Stirner has opened my eyes on quite a few levels, you could categorize his book under individualistic anarchism (though categories seem irrelevant).

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

This text has helped me and some others, trying to not drift off in endless cynicism and nihilism:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-lamborn-wilson-the-new-nihilism

On 08/04/2016 11:37 PM, jim bell wrote:


From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net>

On 08/04/2016 03:00 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>> I asked Steve some suggestions in private, but it's better to ask
>> publicly, so more people can profit the clues.  Oh, you know, he
>> loves books, uses cute emoticons and makes oink oink.  He's a good
>> reference for me, hahaha!!  ;)

>When dredging the Internet for information, I am sure you won't have
>much trouble picking out the State sponsored anarchist literature and
>pseudo-radical propaganda fronts: 


I hope people will forgive me for tooting my own horn.  I was a minarchist Libertarian in 1994,
not an anarchist Libertarian.  But it wasn't because I somehow wanted to keep around some
minimal government.  Rather, it was because I couldn't figure out a logically-consistent method'
to entirely get rid of those last vestiges of government.  Lacking such an plausible method,
I chose the intellectually-honest route of accepting (at the time) that some residual government
would be necessary.

While not specifically aware of David Friedman's (son of famous economist Milton Friedman)
book, "The Machinery of Freedom" (1973; revised in 1989; again 2014),  I was effectively
aware of the  same barrier, and like Friedman, I could not see any solution.  Anarchy, I 
concluded, was impractical, and unachievable. 

It's a good thing that I wasn't aware of Friedman's "Hard Problem", or the idea it was "hard".
In January 1995 I because to contemplate the idea that turned into my "Assassination
Politics" essay.   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm  

  I wasn't intending to solve that problem:  Rather, I was trying to figure out how
an otherwise-powerless public could defend itself from bad acts, mostly from government
employees.  I realized that to combine the contributions of anonymous individuals,  allows
that public can deter and prevent those bad acts.  I further realized that this system would
be extremely economical, allowing (for instance) the region known as "America" to defend
itself, not merely from external threats, but also internal crime, probably for a total cost of 
under $1 billion per year, far less than the $600 billion in defense spending currently done.

A simplistic, initial analysis (which I initially assumed, even before I wrote the first part of the
AP essay) was that AP would simply fix government.  But the ultimate "fix" was actually far
more powerful than I'd initially realized, not merely fixing governments, but destroying all
governments, and thus protecting an anarchist or minarchist region from threatening 
neighbors.

Put simply, I solved David Friedman's "Hard Problem".  I haven't yet seen the 2014 revision
of his book, Machinery of Freedom, to see if he has acknowledged this yet.    I think it would
be extraordinarily strange if he doesn't do so:  After all, ostensibly we are on the same side
of this matter.  He advocates a zero-government solution:  Why wouldn't he cite a proof
that a zero-government solution is actually possible, contrary to his apparent previous
opinion?


But in effect, I think I was quite correct, pre-1995, for me  to believe that anarchy was
 impractical.   I don't know how people who labelled themselves as 'anarchists'  resolved
the apparent contradiction.  Were they aware that anarchy wasn't stable?  (At least not
absent my 1995 invention, AP).   Most likely I think they were simply unaware that anarchy
wasn't going to be stable.  Or, perhaps they assumed that then-future events would somehow
solve the problem.  As, ultimately, they did, but it didn't have to be that way.  I, virtually by
accident, solved that problem.  But things could have been very different.

                Jim Bell