Copyrights are theft

As many would know who are acquainted with political thought on the libertarian left, intellectual property is a major factor entrenching economic privilege for large corporations. However, most people (even some anti-statists) support copyrights on the grounds that illegal filesharing is theft. This is false – copying doesn’t deprive anyone of the copied work. When this is pointed out to copyright supporters, they will respond that people are being deprived of money that they would otherwise make. What this implies is that it is morally acceptable to guarantee one’s income by coercing others – something that can be called “theft” far more justifiably then copying can.

Egoism vs selfishness

While I consider my ethical beliefs to have an egoist justification, I do not consider them “selfish”.

Selfishness, to me, means doing things without regard to others, to behave in an arrogant and atomistic manner. When someone tells you “don’t be selfish”, they don’t mean “don’t act motivated by what makes you yourself happy”. They mean not to ignore the opinions of others, to show them unkindness, to be uncooperative and self-absorbed.

From an egoist perspective, selfishness is not advisable. As I have stated earlier, egoism done right is social. Egoist motivations done right lead one to stereotypically “altruistic” places – cooperation, love, revolution. There’s a reason why anarchists often admire Stirner – because a world based on his ideas, if you really stop and think, will be significantly closer to Kropotkin than Rand.

About cities

If you’ve been keeping up with my blog, you know I oppose cities – the divide between the dense, artificial city and the sparsely popular, natural countryside have historically led to a system of conquest and exploitation of nature by humanity, and a system of conquest and exploitation of some parts of humanity by others. While a sustainable civilization (city-oriented system) is hypothetically possible, it would be very hard to achieve. Ultimately, it’s better to just ditch that whole form of social organization.

However, what should we do with the cities? They’re already there, obviously, and such a question may evoke to some forced migrations ala Pol Pot. However, this is far from my aspiration. The physical structures will remain, but the social structures will decentralize until every neighborhood is autonomous. Buildings will remain, but they will be repurposed into houses, assemblies, communal storehouses. Some ex-properties will become gardens.

The point isn’t to remove people from the city, it’s to remove the city itself.

The commonplace nature of radicalism

When you think about it, radical sentiments aren’t a rarity. How often have you heard these phrases?

“Power corrupts.”

“Work sucks.”

“Fuck the police.”

“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

These are all the same sentiments held by anarchists and like-minded radicals. Anarchists aren’t as rare as they are because people disagree with the underlying ideas, but rather because people don’t know what anarchy is, nor do they realize how real of a possibility it is. Naturally, anarchists should make an effort to correct this.

Defeating crypto-racism

White nationalists often claim that they don’t want to kick out nonwhites from their countries out of hate, but out of love towards their own race. However, if other races didn’t pose a perceived threat to them, they wouldn’t feel compelled out of this alleged “love for their own race” to segregate themselves. If they didn’t think the influence of other races was a corrupting one, they’d be fine with it.

See also the way white nationalists often stereotype and denigrate non-white people.

Possibly the least accurate article I’ve ever read about anarchism

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2011/06/16/vancouver-riots-highlight-the-paradox-organized-anarchists/

Here’s a fun game: count all the factual errors in this article.

 

My response to a Christian fundamentalist

I wrote this as part of an online debate with someone who thought that same-sex hand-holding deserved the death penalty, and who said they’d kill themself if the Bible told them they had to. I don’t regret it in the least.

What about the slavery, genocide, and stoning to death of disobedient children? What about unmarried virgins who were raped having to marry their rapists? Do you accept these things?

What about the flat earth? What about bats being birds? What about the implied incest with the children of Adam and Eve?

A life lived according to Biblical literalism & infallibility is a life wasted, a life of squalor, fear, and anger, the death of reason, compassion and fulfillment. It is anti-life, anti-liberty and anti-love. I pity you for your horrifying and destructive beliefs.