'You know, the two things that you're supposed to find out while you're on this planet are where you're going and who you're gonna take with you. The problem is, most people try to figure it out the other way around.' -Salt Lake Trish, Starving in the Company of Beautiful Women, Michael Feen

Somalia and Child Sex Slaves

by Ethan Glover, Sat, Nov 16, 2013 - (Edited) Tue, Dec 26, 2017 is a site that I've been watching for a short time. The site consists of short rants against anarcho-capitalism called "quick thoughts" and the occasional article on history or political movements. Everything on the site is written with vitriol and judgment rather than understanding. It is more complaint than explanation. The author seems ready and willing to put down anybody who isn't him, but never provides any real explanation as to why his criticisms are thought out in any way. The author is a very young anarcho-communist, and I suppose judgment and criticism are par for the course. Most an-comms that I have spoken to have told me upfront that they recognize that their theories do not work in the real world, but the philosophy is more of a thought experiment. Either this, or they will fail to answer questions and resort to anger and tantrums. These are the only two final responses I have yet to get out of any anarcho-communist. Now it may be that one day they'll figure things out and be able to develop a consistent philosophy that holds up to questioning, or they will realize the philosophy has been bunk for 150 - 200 years and has had no real support since.

You Could Always Move To Somalia - From A Communist?

In the past week, the author of AnarchoPac has thrown out two "quick thoughts" on anarcho-capitalism. The first says that because Somalia is currently in a state of anarchy, people are no longer forced to live under a government. The problem with these "quick thoughts" is that the author never really addresses the issue. In "Anarcho-Communism Criticism" and "Economics Anarchists Don't Want You To Know" I make it a point to address the underlying issues with communism. Taking one argument and throwing out a sarcastic response doesn't help those who are as of yet undecided. Instead, it attracts the dumb zombies who will go with whatever is simpler. But for those who are actually willing to take these questions seriously, it should be known that this is not the only argument when it comes to being forced to participate in government. For instance, the state, or anybody for that matter, has no right to make a claim on your property and life. The initial possession of property is often explained by way of homesteading. It says that the person who makes use of unowned and unused land simply owns it. This means that Christopher Columbus can't just land on the shores of the United States, occupied by men and women already, and stick a flag in it. Lewis and Clark can't walk west and claim all the land they come across and all the land between them, the French, and the Spanish. When I purchase a plot of land from an individual I own it. Just as much as I own the computer I'm using right now. Can anyone extract money from me for owning land? Of course not, even the anarcho-communist can agree with this. If not, the anarcho-communist could always move to Somalia, right? Somalia is in a bad state. When the government falls and refuses to take claim of an area, it's usually because they've already drained it and put it into a state in which it would be impossible to get a worthwhile amount of tax money from it. As people begin to trade with each other and find ways to defend themselves and each other Somalia will eventually pull itself out of poverty, and if history is any guide, another government will emerge, and the cycle will begin anew.

Another question we can ask is, "What is force?" What if I failed to pay the taxes I am "forced" to pay? I would get letters from the IRS demanding payment with interest. Eventually, they'd come to my house and talk to me in person. If I still refused, they'd send police who would threaten to arrest me. If I refused still and opted to defend myself against these intruders, I would inevitably get killed. So, am I really forced to pay taxes? You could say no. You could say I have the options to go to jail or die. By this same logic, am I forced to breathe? I always have the option to suffocate and die. Even that would probably require some water. If I just held my breath I'd pass out, and my body would take over breathing again. But at least the option exists, right? These arguments feel a bit ridiculous, but it may be difficult to put into words as to why. Think of it this way, if the state (or nature) establishes choices for you and limits any creativity to a specified range of options, do you actually have a choice? This is what is meant by "force". It's not that there is no choice. It's that the choices are limited by a single organization. An organization that uses violence to get what it wants or what its members want. So am I forced to live under government even though Somalia is an option? Of course. I have the right to my land and property. No one can make a claim to it and say pay me or get out. That's ridiculous.

Child Sex Slaves - Criticisms w/o Answers

In another article, the author makes the claim that anarcho-capitalism allows for child sex slaves. The article insultingly makes the claim that the philosophy justifies such a thing. I noted that the author is "studying" books by Murray Rothbard. Rothbard had very incomplete and very wrong views on children. Often, when I find myself defending anarcho-capitalism against communists, I find that the conversation is targeted to a particular period of time. Anarcho-communists have not had a lot of growth if any, in a very long time. Their philosophy hit a wall and died long ago, why there are still believers is odd to me. The point is Rothbard laid some great frameworks. Despite giving us a Constitution, the founding fathers made an extraordinary step toward freedom, they could not have known that things would have gotten as bad as it has. As we learn from our mistakes and learn the science we can make proper corrections, this is what makes anarcho-capitalism unique. It is willing to learn, adapt and grow. It is capable of doing so because it does not restrict itself to particular names like Rothbard (or Proudhon, Kropotkin and Marx).

We can say today, with 100% confidence, that sex hurts and damages the bodies and mental states of the young and immature, especially with adults. When a 30 year old man today has sex with an 18 year old he faces no repercussions of the effects that he has on the young girl down the line simply because of some arbitrary numbers set by the state. In a free society of competing justice systems, that same 30 year old takes a very real and serious risk. If that girl experiences real and provable trauma it can come back to him. When it comes to the young and old, this is an obvious thing in which juries would not require much swaying. However, all else being equal, we can turn the argument around and talk about a 25 year old woman and a 30 year old man. If the woman simply wants to sue and punish the man for leaving her, what happens? On a limited basis this is really a non issue, despite the communist claim that in their world crime does not exist, such things, unfortunately, can not be stopped 100%. But what if it happens a lot? Women will often claim rape just to take revenge or get some easy money. The most obvious answer to this would be to make sure that punishments go both ways. It is in Libertarian Punishment Theory and competing anarcho-capitalist courtrooms that we can find such things. If a woman accuses a man of rape, she had better be sure. Otherwise, the time lost in court and the costs of taking him to court can turn right back around on her. After making her pay for court costs, lost time and any other appropriate reparations; a court might make it a point to put her name in the newspaper in an attempt to shame her just like she attempted to shame the man for doing no wrong. Is there a chance that the case could be improperly decided? Yes. This is true in all cases and systems. Unfortunately, humans have not developed the ability to read each others minds. Although a more efficient private court may use cameras to read and consider microexpressions. It may use lie detectors on both people. There is an infinite amount of tools that a court working for profit and for the customer may employ so that it may grow its business. To sum up, when it comes to very young minors, juries can make quick and easy decisions to punish the man who took advantage of the child. When it comes to the teenagers and borderline young, the anarcho-capitalist court system is flexible enough and even enough that it can properly handle the situation.

And just to put it out there, the AnarchoPac article uses the term "voluntary slave". This is impossible. Ignoring that and instead correcting for syntax can a child volunteer to work for free in prostitution? The parent who allows this and the person who makes it happen are both criminals and could be punished. These things are not OK. The parent has responsibility for their child because they brought him/her into the world. The child has no choice in this, but birth is of course something that can not be avoided, it has to happen for survival. Until the child is fully capable of taking care of himself, the parent does indeed commit a crime by not properly taking care of him. If they'd like to pass on responsibility through adoption, this is OK, but refusing to feed the child and taking direct or indirect actions that results in their harm or death is punishable by natural law. If the child refuses to take responsibility as an adult, we can again look to the courts for solutions. The chances of a 30 year old suing his parents? Very low. Why? Because he knows he'd never win.

Critical Theory?

AnarchoPac doesn't make a lot of effort to prove his points. In the case of Somalia, he doesn't recognize that both anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists agree. In the case of sex with minors, he doesn't consider the arguments beyond one man and uses the tired old claim of "voluntary slavery". The responses found between these two articles are sarcasm based. They are built of short quips in an effort to sway those who either aren't interested in learning or just want to hear anything at all to confirm their own beliefs. The author claims to have plans to write a book on anarcho-capitalism. If this is his understanding of how it works, if this is how he responds to it, he will have a hard time writing anything with enough content to fill 100 pages. My longest articles, "Online Civility" and "Anarcho-Communism Criticism" cover my thoughts to great extents, they are each only the length of short chapters. Writing a book involves a whole lot of research and consideration of all viewpoints. The author says he will be refusing to address both Austrian economics and philosophy frameworks. What's left you ask? Nothing. From what I can tell from this blog, the "book" will instead be full of rants that do not address or touch anarcho-capitalist ideas. Even looking at his "Book Plans" (Archived) I am left wondering how he plans on criticizing anarcho-capitalist philosophy and their views of markets without understanding the underlying frameworks that they are based on. Like most, this "book" will probably go unwritten and unnoticed. I'd love to hear some criticisms against anarcho-capitalism, but as I've found with most communists, this author refuses to look at what anarcho-capitalism means and stands for. Instead, his back is turned to his audience, and he's preaching to a wall.

Sources for this article can be found here: