Presentation on theme: "Back Cover Thanks for taking the time to read my work. If you found more value in this zine than the price of printing please donate with Bitcoin to the."— Presentation transcript:
Back Cover Thanks for taking the time to read my work. If you found more value in this zine than the price of printing please donate with Bitcoin to the QR code above or at the BTC address: 1LKKhuWJF9kj3qzJxcVXmwpWCR5f8pUFnq You can find more of my work at: http://lloydtw.liberty.me/ My Email:firstname.lastname@example.org Tyler Lloyd
Table of Contents On Agorism Pg 2 TypismPgs 3 – 12 Labeling and Being Pgs 13 – 16 Labeled Addressing the Pgs 17 – 33 S-Word 1
332 She writes for both FOX and CNN She donates to the Federal Reserve She gives meter maids crap if they don’t show any hustle She installed parking meters and speed bumps on your street She made your house a drug and gun free zone She encourages war and entitlement spending She says the pledge of allegiance when she wakes up in the morning She supports carbon taxes She shut down the local lemonade stand for operating without a business license She got a permit to throw your birthday party She pays her taxes in January She volunteers for jury duty only to convict She wants every victimless crime to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law She votes and volunteers to run polling places We have all heard about the police shutting down lemonade stands on the side of the road. However, as long as a market exists of exchanges wherein willing buyers and sellers of goods and services can trade freely with each other, Agorism can thrive. After all, the US dollar is simply a measurement of economic value in the perceived global economy. Don’t let that exclusively define you financially, because you as an individual have every right to the true free market of Anarcho- Capitalism. Everyone possesses capital outside of the money simply sitting in a bank account somewhere and it often remains unutilized. This comes out of people owning their property and the freedom to trade those possessions for anything else one desires. Likewise, people are also free to work at the production of whatever goods or services they wish to trade in, or to capitalize on the production of those goods and services. Agorism means creating industry outside of the regulation and taxation forced on them by American governmental bureaucracy. Third party arbiters that impede the free market economy should not be able to regulate every good and service one wants to create or receive. How could they if each exchange is voluntary between individuals? On Agorism
332 Typism Yo Mama so statist: She protests protesting She volunteers to deliver mail on Sundays She holds a public vote when eating out to determine a collective gratuity She heckles in free speech zones She tried to sue the ACLU for having too many freedoms She donates bullets to the police department She is pushing a bill to ban smoking e- cigarettes in public establishments She reports homeschoolers for truancy She gets turned on by TSA pat-downs She condones drone strikes She vacations at Guantanamo Bay She emails herself in the hopes a NSA agent will reply Typism 3
314 9) Breaking & Entering (Warrant Serving) Ever heard of a search warrant? Well once these guys get one they don’t see any point in knocking first. Remember they don’t need to respect your property because you are a suspected competitor. To end this article I’m going to list a bunch of “yo mama” jokes to illustrate that I don’t hate the word “statist” just because it can be offensive to others. I’m just saying to be careful in how one goes about using it. I hope these jokes are absurd enough to go without warranting any animosity. *Disclaimer: I’m not talking about anyone’s mother in particular. 314
530 What is your favorite –ist label? I usually think sociologist, dentist, pharmacologist, and scientist when adding the –ist suffix to words. In doing this I have shown the way in which the label applies to specialists, but there is a much darker side of the –ist suffix. Just as specialists are more than their occupation, the label of their occupation does give us an understanding of their background. The problem is when we solely identify someone by an ambiguous label that issues arise. How many dermatologists do you think are shown bug bites and skin rashes in their free time? Boiling the sum of a person into just one label is essentialist; meaning their inherent personhood is defined by some preconceived notion. Mr. Misogynist and Ms. Misandrist may hate each other, but can anyone really apply such broad stereotypes to either a man or a woman, on such a consist basis? I reject this and believe people can transcend the thoughts and opinions other people have in identifying them. Some ANCAPS claim that Anarchy is not a political position because only individuals know how to best live their lives. Therefore, if any group aims to strip away this inalienable dignity, then they continue to prove how pervasive the state is in oppressing individualism. Regardless of how made up your mind is, you are not going to gain much out of your relationships with others if you spend all your time simply trying to change their beliefs to match your own. In time our shared values will be pushed forward and remedy the ignorance of the past and present. Thanks for reading through this and please feel free to ignore everything I wrote. Proudly proclaim, “FUCK THAT SHIT, I’LL SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT!” Just try to realize the effects you have on others in doing so. Not everyone is your enemy in the fight against statism; some people just don’t know where the lines are drawn.
296 The idea is to end the state for freedom to flourish and find new solutions to strife. When we alienate each other by claiming which one of us is still somewhat statist, or who among us is the more or less privileged, we marginalize the arguments for anarchy. How we treat each other now will determine how people treat each other in the future. In conclusion, the main point that I am trying to convey here is that words can both bring people together and distance them. Know this in your conversations with others, and try not to offend others if, and when, they disagree with you. On the other side of that notion, don’t be offended if other people simply disagree with you. Calling someone any term that can be perceived as derogatory limits social interaction and can lead to unintended consequences. When one creates friction between oneself and other people, we all potentially miss out on something great. Not everyone is going to take on your political perspective, and it is your responsibility to respect that. Unfortunately, for anarcho- capitalists the majority of people still do not understand the issues of immoral values imposed on everyone through governmental control and regulation A good example of this is Gamergate. Just because a very small minority of radical feminist gamers find AAA games offensive does not mean all gamers hate women and are racist. How racism and sexism go hand in hand within this campaign for social justice in gaming is mostly a ploy, than an actual complaint. I understand that different forms of entertainment should be inclusive to all people and their preferences. However when those games do nothing more than indoctrinate its players with Cultural Marxism; it is no wonder why most gamers don’t want to play the games social justice warriors champion. Making video games politically correct is like charging people with assault who play contact sports. These are the same kinds of people who would heckle a stand-up comedian because he offended them.
728 Here we were, trying to enjoy a night out and have a few laughs, until someone with an authoritarian opinion, pipes up to interrupt the comedian’s set; temporarily ruining the show for everyone. This is what Anti-Gamergate is all about. They pride themselves on being the fun police, instilling political correctness, and forcing creative expression to be only somewhat expressive. My analysis: they just hate freedom if it does not appeal to the social norms they see fit to perpetuate. Perpetuation of which is failing, so now they demonize all who dare to disagree with their cynical perspective. Negatively labeling others in this age of political correctness is as, if not more, alienating to a person than if that person actually advocates for/or participates in hate speech. Now that I’m finished meandering about the basics, I would like to address political infighting. People within the same political movements have always disagreed with each other on various minor issues. However, the idea is to not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. As someone new to anarcho- capitalism I still find myself with statist thinking from time to time, but being part of a social movement for the end of government does not mean competing with others to prove myself as more or less statist. I don’t know anyone who was raised by anarchist parents or escaped the indoctrination of public education. Therefore, we all still have some form of statism instilled in us, whether we like it or not. Hopefully I won’t be able to say the same about the next generation, because by pushing these values forward we can create a better future for them. Even if we reach a stateless society, people are still going to have fights and disagreements. This is okay, because individuals will be free to associate and disassociate with whomever they please. My plea is that we do not let minor differences and misunderstandings create division in a movement that is inclusively beneficial to everyone.
278 If you have studied labeling theory from the symbolic internationalist perspective, then you can understand what happens when people are labeled. We often call this phenomenon a self-fulfilling prophecy, because those labeled will actually start manifesting the attributes assigned to them based on how adhesive the label. I have come to the conclusion that labeling the behaviors of others as politically incorrect, when unjustified, to be a form of socially institutional prejudice. Calling someone racist, classist, or sexist, if you do not agree with their perspective on controversy, does nothing to further discussion or quell ignorance. It is just a form of social and relational violence, inflicted on those who refuse to conform to the norms of leftist socio-cultural pathology. Not everyone is a hardcore bigot and people can change, but they most certainly won’t if the chance to change is made unavailable to them. The solution to this social division stemming from quick accusations and mislabeled victims is the creation of a new label itself. With government – less is more, so why would anarchists want to alienate themselves from libertarians or conservatives who want to stand up against escalating governmental coercion and corruption? The goal is to increase freedom by eliminating the government’s power in the hopes that maybe one day the values found in Anarchism will render the state obsolete. I believe this will be a gradual process if social change is to be made possible, but who knows how much faster the state will prove itself incompetent and harmful (cough, Obamacare, cough). If the American people do have an influence over their government, then having this discussion with voters is very important. If one runs the numbers of those eligible to vote and those who actually do, it is found to be more American not to vote. For those of us committed to the cause of freedom, it’s just heartbreaking to see all the lives destroyed by the state in the name of any opinion enforced at gunpoint. If less violence means less government, then we owe it to ourselves to rise above the issues that generate such violence and human degradation in the first place.
926 Don’t be a typist. Reject using negative –ist labels to describe others based on your essentialist notions of them. Labeling is a form of objectifying an individual, and in doing so we limit, if not completely diminish the agency that person possesses. We create more theoretical misogynists, criminals, terrorists, racists, classists, and ablists through this practice of labeling. A good example of this was a crime that occurred in Richmond at 6:20 PM on the 300 block of Hancock Avenue, December 1st of last year. 23 year old Cassandra Albrecht was changed with a misdemeanor for obstructing a police investigation after she pepper sprayed an innocent man in an SUV once he asked her if she was ok, and if she could give him directions. It was not the man who filed the police report, but the aggressor who wanted other people to know that she was almost kidnapped. Tying this all back around, it is important that if we hope to change, reform, or end the state one must expect opposition. If this does not come from the state itself, then it will come from people who don’t hold our moral convictions. A wise friend ends the conversations he has with those that will argue relentlessly against Anarchy by saying, “… well maybe one day you will find that institutionalizing violence and monopolizing basic human services will not set us free.” It may have been easy to simply call this person a statist, but that will probably leave them feeling crossed. The last problem I have with the term is that it creates a secondary position in which someone is branded as the “other”. By calling someone statist, it serves to divide people on an issue that they could have come together on.
25 Nothing of the such was going to happen on that evening, but taxpayers, the police, and primetime news networks all lost valuable resources caused by the student’s fabrication. Criminology professor Joan Neff from the University of Richmond noted that most falsely reported cases are from people who simply want to feel like someone cares (Hall, False Abduction Report Could Lead to Charges). Too often though, I see the hate in other people’s eyes pointed in my direction because they saw me at the compass, heard me at the mock governor’s debate, or know me as the president of the Conspiracy Club. I cannot let their assumptions or prejudice about what they think they know about me get me down on myself. Although, for a while I was really lost to the misconceptions I felt other people held in me. This caused me to clam-up and isolate, and in doing so I alienated some of the people who really care about me. The people who resort to judgmental claims by labeling others are often themselves missing the point of hearing out that which they disagree with. Why even come to college if your mind is already made up about everything, and anyone you disagree with must be discouraged and/or discriminated against? 10
1124 Do you think we should label those that mislabel? Through the practice of labeling others “typist” we can actually use labeling to increase freedom and decrease social division. I don’t mean to impose a new form of political correctness, quite the contrary. I hope that by labeling the mislabelers we can live in a world with more free speech and less censorship. From labeling these people, we can stop the social alienation and stigmatization they spread amongst interpersonal/ multicultural relations. I’m not saying we live in a world without sexism or racism, but that we can live in a world without people making things sexist and racial in the name of fighting it. There are people out there who are proudly statist and will always believe the mainstream misconceptions about anarchy. I, myself, am still very concerned about what a stateless society would look like. However, by pushing the values forward of the NAP and Peaceful Parenting one hopes to change the social narrative. If we hope to overcome these institutions based on violence then we must prove ourselves stronger than the coercion inflicted on us by the state. I have lost friends, been made fun of, and even publicly shamed for questioning the current socio-political environment. Yet, I am better for it. Over time I have learned to not take my beliefs so seriously that I alienate people. Conversely, those that seek to alienate me from others are really only hurting themselves by highlighting how little they know me. I’ve met some really great people, who do and don’t share my political perspectives, but I have always appreciated their company and perspective. Adults can talk out their disagreements and work though an argument without name calling. In this practice both parties gain from the interaction.
2312 Imagine a world where you can approach, compliment, and have a conversation with other people without being accused of harassment. Imagine a world where no matter how off-color the joke, people will recognize it as just that; a joke. Imagine a world where people do not live in the fear of being labeled misogynistic or racist, because those who seek to instill political correctness into everything have been identified, labeled, and socially ostracized. In this world everyone knows what bigotry is, but none feel the need to fuel the fire of hatred with their own hypocritical form of anti-bigot bigotry. Can such a world exist, or am I just an idealist? Works Cited Hall, Lorenzo. “False Abduction Report Could Lead to Charges.” WTVRcom. CBS 6, 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. Try to not get so caught up in an orthodoxy, in the effort to recruit others into having your own perspective, that you forget the fun that comes with actually talking to people. This world would be a lot less interesting if everyone agreed on the same things and had no original positions to take on an issue. Not only would nothing be solved, but these drones would be a total bore to talk to; only regurgitating what everyone else around them already believes in. A true philosopher can take either side of a debate, which serves to solidify their own beliefs by becoming more knowledgeable about the entirety of the issue. These highly complex sociological problems are not going to be solved overnight by inflicting relational violence against one another. Just because someone identifies as a Democrat, a Republican, or a Tea Partier does not mean they should be ignored, and their political voice silenced. Therefore, if we hope to “wake-up” the people around us to governmental corruption and immorality we cannot resort to name calling when others disagree with us.
1322 Labeling and Being Labeled I try my best to not label people or judge others too harshly, but there are moments where I found myself doing that. It was 9PM at Wendy’s on Broad Street, and I was trying to grab dinner after work when I ran into him. He was a large black man walking around with a hefty garbage bag filled with what I assumed to be all his belongings. My label for him was “homeless,” and I felt uncomfortable heading into this restaurant behind him. In an effort of courtesy this man opened the door for me and held it open for me to walk in before him. It was raining and the man was soaked, so this was a meaningful gesture because of the contrast between us. This is a problem I face when sharing my views and opinions with others who show little respect for me. These labels, like the label statist, only serve to dismiss the other person’s perspective because it runs contrary to your own beliefs. In philosophic debates resorting to insults while neglecting to refute the argument at hand does not get anyone anywhere. This is a lot easier to do than we think, and no one ever really wants to be caught advocating for sexism, classism, racism, slavery, or genocide. We all just have different opinions about how to resolve these problems and marginalizing another’s beliefs does not address the current efforts that need to be taken in search of freedom and equality for all. The truth is that it’s hard to challenge your personal beliefs, and it takes a level of maturity to merely entertain the ideas of someone who we fundamentally disagree with. However, this is the point of having conversations with others. If we cannot defend our beliefs when they are challenged, then we should question why we even believe them in the first place.
2114 Yet, holding the door for me was not necessary, and his effort to do so made for an awkward moment because of my reaction. I feel really bad for my reaction, which was that of mirroring a deer in the headlights. He stood there holding the door for me, and I just stood there looking at him. Sadly, my fear got the best of me and I thought, “I was not going to let this man to my backside.” My behavior offended the guy and we shared this unpleasant moment- where he held the door for me, and I would not go in as long as he stood there holding the door. The label of “homeless,” which got so stuck in my head, kept me scared and paralyzed as he finally went inside alone and the door shut behind him. He hung his head low and looked down at my feet for a second, before going in and said, “Shit dude, I’m still a person.” I used the restroom before going to the counter to order my food, but after doing my business I left the Wendy’s because I felt so humiliated. My prejudice kept me from even eating in a place where this man was, because of the label I placed on him. Who knows how this man is doing today, but looking back I wish I would have appealed to him as a person. Maybe I could have bought him dinner, or even ate mine with him and learned about his life. Just because someone is considered homeless doesn’t mean they will be homeless for the rest of their life, and I really regret my behavior in that situation. Even if we don’t hold common ground we can both still learn from this interaction. Being able to express our social concerns with people who hold different beliefs lets us learn what is happening on both sides of the fence, and if an original solution or compromise can surface. At this point some could go as far as to label me a rape-apologist because of the belief that the state is fundamentally immoral, and to ever vote would be to condone such behavior. However, calling someone this term will also create friction in what could have very well been a civil political discourse. In one of my communication classes they went as far as to say that one should never talk about politics or religion with strangers because of how strongly everyone has an opinion. Yet, these two topics are great icebreakers when trying to start up a conversation with new people and figure out their priorities. You will always find people who disagree with you and any perspective you present them with. Regardless of politics and religion, discussions about ideas and values are always meaningful. For some, any political dissent outside of their own personal beliefs are labeled as privileged, racist, misogynistic, arrogant, insensitive, or even treasonous.
1520 A time where I have been labeled was when I went to hangout with a group of Anarcho- Communists. They have this library I was interested in checking out, and I went in the hopes of learning about political philosophy and history. To my dismay, few books on the shelves were ones I actually wanted to read, and few people there were willing to talk to me. I felt like they labeled me “privileged,” and that I couldn’t relate to their struggle or philosophy. Needless to say, I left shortly thereafter because of how snubbed I felt treated. I think of myself as a pretty normal guy, but to the counter- culture “normal” will not make you very many friends. If only I was poor, dirty, and wearing punk rock clothing. Then maybe they would have been more willing to talk to me. Despite feeling so unwelcomed I still want to break through their bias, but I don’t think they will ever let me. It was weird to be looked down on by people everyone else I know would have already looked down upon; labeling them the white- trash of the radical left. By labeling me “privileged,” it was like they rejected all the work I’ve done on my own to get me to where I am today, and all the sacrifices my family has made in raising me. Talking about statism and what it means to live under a state is an important conversation to have with yourself and others. Calling someone out for holding a statist position isn’t going to help them learn how such a position is harmful. Regardless of how a person identifies politically we can all still remain critical of the state and its actions that maim, kill, and steal from people everyday; while restricting freedom. Blind allegiance to a politician one voted for does not make the current system of government any more ethical. For many anarchists just voting is a form of aggression that forces one political preference onto everyone. Those who are not so inclined into being ruled are likely to reject the majority’s political preference which panders to collectivist nonsense. To contradict myself, I voted for the capital L candidate Gary Johnson in the 2012 presidential election, and after being counted as part of that one percent minority who did so, I lost my faith in the democratic political process. However, I don’t mind talking with someone who still believes in a political party because I find the conversations with them still worth having.
1916 Just because of the way I look does not mean we can’t still have a normal conversation. At the very least we should be able to find common ground somewhere. Leaving, I felt so frustrated and it was like I had intruded on their group. It doesn’t mean much to me now because there was probably nothing I could have done there to change the way they perceived me. Labels are subtle things that people place onto others within the very moment they see or identify someone. I just wish they weren’t so adhesive and divisive, because there is more to a person than what meets the eye. Don’t think you know someone or have them figured out, because people can often surprise you. For some people this term is nothing new, although for others it is offensive. How we go about finding semantic meaning within terms, and the way we use those terms to label others, is a topic I would like to explore here. I am not taking the position here that we should ban the word statist (OMG, that’s like soooo bossy), but I would like to point out that the word can be used derogatively. Calling someone “statist” in a political debate does not further philosophy, instead it stifles it. For most people I’ve met and had political discussions with, unless they were in some way knowledgeable of the freedom movement the lingo surrounding statism remains largely outside of their vocabulary. Ignorance is not a good defense, but it is important that people who try to spread the message of anarchy do so without distancing themselves from their audience. I don’t mean to patronize those who believe in the state or take a minarchist position, but I do feel those political views should be given a voice.
1718 Addressing the S-Word The ANCAPS of Urban Dictionary define the term Statist as: Modern day supporter of political slavery; A secular State-Worshiper; Member of the cult of the State; An irrational, immoral, collectivist parasite which leeches off the productive private sector at the point of a gun, while attempting to justify such behavior through invalid, unethical, altruistic arguments. Uses statist law (oppressive edicts backed by criminal violence) to intimidate and run the neo-slave racket. Typically found in government, politics, bureaucracy, police, military and law; aka Supporter of such; Governmentalist; Nationalist; A degenerate sub-human who makes your life a living hell; An accident just waiting to happen. To sum up this sentiment they used statist in the following sentence: A statist is just about anyone who’s not an anarcho-capitalist.