Anarchism and Liberation Movements: To Support or Not to Support?

Keeping this short today.

Discussion on a group I’m in. Should anarchists support liberation movements, such as the one in Palestine, Columbia, Scotland..etc? Some anarchists believe it’ll just turn into another tyrannical State and refuse to support it. My answer? The fact that there’s is a movement is every reason to fight and further educate the people. What happens in many modern revolutions is the revolutionaries and philosophers become the commanders of the revolution because they educated themselves on the how, leaving the majority out in the cold looking for leadership which eventually leads to a corruption of power. This is called commandism and shouldn’t happen. There also has been examples of liberation movements that work toward the anarchist philosophies and flourish still this day; the difference being the revolution started from grassroots not leaving anyone out on how theoratically or how to put it into praxis. Commandism is still no reason not to support the movements as obviously it’s not commandism or another State we’re supporting. Always fight fascism, colonization, imperialism, war, oppression, tyranny of any kind. There is little to no control over the outcome of the movement, yet still, there is never a good reason to be neutral.
Never. Be. Neutral. On. Anything!
Being neutral only helps the oppressor. 🖤❤
#LandBack #AbolishTheState #NoNations #NoBorders #FreePalestine #FreeColumbia #FreeEarth

My Response to Susan Johnson’s Op-Ed about Homeschoolers Being Compared To “Domestic Terrorists”.

Susan Johnson, a recently retired school teacher had written an Op-Ed against homeschooling, comparing them to “terrorist camps” which you can read here.

Comparing private and homeschools to terrorist camps? “Domestic Terrorists” we are because of her experience in public schools which doesn’t speak at all for the reality of public schools. Her comments are not only false but racist and derogatory in nature. And ironic because her town has THE worst public schools in the country but somehow, her experience outweighs that fact. Assuming that homeschoolers are only “religious”, teach “political bias” are “tribal” or teach “proud boys and boogaloo” rhetoric, is a lousy attempt to cover up for the short comings of public schools across the nation. No, homeschoolers aren’t like that at all. Her opinion, makes her seem like an uneducated woman.

First off parents are more than qualified to teach their children in the best ways possible. The fact that anyone would dismiss parental guidance in such a way, is both tyrannical and shortsighted on its own.
All of her talk about “American tradition” and false claims about how “the public decides the curriculum and votes on what’s best” is the utmost American fan fiction baloney, and has a complete disregard for why public schools came to be in the first place. Here’s the sort version: Once upon a time, all children lived and schooled at home until capitalism forced parents into the workforce and kids into public schools which served to create obedient citizens who will continue in the workforce. Furthermore, public schools are the most indoctrinated political camps that teach blind obedience to authority, to a colonialized, imperialist system by starting each day off with the pledge of allegiance. As opposed to teaching independent individual autonomy that needs to think freely outside of a box. Or how to create a multi-economic system that benefits different types of individuals respectively. Public schools are so far from real life it’s no wonder they fail statistically. Public schools fail to leave individuals to their own posterity. Her “American tradition” is the sugar coated surface to deter from the corrupt core of the public school system.
Fact, Homeschools surpass public schools often by more than 30%, and teach more about real world than sitting in a classroom for 5.5 to 8 hours can ever do. Kids who are homeschooled score higher on tests than those who attend public schools by 15 to 45%. Homeschoolers can legit teach anywhere it doesn’t have to be only at home, the kids have more choices as to how they learn and are not subjected to centralized programs. Homeschoolers can make anything into a lesson di that their kids can fully understand. Kids who are homeschooled get the best hands on approach and get the one on one attention that they need. Their strengths and set backs can be addressed directly and we the parents DON’T need permission from the district or any higher ups to move forward with “the best action”. Homeschooled kids also have their fullest potential nurtured as opposed to being held back and jumping through hoops to get into “advanced classes”. Parents are better advocates and better at assessing their own kids because no one else knows them better.
Homeschooled kids are also more socially and emotionally equipped to deal with the real world as homeschoolers can participate in homeschool co-ops, local community activities, participate in their local libraries, they don’t even need to be local, they, again, can go anywhere. And the choices for social emotional learning curriculums are endless! Homeschoolers are also best informed on bylaws and regulations for public schools and homeschools and are also more informed on the scope and sequence and NUMEROUS curriculums available which we’ll decide with our kids which works best. So, no, homeschoolers aren’t “domestic terrorists” training kids in “terrorist camps”. Homeschoolers aren’t hurting the public school system in any way.

In fact, most parents can’t even afford to stay home to be able to homeschool in this “work or die” system that you advocate for, but not parents nor public school staff ever question the public school system. Most parents think it’s the law to send their kids to public school and have no idea of the choices they have. People are most afraid of what they don’t know but it doesn’t mean you go around shaming other types of schooling. If public schools are where you want your kids to be or have no choice to send, then try giving a damn about the school you send your kids to. Try giving a damn about the school you teach other people’s kids in. You can choose to make public schools better and yet here’s a retired school teacher who clearly is delusional of her own particular bias and privilege.

Just to be clear, you can choose to make your school’s work better structurally and democratically to benefit children, parents and teachers alike. Change the dynamic of the PTA and SEPTA groups. Stand up to your local authorities and demand better don’t just elect them and let them push you around! Because that’s what it’s really like. The public doesn’t decide anything for public schools, elected officials do. You can make change, but don’t go making homeschools and other types of schooling your scapegoat, blaming fellow citizens for a school system that is just as broken as the system who regulates it. The short comings of public schools are to no fault of other types of schools, but the government who funds and regulates it and those who stay quiet to them. Blaming the people instead of those at the top is misguided action. Focus on your schools and organize with like minded parents and staff to create the vision you want to see. Be better than that. If you cannot or choose not to homeschool for any reason, whether it’s financial or it’s just too much, then don’t do it. Your experience isn’t the reality, stick to the facts. That’s the difference between people who advocate for public school and homeschool, is that homeschoolers aren’t trying to ban public schools. Instead people who are pro public schools constantly try to push legislation against homeschoolers or place tighter restrictions. But I implore you, you’re only hurting the parents and what’s best for the children when you do. Your opinion sucks, facts matter.

Sincerely yours,

Nessa Nyx

Anarchism History and Literature: Lucy Parsons

This beautiful woman, physically and in her soul, was Lucy Parsons. I certainly never heard of her until a couple of months back when a friend posted her picture in a group with the quote “Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth”.
Lucy Parsons was one among many women anarchists who didn’t just sit down and take it, she stood up in the face of adversity.
Sadly I couldn’t find a longer biography for her that wasn’t a boring college lecture lol. But I did find a good short one.

Book of the day:
The Ballot Humbug by Lucy Parsons

Video of the day:

My Short Assessment of Ayn Rand, the Capitalist Advocate.

It’s funny, it’s been approximately 3 years since I’ve read Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and Anthem by Ayn Rand. And even though it woke something up in me by addressing the awareness of growing tyranny, it sent me on a journey with neverending questions that led to endless research for which I am grateful or I wouldn’t know, I know today. Great books, however, I only realized in 2020, just what a mean girl Ayn Rand truly was. I understood her philosophy objectivism probably better than she did, because I didn’t apply it to a particular bias; I applied it to everything as that’s how I understood Objectivism to be. However, she herself was extraordinarily inconsistent with her own philosophy even as how she understood it.
One of her objections, that will actually later on work against her, is “Check your Premise. If the base of your argument is false, then so is the rest of your argument”
Well, let’s apply that to something else. If you have a system built on coercion, colonialism, genocide, marginalization, then the structure of today’s reform is in turn the same as its base. The base is cracked and everything thrown on top is sludge that’s painted a pretty color.
How does this work against her? It’s the system she advocated for. Capitalism. The system of “liberty”. As liberty realty means freedom in these talks where Ayn Rand and Libertarians are concerned. To them, it means the freedom to make as much money as possible done obtain profits beyond measure without regard to the issues in direct correlation to Capitalism.

Let’s be better than that. She’s right, government is tyranny; but as well as any system that creates issues for the individual and refuses to fix them and above all only serves the wealthy.

End of assessment.

War! What Is It Good For?

“War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin’! “

War is a rich man’s game of looting resources if a negotiation can’t be met with leaders of other countries. And same in our own country as well when a negotiation can’t be agreed on by its leaders and the people. Violence must take place to keep the rotten corruption of authority, wealth and power running in the same cycle it has for thousands of years. Here in America for 200+ years. People today are slowly waking up and the State knows it, so they take as much power as they can until the people are left with no choice. Of course, the State with the help of the ignorant masses, because that’s how democracy works. War is the decision that a corrupt system, State as well as resources they are stealing from other countries that they believe is worth more than the average human life. So what is it actually worth? Nothing. Abolish the State and Abolish war with it!

And with that, I leave you with an excellent documentary of what actually happens in the military and an essay by Randolph Bourne that is spot on for the continuation of wars.

I’ll begin with a quote from Emma Goldman.
“There is a truism that the man in the street seems always to forget, when he is abusing the Anarchists, or whatever party happens to be his bete noire for the moment, as the cause of some outrage just perpetrated. This indisputable fact is that homicidal outrages have, from time immemorial, been the reply of goaded and desperate classes, and goaded and desperate individuals, to wrongs from their fellowmen, which they felt to be intolerable. Such acts are the violent recoil from violence, whether aggressive or repressive” – Psychology of Political Violence 1917

Book of the day: essay rather.

Randolph Bourne: War is the Health of the State

Video of the day:

Psychiatry in the Military: The Hidden Enemy – The Full Documentary

What Happened in the ICE Detention Center in GA, is not the first forced sterilization in American history.

Recently on the news, it is said that there is a whistleblower saying 3 women received unnecessary hysterectomies at an ICE detention center in Georgia which MSNBC made sure to say that it’s run by a private company (LeSalle Corrections). I heard a couple of versions. They were apparently told they were to receive hysterectomies and had no say in it, and 1 woman apparently had cancer so she needed a hysterectomy but after she got out was told by another doctor that she never had it? In any case, whatever the stories are, these women had their natural rights violated and this wouldn’t be the first time throughout history.
Brief history of forced sterilization:
(Copied and pasted from eugenicsarchive .ca)

“Although Indiana was the first state in the United States to pass a eugenic sterilization law in 1907, two states had introduced such laws earlier. In 1897, Michigan introduced a compulsory sterilization bill that did not pass, and in 1905 Pennsylvania passed a sterilization law that was vetoed by the state governor, and so did not come into effect as law. Over 30 states eventually passed such legislation, with Alberta (1928) and British Columbia (1933) the only Canadian provinces to pass comparable laws.”

And of course came 1927 Supreme Court Case, Buck V Bell (I love Mr. Beat🖤)

(According to disabilityjustice. org)
“Buck V Bell upheld a 1924 Virginia statute that allowed state governments to sterilize people it considered genetically unfit. In explaining the Supreme Court’s decision supporting involuntary sterilization, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., noted:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.””

So, private company or not, it is absolutely legal to forcibly sterilize humans in the name of all that’s good for the state. No matter how many states have denounced it, passed statutes or updated them that have never actually repealed them. It wouldn’t matter if the last forced sterilization happened in 1981 (or 2020 allegedly), or that since the late 19th century over 70,000 forced sterilizations were carried out legally.

Not that it really matters to anarchists but for any constitutionalists it might matter that these laws go against the 8th and 14th amendments.
-The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
-The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of the laws”

This is the system we live in folks. Gross, I know.

Anarchism History and Literature: Emma Goldman

If anyone doesn’t know, Emma Goldman is the reason why I am proud to call myself an anarchist. I’d already been a few years into my research and found a test from Political Compass. I took it and the the chart showed all these famous people in history, Emma Goldman being on the far left. At the time I considered myself a libertarian and the dot signifying where I belonged was hanging off the line of the chart and in Emma Goldman’s throat. I didn’t even know who she was.
And if you don’t then today’s book and video of the day can help with that. One thing I did recently notice, is that she’s popular not just in anarchist circles, but feminist and left liberal groups as well.

Book of the day:

Video of the Day:

Continue reading “Anarchism History and Literature: Emma Goldman”

Marriage is Slavery

I made a comment on a post and it inspired me to make a post.

Why is marriage slavery?
Multiple reasons really.

  1. the whole history of marriage was to force 2 people together for money exchange between families especially in the times of monarchy in Europe. All marriages had to be approved by the king. In its history men have always claimed the women as if they were their property, especially when it came to uniting 2 families for the sake of wealth. And that’s not to mention the business of buying people as slaves to work on their land. It’s no better, as both examples are means to use human beings as property/capital that belongs to another and not themselves. Hence, slavery.
  2. In middle eastern and Indian cultures middle aged men are entitled to marry little girls against their will. Again, because 2 families are uniting for the sake of wealth. Young girls are forced to drop out of school (if they go to school) to marry and obey their husbands who will make endless promises before the details are worked out between the 2 families. And those promises are broken once the marriage ceremony is over. The women in those cultures, then, are often treated as second class citizens and to be subservient to their husbands for the rest of their lives.
  3. For people here in America, it was no different in our earliest history from the time we invaded to present times. The State itself is a slave master. Just look up DC organic act of 1871. Here, the citizens are the property of the State. (As in you’re the capital). Politicians back then found another way to legally bind everyone to their will and property which is no better than marriage or traditional slavery. And just because culture and society seems to change to seem fair, at its underlying core, is the same old system of corruption.
    Today, just because it seems like both parties agree by choice, the social norm gives the illusion that you have to get married. They paint a pretty picture for marketing purposes, doesn’t take away from the fact that you’re not allowed to get married unless you have a license and it must be recognized in the eyes of the State or it is “invalid”.
    And let’s not pretend that people these days get married for love, it’s because they want the inheritance or these the State claims all, or unless there’s a written will, then the State claims a percentage. And after you spend all that money on a worthless junk of a ring, and engagement party, and bridal shower, AND wedding… you’re then forced to pay higher insurance and taxes.
    Lastly we all see the justice of men, nonfathers and fathers alike in a bad divorce. Right they don’t get any women take all most of the time. And try mentioning a prenup before marriage! (Lol) The State makes a lot of money on those cases of divorce. And just look at Utah with multiple wives, not all the women are willing to enter that marriage. And don’t get me started on how the justice system treats spousal abuse. More often than not it works out for the abuser.
    My point is you can be in love all you want no one should ever make you swear your allegiance to prove it. And if you’re going to do it, make sure you’re doing it for you when you’re ready and not because of pressure. If you want to, it should be able to be done in a private manner to no business of the State.

One of the main influences on this, to show how long this idea as existed, is Emma Goldman. She has had every influence on me and in fact every reason why I am proud to call myself an Anarchist. None other has so eloquently been able to express and convey this thought more, than in her essay “Marriage and Love”. I will leave this video here.

I’ve been with my man, for almost 8 years, we have 2 beautiful kids together. We have no need to get married, regardless of family pressure for the draconian traditions of “if you have kids you must get married” and if you don’t it’s “blasphemy”. John and I are interdependent of one another, we’re loyal, have respect and trust each other and probably have one of the most honest and truthful relationships I’ve ever been in. We worked hard for that and didn’t need a marriage for it, nor do we plan on ever getting married. If you choose to get married that’s your choice. Love has seldom to do with it.

🖤~~~~ Nessa Nyx~~~~🖤

Parental/Caregiver Rights without the State? Not Likely…

Disclaimer: Any references I link in this blog isn’t an endorsement nor a sponsorship as I do not get paid to reference anyone. These blogs are for personal use and any information I write or link I share is specifically for educational purposes. Thank you and enjoy. 

Ok so this blog took a long hot minute!!! A few months to be exact! So, just to recap, in my last blog I made it pretty clear that the 2 (being anti-establishment and a parent) are not synonymous with one another as parental guidance ends when your children are old enough to be on their own, which isn’t and sound be dictated by the State. Whereas, the government doesn’t let go from birth to death. They do as they see fit to gain more power, without consequences, to make sure you obey and comply. That’s more than being an authority, that’s tyranny…. anyway, new blog.

My Stance

I want to be very clear that I believe in Parental and caregiver responsibilities. It is my perspective that parents are caregivers as well as caregivers can be next of kin or adoptive (non-biological) and are to be given the same title of parent in the discussion of this blog. We have natural responsibilities to take care of and provide for our children. Protection, food, shelter, education, life lessons, medical decisions. To have fun and make sure you do right by your children by every means to help them grow to be strong-minded, compassionate, intelligent, independent individuals. To say it takes a village, which is the battle cry of the State, is an unfair, cruel and controlling situation as the idea is to undermine the responsibilities out of the hands of the parent(s). Unless of course, we consent or volunteer to accept/give help which is different than letting any government entity deciding what’s best for your family all together. You don’t want anyone undermining your parental guidance to make these decisions for you and your children. So why do we let the system trick us? We have rights… don’t we?

Parental Rights

So, what are your Parental rights? Well, it is important to know that parental rights differ by state. According to the law, parental rights go hand in hand with parental responsibilities. Your rights can refer to several things such as physical custody, legal custody (2 different things), rights to make medical decisions, right to enter contract, right to pass property and right to visitation. Each state has their own interpretation of what this all means and how ever strict or limited the standards are set.

Taking a closer look, in my research, I stumbled on this 2014 article written by Jeffery Shulman published an article titled Does The Constitution Protect A Fundamental Right to Parent? This piece is informative in where you stand in this country as a parent more than the state you live in, but on a federal level. I feel I should express that I’m not a constitutionalist (if you haven’t gotten that gist already), but I decided to include this portion for anyone who is and I would implore you to read closely and try to reconsider. Here’s why:

  • The right to parent free of state interference is NOT backed by the constitution
  •  Custodial authority is not a natural right but derivative of the State
  •  Parental rights are considered (not protected) under the federal constitution as fundamental by the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments and aren’t absolute nor are they enumerated.
  •  No supreme court has ever held parental rights as constitutional or fundamental.
  •  The trust model was built on a Lockean Principles, that the child is the one with fundamental rights to appropriate parental care. Which is true, however, take careful consideration that Locke believed in Representative Government not a tyrannical one.
  • Another Lockean Principle that is part of the trust model as well, is that the child is to be destined to become a member of liberal constitutional order, while parental duty in a liberal society was assumed to have no rights to do as they see fit based solely on private determination. (So you get raised ri become a member of liberal society only to be stripped of parental rights as an adult)
  •  From the seemingly modest outcomes of the supreme court and due process cases such as Meyer vs Nebraska and Pierce vs The Society of Sisters, as the State was able to acquire power and has used these examples to gain more, we would do well to be careful what we advocate for constitutionally as they required that ONLY the state not restrict the rights of the parents even though it is backed by the constitution to do so.

There was something else I stumbled on. How would you feel about a treaty being put together to take away your natural responsibilities as parents, as if to say they know what’s better for your child, than you do? For instance the U.N proposed a Convention of Rights of the Child what does this entail?

My take on this? You can’t beat how they make it sound. Those benefits could be amazing as it appeals to the “better care taking of your children”. In this situation, you don’t have a say in how they go about it, your taxes pay for it, and if you disapproved of it, it wouldn’t matter. It’s mandatory whether you like it or not. It is a direct interference with parental responsibility which is exactly in accordance with parental rights and again, the state decides what those standards are. As Dr. Potter said, that may be the U.N but America ratified this treaty and is absolutely backed by Article 6 of the constitution. Towards the end of the video he advocated for fighting for your rights through the use of the State and I just want to make it clear just how dangerous that is. The more you ask from them they’ll take twice as much from you, if that isn’t evident already. In the words of Lorenzo Kom Boa Ervin “When we defer to politicians, we just tighten the slave chains a little bit more.”

Child Abuse

The popular question when transitioning into the anti-establishment spectrum will often be “but what about child abuse in a libertarian or anarchist society? Wthout the State who will hold bad parents responsible?” Well let’s talk about it. Child abuse is a whole other subject, I do not discredit it but I will say that I do not feel this emotional topic should have (or ever had) any premise to government “protection”. Child abuse is a very serious matter, it is tragic and often government involvement makes things worse, especially for parents who never actually did anything wrong but made a mere decision that the State disagreed with. Their interpretation of abuse is too broad, therefore being able to use any reason under any law to make any decisions to interfere and separate families with use of the programs such as CPS and DCF, as well as many others like it. No matter how many children you think they’ve helped, they’ve hurt a considerable amount more. Why? Because funding, like with all government programs are done in such a way that if they get an X amount of dollars for their agency for 1 year, then they must use the whole thing, or they don’t get the same amount or increase for the following year. Their sole agenda is generating more revenue through, manipulation, force, falsifying documents to get kids into foster homes, and keeping families in court while facilitating systematic programs for obedience to their masters. And they will do anything to get you, the parent, out of the picture. The more children they can take, the more programs they can use. And the more programs they can impose, the more money they will receive. The child is the one that gets hurt in all of this, and the parents suffer. The State itself is directly responsible for creating the problems. This insures that all State laws are there to protect the State’s corruption, more than to protect the children who are being abused.
What kind of problems?

  • Single parent families. The welfare system has a greedy hand in creating them as single parent families are more prone to abuse and enables the state to take your kids away.
  • The Public education system makes a vulnerable situation for kids being bullied and careless of the well being of the child. Often the school takes no responsibility and will involve the State to absolve themselves of any wrong doing. And you’ll be automatically put on the hook as teachers and staff are State workers and less likely to be held accountable.
  • Tax hikes. As your take home decreases both parents (if it’s a 2 parent home) have to work often leaving the children in the hands of abusive babysitters. Again, according to the State, the fault is yours more so than the babysitters’.
  • The government themselves has shown a primary example of how violently they handle situations. In recent events it’s police and even ICE. Don’t get me started on the military industrial complex and it’s wars. We as a race have a tendency to mimic and live what we learn, the State wants parents to be a perfect example for their children, so why aren’t they?
  • Every government program is a set up that has never actually been better to help anyone with anything besides collect the money and leaving us as a statistic on the poverty line. Which coincidentally can be cause to take your children away for being too poor.
  • Poverty, abuse and negligence are often passed down and increase in numbers over time. To get yourself out of it takes a toll on the mind and body. So we can say that they are directly responsible for our peace of mind. Or piece of mind, how ever you look at it. And their forms of rehabilitation aren’t meant to make you better.
  • Government agencies also have reunification programs, which seems harmless but not in cases where children are allowed to go back to truly abusive homes where they later wind up in a body bag. It is heard of to little and happens too often.
  • If you were ever a victim in the system either as a child due to parental abuse, or as an adult due to spousal abuse, the State is required to make a case to keep an eye on your kids. No matter how much you comply with the State, if you decide to have children as an adult or even long after your abusive spouse is out of the picture, you still have to jump through more hoops. All because they fear you may become abusive as your parents or spouse. They never let go. So you the victim are now guilty until proven innocent.

This video by Carlos Morales, a former CPS Investigator, has hit the nail on the head and for the whole playlist click here. He has recently retired from but the information is still up.

That quote from Adolph Hitler was shocking to say the least. Not the fact that he said it, but the fact that the sentiment has become more true today than when it was written. The guise of helping children through the State is advocated heavily through those who are supposed to represent us, and that we the people fall for it. To say that we need a system that would force good parents obey and comply to their corruption without consent, is to say that we are indeed guilty until proven innocent. You wouldn’t entrust your children to a regular criminal so why an official criminal? And yet, those who make, protect and serve, and represent the laws are some of the biggest offenders with the highest acquittal rate. They have no one to check them except themselves which is how corruption can continue with an extreme oversight, and ZERO accountability. Who do they answer to when we the people keep advocating for rights for them to abuse? Who do they answer to when they legally violate our rights? The problem is people still think they answer to us. But how is it that we stick it to them? By voting? That’s crap. The children are the ones that matter, that statement isn’t wrong.

An Important Contemplation

Creating a society without the State would be the goal here. After all, this doesn’t mean no rules, just no rulers. To do this I feel that getting rid of the system that pursues in it’s corruption who add more problems on top of the founding problem, will eliminate the majority of causes that promote abuse in the first place and bring a moral and more educated society together. All of the other unnecessary problems that the State was creating won’t be there. Which leaves the one and only problem from square one that we should’ve had the focus on all along. After all not all parents are abusers and they shouldn’t be punished for the wrong deeds of others which is what happens in a centralized society.
One concept that hardly anyone ever considers is that, children are self-owned. While temporarily entrusted with their parents, we do NOT own them, and we are required to respect that as individuals. It’s our responsibility as parents to teach them and to see to it that we’ve taught them well enough to be on their own, in the world outside of our homes, that doesn’t change. Abuse (verbal, emotional, and physical) and negligence is contradictory to everything anarchism stands for, as it will scar independent (thoughts and actions). Negligence disables their capacity for openness, compassion and love, their ability to work with others, and coping mechanisms necessary to move forward in life. And the younger the individual is exposed to this evil, the worse off they will be. Education is the primary goal for a peaceful society as having a better knowledge of your surroundings leads to better solutions to problems. The goal being, voluntary solutions as opposed to coercion. Thus, abuse and negligence have no place in a Stateless society. One can only hope that as time goes on, the stigma of negligence and abuse will be long forgotten.
It’s hard to hear, but there is never going to be a perfect happy utopia where things like this never happen, but we can always do better. And we will do much better than we do in the system we live in today4.

Ending Statement:
Well I’m tapped. As a parent I speak from concern. As an anarchist, I speak in the language of freedom. If you do not understand these concepts or you have something you would like to share, feel free to comment.
I do like ending blogs with quotes so I’ll post this here.

“‘Why do you not say how things will be operated under Anarchism?’ is a question I have had to meet thousands of times. Because I believe that Anarchism can not consistently impose an iron-clad or method on the future. The things every generation has to fight, and which is can least overcome are burdens of the past, which holds us all in a net. Anarchism, at least as I understand it, leaves posterity free to develop its own particular systems, in harmony with its needs. Our most vivid imagination can not foresee the potentialities of a race set free from external restraints.”
– Emma Goldman in Anarchism and Other Essays, Preface