Broadness is fairly spread throughout ideologies and worldviews, with each ideology having their own “school,” or “branch.” Very few worldviews have been capable of escaping this kind of disorienting divide, a separation creating quarrels between individuals due to the fact that their sociopolitical ideologies can be expanded so broadly. The reason for this is quite simple really – these “ideologies” and “worldviews” that I speak of all target the state as a way to control the masses into doing what these individuals believe is best (or worst) for the world. Governance, as anyone with a basic understanding of political science knows, can be done in a variety of different ways, due to the fact that the state itself is a monopoly – an institution that has a monopoly on whatever it chooses through the “ideologies”. Therefore these ideologies which I speak of only vary on the level of violence they want the monopoly to utilize – this is what creates the “schools” and the “branches.”
It does not take close-glancing to reveal that libertarianism does not have many divides (in the regard in which I spoke of) – those divides that are there however, were created from reasons differing from other ideologies. The divisions within libertarianism come from the destruction of terms and the confusion that arises out of that – the disgusting molestation and ravaging of the term “liberal” by the aggressors, with the “classical” liberals taking cover under a new word that the anti-property (supposedly) anti-state aggressors dropped for the most part – “libertarianism.” Thus, the divisions in libertarianism merely result in a word-war between the “libertarian capitalists” and the “original libertarians,” in the latter-day known as the “libertarian socialists.” Therefore, we should disregard these divisions as invalid, because they are plainly a basic tug-of-war over a title for two different views – one of them unknowingly but surely advocating statism, the other going to the core of what anarchism is – or what is supposed to be. Hard to work with these inferior labels as it is, the one label that has not been bastardized is “Rothbardianism.”
This is the most accurate term for the “anarcho-capitalist,” the private-property anarchist. However this term is also frowned upon by many, through differing outlooks going as deep as anarcho-capitalism itself. It is safe to say however that Murray Rothbard is the father of private-property anarchism – he made the liaison between anarchism, theories of private property, the Austrian School of economics, and the classical liberal tradition, rejecting all of their incompatabilities and mixing them up into anarcho-capitalism. Thus I use Rothbardianism here, rather than some other bastardized term.
Rothbardian Class Distinction
The fatuous system known as Marxism is well-known for its spreading of “class theory” and the separation of humans into two distinct “classes,” the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoisie.” The laughable property of this is that Marxism has failed to give anyone a clear-cut definition of what a class is, exactly – Marx the man frequently used “bourgeoisie” as a term to dupe his followers into disregarding any argument one might have and pouncing on the individual of opposition immediately, thus meaning that Marx’s terms were split into “the people who I like” and the “people who I don’t like.” The common consensus seems to refer to the bourgeoisie as “the guy on the hill with the mansion” or anyone who has been able to experience success with a business through obtaining capital. However countless Marxists (and especially Marx himself) over the years have criticized poor people, belittling them as “bourgeoisie” simply because of their opposition to the Marxian system.
Unfortunately, there is nothing anyone can do to abolish these class distinctions created by the revolutionary socialists – the terms have spread too widely, too far. This is precisely why it is important to note that if there are indeed class separations, it is between only two classes – not the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but rather, the “aggressors” and the “citizenry.” I use citizenry in the sense that any individual living inside the boundaries of violence known as the “borders” of a “nation” is considered a “citizen.” You are a citizen. I am a citizen. For the class-based mind, it is better for us to know the protagonists of the world as “the citizens,” as the general consensus is and shall always be that you and I are “citizens.” Even after statism has been abolished, you and I will be “citizens of the Earth,” or more properly, “citizens of our property.”
In this worldview of classes, the aggressors that I speak of can be anyone from a burglar, to a murderer, to a petty child who pickpockets at a train station. Obviously the third one I listed is of a completely different nature – it is MINOR aggression (although do not be mistaken – it is INDEED aggression), however it is MINOR aggression. Thus we find it necessary to place minor aggressors down below, at the bottom of some sort of “food chain.” This is what I call the “chain of aggressors.”
In looking at the interactions between humans known as “society,” we find all sorts of aggression – and all of the individuals committing the aggression earn a different spot on the chain of aggressors. Obviously the first question that might come into one’s mind when thinking about this chain of aggressors is “who is the greatest of the aggression class?” In other words, what is the top institution/group of individuals of the chain of aggressors? To answer this, we should look only to history, and the origin of the major violent events throughout history (all started through aggression).
Through our search through history, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that the state has earned its position at the top of the chain of aggressors – it is the supreme entity of the aggressor class. The state breathes aggression, it thrives on it, it LIVES through it, just as ordinary mammals live on water, they REQUIRE water. The state, just like this, REQUIRES aggression, undoubtedly securing its position on the top of the chain of aggressors. The state has varying degrees of aggression, but ultimately its sole aggressive act, the act that consists of absolute aggression, nothing other than it – is “war.” And through war, the state takes the lives of individuals through varying levels of violence, such as “collateral damage,” and even going so far as to violate the property rights of the individual through “conscription,” which directly spits on any notion that would state that oneself is in charge of his or her own body, his or her own mind.
And so, through these facts, through our historical viewing of government committing “democide,” we discover that the state is an animal which is out of control – it cannot BE controlled. Aggression can never be fully stopped – in a Rothbardian society, “crime” would still occur. The aggression of the state is uncontrollable as well – yet this statement is only meant in the way that it is an unnecessary institution of aggression. It is a fraud – it is a criminal that decieves one by informing that individual that it is working “for that individual.” Thus we reach the logical conclusion that we must revolt against the top of the chain of aggressors – the controllers. It is impossible to revolt against the bottom of the chain of aggressors, for that which is standard, victim-having crime is loose-knit and can only be prevented on an individual basis. However, the citizen class, in order to prevent the out-of-control aggressive nature of the state, must have a full scale Revolution of the Citizens, a revolution of the individual.
My theory is that only this would bring about a Rothbardian, anarcho-capitalist society. Only a revolt against the high end of the chain of aggressors – the state. Unfortunately, this is where the division that I spoke of earlier in anarcho-capitalism starts to occur – the division where anarcho-capitalists are divided on revolution. I put forth the proposition that is basic Rothbardian thought – since we, the members of the citizen’s class, “live under” the state, the high end of the chain of aggressors – we have already been aggressed against. A right to self-defense against this aggression is without question a just, ethical cause. These are simply basic conclusions I have logically taken from the thought of Murray Rothbard – I would assume that it is us, the members of the citizen’s class, to do the rest.
Written by SkepticalMetal