I would put exception to darian worden, who remarked that it’s very important to know which property got targeted, and which didn’t (http://darianworden.com/blog/?p=353)
The riot itself has members acting of their own agenda, which while does not generalize at all concerning market anarchists as supporting the destruction of private property, it does highlight the problem of association with supporting the riots in general (which i suspect many support in principle as retaliation against the state, not necessarily the violence that is possible from such), which can further highlight the problem of association with anarchism in general, when the movement has it’s streaks of greys concerning other flavors (syndalcism, communism, propertarian, etc.)
“When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the flight to the enemy.”
no but I do not think that is cause to completelty throw the principle out. Nor do I really think this is some slant towards preemptive strike or what not.
If you aren’t willing to use force to assault the state when it treads on you, what is the point in the second amendment? You may as well be totally disarmed.
I’ve pretty much decided to start referring to myself as a Rothbardian Libertarian for the most part instead of an anarchist primarily due to the silly associations people draw because of ass-hat rioters and looters like these.
Unfortunately, ‘Rothbardian Libertarian’ is even more obscure than ‘Anarcho-capitalist’ to most people…
Also, I’d use force against anyone in self-defense, and I am not against using strategic force against aggressors when it is rationally justified and necessary for survival. Riots and looting like this are never rationally justified, and are certainly not strategic. I do believe violence should only be used as a last resort and should certainly never be glorified or romanticized.
No, Chomsky encourages. Claiming that it is required for us to do certain things until we can be free from it. I never said anything of the sort, and there’s nothing contradictory on the one hand saying we need competition in the production of defence and arbitration, and on the other than the institution that currently arrogates itself a monopoly on defence and arbitration should uphold property rights.
What I’m saying is essentially that the government should try to do as least harm as possible. This means that the production of defence should be aimed at upholding property rights. Yes, I disagree with their territorial monopoly of defence, I think the state is as evil and inefficient as the next person on here. On the other hand, most of us would agree that it is evil because it violates property rights. As such, I don’t understand the big deal with me advocating the police enforcing and protecting property rights whilst the government exists.
Well, its “make the best of a bad situation.” Even if the police did protect us, there would still be an issue of taxation. but agreed. So long as they do take our money as taxes, they ought to at least uphold their obligation they claim to have, to protect life, liberty, and property.
That being said, who wouldn’t use violence to protect himself against a burgler? and who wouldn’t if adequetly armed, wouldn’t protect himeslf against 4 or 5? (even if he isn’t armed it may be better to fight than not) and that is all government is, is a successfull criminal gang. the only difference between the U.S. Gov’t and the Bloods and UAB’s is that the U.S. has more people, more money, and more guns!
Violence would have been unacceptable for the founders if they hadn’t been able to win!
But I would agree that passive non compliance is a better card to play, and is more effective and so on… with violence there is always the danger that it will get out of control like the French Revolution.
Also, seeing authoritarian Marxists as allies as many social anarchists do doesn’t help. They always end up taking over and letting the anarchists do the dirty work, and then its up against the wall to face the firing squad (literal or figurative). Same thing happened in Catalonia, Ukraine, and even the US (when the Maoists took over SDS and the New Left).
Sadly I agree, the anarchist community have to realise that for the majority of their history they have been either the pawns or the butt of the joke for a stronger political movement. Until they realise that they accomplished little on their own, they will continue to elitist snobs that people tend to avoid.
Problem is, aside from abolishing government, no anarchist proper would want to DO anything as such.
They want people to do it themselves. I think lots of people feel they can’t do that, and more importantly, that others can’t ( = classic socialist arrogance).
To Liberty Student, on your post from pages back, attacking those playing third person shooters, drinking beer and smoking pot, I would like to make an objection.
I know around 50 people who play the most violent TPSs, drink a lot of beer, and smoke a lot of pot, and ~ 10 of them are my best friends. Certainly my best friends have never initiated aggression against anyone, and to the best of my knowledge, none of the others have. Please justify any claims you make against anyone. Playing violent games is a lifestyle choice that should for no reason coincide with a decreased sense of human value and any reneging on the NAP (not that many of my friends display any interest in politics/economics).
Otherwise excellent points - the whole point of our creed is to me never initiating violence, and complete individual sovereignty, with private property as an extension of the self. Noone can claim to be libertarian and yet support aggression except in defence. However I think you generalise somewhat in your attacks on anarcho-communists (etc) and I think if they truly stick to individual sovereignty, respect for private property and free association, there is no objection we can make against them. If they want to (freely) organise themselves into societies they may, so long as they don’t try and coerce me out of my legitimate property.
These riots were probably more about young men frustrated (whether they realize it or not) at the barriers to affordable family formation in Greece. Something like this will probably happen in China at some point too, as dozens of young men learn they can’t all compete for the same marriageable female. Actually, it has: Tianmen Square.