End The Hyphenate War: A Clarification Of Rights & Reality
When are you hyphenates going to figure out that you only have the 'freedom' to 'seek' out something. Not the right to have it.
You are free to seek out water.
You are free to seek out food.
You are free to seek out shelter.
You are free to seek out property.
You are free to seek out comfort.
You are free to seek out security.
On and on.
There are no guarantees that you will acquire what you seek and no one is entitled to give it to you or agree with you.
So it's simple.
Ancoms have the freedom to seek out water.
Ancaps have the freedom to seek out property and to seek to secure it.
If the ancap fails, the ancom can come and take water from the ancap property. If the ancom gets caught, the ancap can cap the ancom in the head.
OR, you fucking pissant dickwaving jackasses can use a little common decency and the ancom can come and ask for access to the water, the ancap can offer the water and they can come to some agreement in which neither feels stolen from or exploited instead of arguing amongst ourselves.
You fucking whiny bitches think you have 'rights'? Show me from whence are they derived? Where in nature can we find evidence of anything we call a right SHORT OF the 'right' to seek out what we wish?
There isn't.
You have no right to anything, property or otherwise.
You have the 'freedom' to pursue things.
I suggest you learn the skills to be successful, and that includes learning how to find common ground with people that you disagree with on some things.
'Cause no fucking body agrees with your ass 100%.
Do people have the right to form organizations that will allow them to work together, to increase their chances of finding what they seek? How about protecting what they've found?
The point is that you have the right to seek what you wish, to include organized association and to seek to protect what you have acquired. But there are no guarantees. There is no right to life, liberty or any of it. The only part of that line that IS accurate is the pursuit of happiness. Because the right is to seek it, not to find it or keep it. And that's true of all 'rights'. If you wish to have something, if you need to have something, then you are free, 'state' or not, to pursue it. But no promises that you'll find it or that you'll keep it.
The finding and keeping is entirely on you.
Deny that networks and the concepts necessary to access them exist all you like, they will not go away. At the end of the day, most people reject anarchy, even those who would respect individual rights in a way that would give anarchists 99% of what they claim to want. That anarchists can't see this, what Thoreau saw so clearly, emboldens and empowers the state. In effect, the existing state has bent all anarchists to its will by weeding out the few who had an intelligent approach, and leaving the idiots behind to seed the network with isolationism and non-participation "political relinquishment" memes.
I worked for the Libertarian Party until I realized they were VERY SUCCESSFULLY infiltrated by the FBI. In fact, the single person making every important decision in the LP is an FBI agent, or GOP agent, or central bank agent, or compromised. ...Whatever. It doesn't matter who he's working for: It matters what he does.
...And the things he does cannot result in individual freedom. In fact, they appear to be carefully calculated to make certain individual freedom does not accidentally arise from the party's ballot access activism structure.
This is also true of the anarchist armies on the internet who counsel a form of "technological relinquishment" known correctly as "political relinquishment" but which they claim is "principled non-voting." (...Very ironically, since many claim to be Agorists, and agorists themselves supposedly favor pursuing freedom directly by technological means. They don't realize that stupid, unphilosophical nodes in a network are governed by network laws, not the laws that govern "individualists." Moreover, they fail to recognize that electoral systems, civics classes, and knowledge of proper jury structure are all forms of cybernetic technology themselves.)
For more on these ideas, I strongly recommend Kevin Kelly's book "Out of Control" and Norbert Wiener's "The Human Use of Human Beings."
I think what you fail to realize is that freedom is irrespective of society. Even with the 'state' in full swing, freedom still exists because the 'state' is nothing more than a fog that serves to obscure the nature of reality, we're already free.
I don't need the 'state' to crumble in order to be an anarchist or have 'anarchy' in my life. It's really as simple as ceasing to acknowledge the 'state' as a real thing. The agents may be real, but, just as you would avoid and deny power to thugs and 'despots' in anarchy, you avoid and deny agents of the 'state' because they are, literally, thugs and 'despots' pretending power and authority.
And there's something I think you fail to consider that Thoreau could not anticipate, global interconnectivity and the ability to circumvent political control of information and communication. I don't doubt that we will never achieve a truly 'stateless' society and even if we did, in a generation or three, it would begin to give way to a new 'state'.
But the realization that you will likely not succeed, in part or full, to the extent you desire if at all, is no reason to give up on what you believe is right.
I also agree that division among anarchists is great, as it is in any group, and that this serves the 'state'. But there is a movement within that community to cast aside the divisions in favor of spreading the idea that people own themselves.
In regards to the LP, as with any other 'wing' of the poltical system, it is my personal belief(and it is shared with a great many others) that the LP and 'minarchy'(not to say the current LP is for anything of the sort) is little more than a promise of low hanging fruits: "here's a little liberty, but you still need to be ruled and owned."
There are many problems and many hurdles that must be overcome, within and without the anarchist communities, but at the end of the day, for the individuals, all it takes is the acceptance of the fact that we are already free and the courage to act like it.
I can't argue with most of what you've said. I like to think I am fairly practical and objective, even in contrast to my own desires and goals. But, again, I think you fail the exponential growth the movement for 'anarchy' has experienced over the last decade or so. I firmly believe this growth is directly tied to the last few attempts by the 'state' to take control of the internet because what I believe you are ignoring, that Thoreau could not anticipate, is the free-sharing of ideas and information on the internet.