Short Essay

In the realm of Anarchism many have come up with several ideas for living in a stateless existence. There are several flavors or schools of thought for if there was just one, that would defeat the whole purpose of the freedom we fight for. It appears as shown throughout history that most anarchists disagree with one another, all of which at the core winds up leading to property. Not just any type of property but private property. Specifically and more currently, you can see these types of arguments are taken place with Anarchist Capitalists (Ancaps) and Anarchist Communists (Ancoms) right here in social media. They disagree on what seems like everything and that’s ok. It’s not necessary to agree on everything or anything at all. It’s almost like one side is insistent on rehearsed one liners that they know is going to trigger the other, while the other gets so emotional that one gets annoyed and thus neither side actually had a productive argument. This, of course, is the trademark of newer Ancaps and Ancoms.  So let’s make it clear.
(This is pretty elementary, but just for shits and giggles)
What is Private Property?
Places that you own and use and create your means of production to be sold off, such as factories, businesses and can even be apartment buildings or houses for rent.

What is Personal Property?
Something you own and intend to use for yourself, such as your house that you live in, toothbrush, sun glasses, couch, TV…etc.

Contrary to popular belief, neither group is against personal property. Just as an example, Ancaps may argue that Ancoms want their toothbrushes because the only way to have 1 is through use of private property, suggesting Ancoms must be against personal property. Ancoms might argue that Ancaps want control over everything by means of extortion and therefore will steal your toothbrush and resell it for profit so Ancaps must be against personal property too. Actually… NO ONE WANTS YOUR NASTY TOOTHBRUSH! 藍 (statists might though, just saying).

Typically these discussions get out of hand and seem to stray from the reason why we call ourselves anarchists in the first place, and that is the state is our enemy. Understandably The State has been the very reason why different groups are created. Because where there is corruption and injustice many will stand up against it. Every action The State has taken to create such injustices through means of doctrine, coercion and violence, and yet the “free people” will blame each other. Capitalism isn’t the same as the corporatism we’ve always had and communism isn’t the dictatorship of the proletariat that it’s history has always repeated.

Anarchists are not violent nor coercive. With that said, if you call yourself an Anarchist or Anarcho hyphen anything but suggest otherwise, you’re not worthy of the name and what it stands for.
It doesn’t matter what flavor or school of thought you are, you can debate which is right or wrong all day. In the end, in a stateless and voluntary society you’re free to choose. If all is voluntary as it should be, then who will coerce anyone to into institutions and doctrines? If everyone is free minded who will be forced to do anything they don’t want to do? Everyone should be able to have what they want and need without hindrance of one another.
Voluntary is a key word and every school of thought can compliment each other really well if done in such a fashion. Or else you’re just looking at the rebuilding of State structure. Violence is for statists so let’s keep it that way. That’s what sets us apart from them after all.

“Liberty is not a box into which people are forced. Liberty is a space in which people may live. It does not tell you how they will live. It says eternally that only we can.”
– Karl Hess

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~~~~🖤