Anarchadelphia 2019

[jamesd at echeque.com]

 > > But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'
 > > And 'capitalism' is merely 'crowd-sourced capital', which is merely
 > > one aspect of  what would be a free-market.
 > >                   Jim Bell

On 2019-09-23 11:59, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
 > I should also point out that my use of the term "anarchism" above is
 > based on what I believe to be the correct definition of 'anarchism',
 > the believe that there should not exist any government, and certainly
 > not that whose existence and practice violences the Non-Initiation of
 > Force Principle (NIOFP, which many call the NAP,
 > "non-aggression principle".

There is an obvious problem with the non-aggression principle.  What do 
you do about large organized groups of people who aggress, and loudly 
proclaim the other guy is aggressing, and have crew of noisy public 
intellectuals (priests) explaining why the organized and dangerous group 
is in the right and doing good?  The other guy is supposedly price 
gouging, or emitting CO2, or hording, or engaging in usury (people who 
talk about usury are seldom aware of or interested in the way 
Christianity defined usury.  They just free money and to never have to 
pay it back.)

The union says that the employer is aggressing by locking unionized 
workers out and hiring non union labor, and bring up some cannon to make 
their point.

The Christian priest says that the priests of the Icelandic religion are 
aggressing, because they follow, and preach their followers to follow, 
the pagan rules on violence and law enforcement, which if successfully 
followed, are apt to result in Christians getting the short end of the 
stick, which was not a problem when everyone in Iceland followed the 
rules of the Icelandic gods, except for a few evildoers which evildoers 
tended to wind up dead.

The Christian priests argued for a Kingly monopoly of force, and they 
had a point, in that Icelandic priests were notoriously prone to ruling 
in favor of the guy with largest mob of armed supporters at the courtroom.

Hence the reactionary doctrine that you always wind up with a state 
religion.  In our case, instead of being required to believe in things 
unseen, we are required to disbelieve in things seen, such as racial and 
sexual differences, and bad female behavior in the workplace.