The Anarchy Fallacy

division by zero is wrong

Approaching 0 is different from putting 0 in the denominator.

A theory popular among folks who never cracked a logic or math book was that anarchism is “the logical end-product” of communism. That changed in 1972 when under 4000 Libertarian votes for John Hospers and Toni Nathan generated one consistent and uncorrupted electoral vote and changed important laws.

Nowadays, intellectuals of the looter persuasion din everyone within earshot with the amended revealed truth that anarchism is “the logical end-product” of liberalism or libertarianism. Orwell commented on this sort of flip-flop when he explained how English socialists abhorred nationalsocialism until the Hitler-Stalin pact–AFTER which they promptly granted that fascism was, after all, a form of socialism, hence not all that bad.


Before trying to axiomatize a thing, it pays to examine what the thing does and doesn’t mean to begin with. There were communist anarchists all over the map, firing shots and exploding bombs in crowded places, when Max Weber spun off an objective and useful definition of government as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”.

The typically Germanic purpose Weber attributed to this “community,” however, was “the use of physical force as a means of domination”–the opposite of what libertarians want. To be legitimate, our use of force ought to be retaliatory–the response to aggression, to menacing–rather than initiated. The idea is to defend the rights of individuals, their moral claims to freedom of action, and nothing else. Weber also took pains to remind his students: “Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state.” Looters are apt to grasp this precisely because they are the ones bent on domination by force. Weber also makes clear that “expropriation” is part and parcel of the domination by force he described in 1919.

The Libertarian Party was founded by admirers of Ayn Rand’s ideas, in particular, her ethical approach to the use of force within the context of limited constitutional democracy. In April of 1942 she wrote the non-aggression principle, which in 1971 was distilled into a pledge required for membership in the Libertarian Party. Every libertarian partisan has signed this Non-Aggression Pledge:

I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

The objective definition of government, including its territoriality feature, survived, but the purpose Weber wrote down–which Hitler exploited to form the NSDAP a year later–is today discarded. After all, most German voters were convinced National Socialism was successful after 18 years, but that theory did not survive past 25 years of age.

America’s lasting success comes from the word “free.” In the First and Second Amendments, free means free from aggressive coercion in a literal sense. This also symbolizes right (as opposed to wrong) in an ethical sense. In These States, an individual life worth living is the objective standard of value. Hence, the forcible defense (enforcement) of individual rights–thwarting their forcible violation–is the sole purpose of legitimate government. The LP’s growing success stems from this demonstrably desirable standard of ethical value.

You cannot divide by zero instead of using the definition of a limit to find a derivative for the slope of a curve. On these sigmoid curves the derivative exists and changes sign at the halfway mark. Nor can you reduce to zero the territorial jurisdiction or definition of government and still enforce the rights of individuals.

Ayn Rand said to ask yourself what competition in the forcible restraint of men has to mean. The answer, the monstrous answer which all communist infiltrators pretending to advocate for freedom struggle to evade, is war. War and death are what every anarchist seeks. So why else, other than hostile mimesis, would they infiltrate the LP?

If sabotage weren’t the motive, anarchists could be expected to organize the Anarchist Party of America, offer to legalize murder, robbery extortion, rape, slavery and disfigurement. Members could be encouraged to burn their voter registration cards. The party could field candidates who declare themselves opposed to the Constitution of the United States and eager to overthrow it by force rather than uphold it per an oath of office. I seriously wish more anarchists would clearly state their purpose. Their comrades could no longer infiltrate gullible parties, point to their own 5th-column provocateurs embedded within the the LP, and hiss “anarchists!”

When not infiltrating the LP, looter intellectuals wriggle to infiltrate pacifist movements. These are populated by folks who promise not to forcibly resist “domination”, nor to capture, try and punish those who aggress against them. In theory this leads to Aldous Huxley’s Island of Pala being invaded and dominated. In practice you observe it in the streets of India, Pakistan and Portland.

Our spoiler vote method of bringing pressure to bear paid off when the LP platform stopped Dixiecrats from restoring laws banning all birth control. Still, the momentum behind the population curve, though decelerating since that time, was huge. Hence the delay in reversing population growth, even though the second derivative of the population curve has been negative since the late sixties.

Since 1972, socialism–especially in its communo-fascist variants–is reversing in these States because of Libertarian candidates supporting our platform and offering to support (but repair) the Constitution. Spoiler votes entrusted to these candidates cause entrenched “vocational” politicians of the kleptocracy to repeal brutal laws and lower parasitic taxes–that or be unseated by other looters quicker on the uptake. Our candidates don’t even need to be elected in order to change the laws. The Nixon law bribing the media to ignore us has slowed the process, but the replacement is going on with mathematical inexorability as the libertarian vote share increases.

Read pro-American compulsory racial-eugenics appeals touting prohibition and collectivism in America’s Black President 2228, science fiction written in 1926 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

See how the Liberal Party of 1930 gained enough spoiler votes to sell the Democrats on its repeal plank–after Republican fanaticism wrecked the economy. Prohibition and The Crash is live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Brought to you by…

simultaneous interpreting

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s