the fringes. In time, one will come to an intimate appreciation and acceptance of oneself rendering one immune to the views others castigate or applaud one for; an interpersonal invincibility of sorts forged from having cultivated immaculate - or near immaculate - integrity with oneself. In this way, the combined ideals of vulnerability, transparency, and compassion mixed with a touch of martyrdom give rise to a greater understanding and appreciation of the totality of who we are enabling us to act, when triggered, not from a defensive standpoint of emotional-reactivity, but with the sovereignty we have earned from having demonstrated the necessary courage to have undertaken the experientially-instilled, viscerally-inscribed repertoire of scars and lessons now carved within the annals of our memory. This kind of self-directed growth is akin to exposure therapy; it’s raw, painful, and slightly masochistic - it also works.
how can capitalism exist without be state? im curious and am new to anarchism
Depends on how one defines capitalism.
If, like me, you define capitalism as the voluntary interaction between consenting individuals with respect to self ownership, individual rights, and property rights than that exists everywhere people are allowed to freely interact with other individuals.
Why would capitalism need a violent organization like the state, that is antithetical to capitalism, for capitalism to exist?
I was looking through your blog and I wasn't sure if you were OK with legalising drugs and to what extent? Hope it isn't a stupid question I just was wondering
It’s never a dumb question to ask for my position on any issue! No worries on that.
I am for the decriminalization of all drugs. Making, selling, buying, or using drugs are not aggressions or NAP violations. By contrast, banning or regulating the consumption of drugs violates the right of self-ownership; banning or regulating the production of drugs violates the right of property; banning or regulating the sale or purchase of drugs violates the right of voluntary association.
The War on Drugs is blatantly immoral in both origin (it began as politically motivated racism and oppression) and execution (sending SWAT teams to break into houses at 4am and sending the possessor to prison for one plant). It’s also immoral to kick addicts while they’re down; it’s hard for them to get the help they need when they know they risk being arrested and imprisoned for their addiction.
Finally, as an anarchist who advocates the abolition of the government, there would be no monopoly on force that could ban drug activity.
However, it remains up to property owners to regulate drug use on their property. If your employment contract clarifies that you cannot come to work high or drunk, you can and will be fired if you show up high or drunk, and that’s not a violation of rights because the employment contract is a voluntary association. Same with leasing contracts and so on. Ideally, decriminalization will allow more employers to be more tolerant of softer drugs like marijuana.