Stirner has opened my eyes on quite a few levels, you could categorize his book under individualistic anarchism (though categories seem irrelevant).
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own This text has helped me and some others, trying to not drift off in endless cynicism and nihilism: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-lamborn-wilson-the-new-nihilism On 08/04/2016 11:37 PM, jim bell wrote: > > > *From:* Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> > > On 08/04/2016 03:00 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote: > >> I asked Steve some suggestions in private, but it's better to ask > >> publicly, so more people can profit the clues. Oh, you know, he > >> loves books, uses cute emoticons and makes oink oink. He's a good > >> reference for me, hahaha!! ;) > > >When dredging the Internet for information, I am sure you won't have > >much trouble picking out the State sponsored anarchist literature and > >pseudo-radical propaganda fronts: > > > I hope people will forgive me for tooting my own horn. I was a > minarchist Libertarian in 1994, > not an anarchist Libertarian. But it wasn't because I somehow wanted > to keep around some > minimal government. Rather, it was because I couldn't figure out a > logically-consistent method' > to entirely get rid of those last vestiges of government. Lacking > such an plausible method, > I chose the intellectually-honest route of accepting (at the time) > that some residual government > would be necessary. > > While not specifically aware of David Friedman's (son of famous > economist Milton Friedman) > "Hard Problem" > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/04/will_david_frie.html , > from his > book, "The Machinery of Freedom" (1973; revised in 1989; again 2014), > I was effectively > aware of the same barrier, and like Friedman, I could not see any > solution. Anarchy, I > concluded, was impractical, and unachievable. > > It's a good thing that I wasn't aware of Friedman's "Hard Problem", or > the idea it was "hard". > In January 1995 I because to contemplate the idea that turned into my > "Assassination > Politics" essay. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > > I wasn't intending to solve that problem: Rather, I was trying to > figure out how > an otherwise-powerless public could defend itself from bad acts, > mostly from government > employees. I realized that to combine the contributions of anonymous > individuals, allows > that public can deter and prevent those bad acts. I further realized > that this system would > be extremely economical, allowing (for instance) the region known as > "America" to defend > itself, not merely from external threats, but also internal crime, > probably for a total cost of > under $1 billion per year, far less than the $600 billion in defense > spending currently done. > > A simplistic, initial analysis (which I initially assumed, even before > I wrote the first part of the > AP essay) was that AP would simply fix government. But the ultimate > "fix" was actually far > more powerful than I'd initially realized, not merely fixing > governments, but destroying all > governments, and thus protecting an anarchist or minarchist region > from threatening > neighbors. > > Put simply, I solved David Friedman's "Hard Problem". I haven't yet > seen the 2014 revision > of his book, Machinery of Freedom, to see if he has acknowledged this > yet. I think it would > be extraordinarily strange if he doesn't do so: After all, ostensibly > we are on the same side > of this matter. He advocates a zero-government solution: Why > wouldn't he cite a proof > that a zero-government solution is actually possible, contrary to his > apparent previous > opinion? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom > > But in effect, I think I was quite correct, pre-1995, for me to > believe that anarchy was > impractical. I don't know how people who labelled themselves as > 'anarchists' resolved > the apparent contradiction. Were they aware that anarchy wasn't > stable? (At least not > absent my 1995 invention, AP). Most likely I think they were simply > unaware that anarchy > wasn't going to be stable. Or, perhaps they assumed that then-future > events would somehow > solve the problem. As, ultimately, they did, but it didn't have to be > that way. I, virtually by > accident, solved that problem. But things could have been very different. > > Jim Bell > > >
