Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of July and August.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


No Brooklyn Free Store Today

chance of rain

Today there is a high probability of rain so the Brooklyn Free Store has been canceled. Get involved with the Brooklyn Free Store, help us continue this amazing weekly community event or even find an indoor location!

Tagged with:

Pela abolição da polícia

O caos e os protestos em Ferguson, Missouri, que se seguiram à morte de um adolescente desarmado, estimularam uma discussão sobre o poder da polícia e até que ponto ele deve se estender. Para os anarquistas, a resposta é simples: o poder da polícia não deveria existir.

“Mas o que você faria com os psicopatas e as demais pessoas violentas?”

Essa é, talvez, a pergunta mais comum apresentada aos anarquistas. Afinal, a maioria das pessoas vê no estado e em seu monopólio sobre o uso da força a maneira pela qual a sociedade limita as ações das pessoas violentas. Para responder à pergunta, devemos primeiro analisar a atual “solução”: a polícia.

A situação em Ferguson é exemplo das medidas mais extremas e absurdas tomadas pela polícia. Porém, uma compreensão do tipo de cultura promovida pelo estatismo leva à conclusão de que Ferguson se trata, simplesmente, de um sintoma de uma doença maior que toma os Estados Unidos.

O estatismo normaliza a iniciação do uso da violência e a violação dos direitos humanos mais básicos. As eleições, que servem as propriedades e liberdades civis de milhões de pessoas em uma bandeja para os grupos de interesse, torna a destruição dos direitos humanos um fato corriqueiro. O complexo militar industrial, que cria ódio e estimula o racismo, a xenofobia e o nacionalismo no exterior, em casa promove bombardeios literais como parte do cotidiano. E o pior de tudo: a militarização da polícia cria gerações de servos obedientes que têm medo de estranhos que andam pelas ruas com roupas escuras e que lembram gangues, portando armas que podem explodi-lo em um só tiro… ou pior.

A polícia de Ferguson está acabando com o direito de livre expressão, impondo toques de recolher e ameaçando manifestantes e jornalistas com violência. E eu pensei que a anarquia era o caos.

Por que isso continua a acontecer? Simples. Porque eles têm a maior parte das armas – porque têm um monopólio.

A polícia não é eficiente porque não depende do apoio voluntário dos consumidores. Não é responsabilizada criminalmente porque não tem qualquer ameaça séria de perda de poder. Os policiais cometem abusos porque os cidadãos só têm duas escolhas: obedecer ou sofrer as consequências. A polícia é militarizada porque não opera em um sistema de lucros e prejuízos em um mercado livre e tem uma fonte infinita de dinheiro roubado dos pagadores de impostos.

Se o monopólio policial fosse quebrado, a polícia que conhecemos não mais existiria. Agências privadas de defesa, associações comunais, vigias comunitárias e sociedades de auxílio mútuo assumiriam o lugar da “defesa” estatal. Embora elas fossem servir para proteger os cidadãos, como a polícia afirma fazer, essas organizações provavelmente teriam um caráter muito diferente das polícias atuais.

As forças policiais são isoladas atualmente da competição, das pressões de mercado, do mecanismo de preços e do sistema de lucros e prejuízos. como monopólios, têm incentivos para gastar demais, cobrar demais, subproduzir e, geralmente, trabalhar em oposição aos interesses dos consumidores e em favor do seu próprio.

Mas as firmas e organizações que espontaneamente surgem no mercado livre através das trocas voluntárias estão sujeitas às forças de mercado todo momento. Elas devem servir aos interesses dos consumidores, criando um produto adequado a preços realistas ou sendo engolidas pela concorrência. No ramo da proteção, os conflitos violentos devem ser minimizados em favor de soluções pacíficas e baratas, caso contrário surgem organizações concorrentes que servem melhor aos interesses do público.

Uma vez que essas organizações estariam sob constante ameaça da concorrência, seus métodos e táticas seriam completamente diferentes dos empregados pela polícia. Teriam que incluir o respeito aos direitos dos consumidores ou perderiam seus clientes e membros. As agências que melhor protegessem os direitos individuais seriam as mais lucrativas e aquelas que mais os violassem seriam empurradas rapidamente para fora do mercado.

E o que faríamos com todos os psicopatas e criminosos violentos? Nós não daríamos a eles uma plataforma isolada da competição do mercado que permitisse que eles ameaçassem, prendessem, espionassem, torturassem, agredissem e controlassem as outras pessoas. Ou seja, não teríamos uma polícia.

Traduzido por Erick Vasconcelos.

flattr this!

A Revolution is Needed

It is easy to criticise a government. Apologists and supporters defend it by claiming that they are doing the best they can, and they point to small token victories as evidence of progress. “Look at what this government has done for you”, they say, but my response is always, “is that it?” The ease of criticism is supported by the necessity with which it needs to be made. Without speaking out against your government, you are giving silent approval to the actions they conduct.

This criticism is made all the more easier when you are not present within the nation that is being governed. An outsider’s perspective, where only the bad news makes headlines, and only the tragedies live long in the memory. This is the position I find myself in currently with more news reaching us in the UK of the atrocious manner in which Obama and his administration continues to conduct business.

The hope that Obama was a bright new future for the American people faded almost as soon as he was inaugurated. His policies at home and abroad, no matter what he may say and feel personally, prove that he is only a continuation of a long line of puppets. Away from the bright lights of the oval office sit the real masters, and they have Obama dance a similar tune to that of the previous President.

The importance of this show cannot be overstated. The US is the world’s only superpower, as much as Russia would hate to admit it. With its position within the world, the US lays at the centre of a tangled web of international geo-politics and decisions. Phonecalls cannot be made in Germany without the US listening in, papers cannot be signed in the UK without its nod of approval, and rockets cannot be fired in Israel without the supply arriving from North America.

The US appears to be at the centre of most things. The doctrine of “follow the money” inevitably leads you back to those in and around the White House. It is because of the US’s global position, and because of its impact, that if real change is to be made in this world, it needs to begin within the United States.

The war crimes committed by Israel recently are simply another offence to add to the rap sheet of that criminal state. UN resolutions have been continuously broken, economic blockades have been put in place, human rights have been violated, and illegal settlements are springing up at an alarming rate.

Palestinian resistance to this is often no more than throwing rocks at tanks and bulldozers as they roll through their towns and villages. The futility of that action is not just evident by the fact the rock causes no damage to the tank, but also that the tank is the wrong target.

Israeli action in Palestine is a direct result of decisions made above the White House. They say that the White House is the “highest office in the land”, but I can assure you there are many who look down upon on Obama. The real enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Israeli oppressor, but is in fact the people who support, fund and defend Israeli action. Attacking Israel is attacking the effect, and it is vital that you get to the cause.

With Gazan Twitter users sending advice to those Americans in Ferguson, it is this realisation that struck me. Though one is based in Palestine, fighting an Israeli oppressor, they both face the same enemy. Palestine’s struggle against Israel will never end in victory unless the people of the United States partake in a similar struggle against their own oppressors, the US government.

As disgusting as the events of Ferguson are, the real disgust should come in the knowledge that this is not an isolated incident. These scenes and these actions are relatively common on US soil, and each one further reinforces the fact that the US government views its own people as enemies.

Robert David Steele, a former marine and member of the CIA, recently presented a paper which was based on the findings from his latest book. He told the gathered audience “that all the major preconditions for revolution… were now present in the United States”. With everything in place, there needs only to be a spark to ignite the flames of revolution. A revolution which is long overdue, and much needed.

flattr this!

Abolish the Police

The tragic chaos in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting of an unarmed teenager and massive protests has prompted a discussion police power and how far it should extend. For the anarchist, the answer is simple: police power shouldn’t exist.

“But what would you do with all the psychopaths and violent people?”

This is perhaps the most common question posed to anarchists. After all, most people view the state and its monopoly on force as the method by which society handles the psychopaths and violent people. To answer the question, we first have to analyze the current “solution”: The police.

The situation in Ferguson is an example of some of the most extreme, egregious measures taken by police as of late. But an understanding of the kind of culture statism promotes leads to the conclusion that Ferguson is merely a symptom of a growing disease that is sweeping the United States.

Statism normalizes the initiation of violence and the violation of people’s most basic human rights. Elections that serve millions of people’s property and civil liberties on a platter to the biggest special interest group makes the destruction of human rights commonplace. A military industrial complex that creates hate abroad and encourages racist, xenophobic nationalism at home makes literal bombings just a part of every day life. And worst of all, the militarization of police creates generations of obedient serfs who live in fear of strangers roaming the streets in dark colored outfits reminiscent of gangs with weapons that can blow you away in one unaccountable, shot … or worse.

The Ferguson police are crushing the right to free speech, imposing curfews and threatening protesters and journalists with violence. And I thought anarchy was chaos.

Why does this continue to happen? Simple. Because they have the most guns – because they have a monopoly.

Police are not efficient because they don’t rely on customers’ voluntary support. They aren’t held accountable because they face no serious threat of losing power. They are abusive because citizens have two choices: Obey or suffer the punishment. They are militarized because they don’t operate on the profit and loss mechanism of the freed market and have an endless trough of stolen taxpayer money to waste.

If the police monopoly was broken up, the police as we know them would no longer exist. Private defense agencies, communal associations, neighborhood watch groups and mutual aid societies would take the place of state “defense.” While they would serve the end of protecting citizens, like the police claim to do, these organizations would likely look far different from modern local police forces.

Police forces are insulated from competition, market feedback, the price mechanism and the profit-loss system. As monopolies, they come with incentives to overspend, overcharge, under-produce, and generally work in opposition to the consumers’ interests and in favor of their own.

But firms and organizations that spontaneously arise on a freed market out of voluntary exchange are subject to market forces every step of the way. They must serve the consumers’ interests – they must produce a worthwhile product at an affordable cost or be crushed by competition. Being in the business of defense, they must minimize costly, violent conflict and pursue cheaper, peaceful solutions or else be out-competed by other organizations that better serve their customer’s interests.

Since these organizations would be at constant risk of losing business to competition, unlike the police, their methods and tactics would be completely different. They would have to respect their customers’ rights if they ever want their business. The agencies that better protect rights would be the most profitable and the ones that violate peoples’ rights would be quickly pushed out of the market.

So what would we do with all the psychopaths and violent criminals? We wouldn’t give them a platform insulated from market competition that allows them to threaten, arrest, spy on, torture, aggress against, and control other people. Namely, we wouldn’t give them a police force.

flattr this!

Till All Are Free.



US Prison.
      Most countries across the world are increasing the number of people that they incarcerate. A sign that we are becoming a more criminal people, or that governments are becoming more authoritarian, I think we can take it to be the latter.
 Greek prison hospital.
         America leads the world in percentage and number of people that it locks up, with the figures for 2011 being 2,266,500, with a further 4,814,200 on probation or parole, there are also 70,792 juveniles in detention. This accounts for 25% of the entire world's prison population. Here in the UK we are likewise, a "lock 'em up" state, The figures for 2011 show that we managed to incarcerate 97,000 people, we have 4,635 women in prison. The year to June 2014 saw a 2% increase in the UK prison population, the fastest growing age group in UK prisons are the over sixty's. It is the one thing that we lead Europe on, our prison population is the highest in Europe. 
 UK prison.
       With this in mind there is an appeal from Act For Freedom Now: 
      We take this moment to echo the call-out from various collectives of solidarity with prisoners and anarchist prisoners from different parts of the world. It is for a week of solidarity from August 23 to 30 (commemorating that August 23 was the date of the execution of the Italian anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti in the United States):
       Given the nature and diversity of anarchist groups around the globe, we have proposed a week of common action rather than a single campaign on a specific day making easier for groups to be able to organise an event within a longer target period. Therefore, we call on everyone to spread the information about the Week for Anarchist Prisoners among other groups and communities and think about organising event(s) in your city or town. The events can vary from info-evenings, screenings and benefit concerts to solidarity and direct actions. Let your imagination run free.
 UK prison.
Till all are free.
Read the full article HERE:
Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk

For the first time ever: FF SKIRTS

Alright alright – we are probably a bit late with this as it looks like summer seems to be over now more or less. At least here in the north. So it might not be the best temperature for wearing a skirt in the next months. Probably a rookie mistake? We just don‘t care. If you do so too go get your personal-original-brandnew-forthefirsttimeever-fireandflamesriotwear-skirt here!

Paul Krugman e as fantasias libertárias

Em artigo recente para o New York Times, Paul Krugman criticou os libertários por “viverem em um mundo de fantasia”, afirmando que há, normalmente, bons motivos para os burocratas ignorarem o julgamento individual em favor de suas próprias preferências. Quando alguém afirma que se opõe a um livre mercado pleno, o que essa pessoa na verdade diz é que quer decidir quais trocas e formas de cooperação pacíficas devem ser permitidas. Uma vez que eu não considero que um grupo especial de pessoas deva ter o direito arbitrário de chefiar ou dominar as outras através da violência, naturalmente eu não acredito na restrição das trocas voluntárias que beneficiam todas as partes interessadas e não prejudicam mais ninguém. Porém, espera-se que sempre aceitemos o Julgamento dos Especialistas, então ao que parece eu devo ser pouco esclarecido ou no mínimo antissocial por não aceitar limites e regulações “razoáveis” (razoabilidade essa definida, é claro, por burocratas especializados) às trocas entre adultos em mútuo consentimento.

Paul Krugman, provavelmente inconscientemente, se movimenta de forma interessante sempre que articula sua visão sobre o que guia as ações dos agentes do governo em oposição a atores do mercado. Quando ele fala sobre estes últimos, ele presume, talvez corretamente, que sejam motivados puramente pelo interesse pessoal, pela ganância e pelos benefícios particulares que podem ser conseguidos, a despeito de quem seja prejudicado, com a poluição de recursos naturais ou com a venda de produtos perigosos aos consumidores, por exemplo. Tudo bem, mas ao considerarmos as motivações dos burocratas do governo, deveríamos ter as mesmas premissas, certo? Não exatamente. Veja bem, de acordo com a visão de mundo de Krugman, simplesmente não há motivos para pensar que os pensadores da escolha pública realmente tenham feito contribuições significativas ao nosso entendimento das maquinações políticas, que devamos olhar para a política “sem romance” e considerar as motivações dos poderosos no governo da mesma forma que as consideramos nas empresas. Não importa o trabalho de gente como Butler Shaffer, que mostrou que as grandes empresas há muito tempo fazem campanhas em favor das regulamentações para “obter benefícios que não eram capazes de conseguir por conta própria”. Para uma empresa ou para qualquer outro ator dentro do mercado, a falta de flexibilidade e capacidade de resposta às mudanças significa entropia.

Shaffer demonstrou que empresas estabelecidas e bem conectadas que não desejem sofrer mudanças, é mais fácil tentar mudar o ambiente da competição, transferindo sua entropia para os concorrentes. Os meios legais e regulatórios se apresentam. No mundo de Krugman, porém, em que o estado benfeitor nos foi dado pela Graça Divina, é inconcebível que os reguladores possam ter intenções diversas do mais puro altruísmo. Em sua cabeça, uma vez que já estamos próximos a um mercado desregulado atualmente, precisamos de mais intervenções benevolentes advindas dos burocratas do governo em Brasília, que são superiores moralmente a nós. Krugman é incapaz de ver que seu cabresto ideológico esconde o fato de que já vivemos sob um estado corporativo centrista (ou seja, fascista) e que esse estado foi incapaz de agir da forma que ele deseja.

Krugman, portanto, é o fantasista utópico com quem ele próprio tanto se preocupa. Sua fé na benevolência do poder centralizado é tão grande que supera todas as suas crenças sobre as tendências do interesse particular sem freios. Os Krugmans do mundo ainda não aprenderam que os burocratas do governo pensam da mesma forma que os agentes do setor privado, os gerentes corporativos que são os vilões na narrativa social-democrata. Grandes instituições burocráticas, tanto “públicas” quanto “privadas”, com ou sem fins lucrativos, inculcam uma ortodoxia essencialmente hierárquica, uma deferência às decisões centralizadas e ao julgamento superior dos especialistas. No livro Bureaucracy, de 1859, Richard Simpson explicava a mentalidade burocrática:

“[A] ideia de burocracia não está completa até que acrescentemos uma presunção pedante de capacidade de dirigir nossas vidas, saber o que é melhor para nós, mensurar nosso trabalho, supervisionar nossos estudos, prescrever nossas opiniões, responsabilizar-se por nós, nos colocar na cama, cobrir, colocar um gorro em nossa cabeça e nos alimentar com uma papinha. Esse elemento não parece ser possível sem a ideia por parte do poder governante de que ele possui o segredo da vida, o conhecimento real de toda a ciência política, que deve dirigir a conduta de todos os homens ou ao menos de todos os cidadãos. Assim, qualquer governo que estabeleça como seu objetivo o bem maior da humanidade, o defina e dirija todos os seus esforços para alcançá-lo tende a se tornar uma burocracia.”

Nossos governantes dependem de apologistas como Paul Krugman, os intelectuais públicos que realmente acreditam neles e que são sinceramente incapazes de entender a natureza criminosa da autoridade política. Como descentralistas e libertários, não devemos esperar convencê-los. Mas podemos demonstrar que as fantasias não são dos libertários, cujas ideias nunca tiveram espaço. Com todas as suas advertências perturbadas sobre os libertários, são as ideias de autoritários como Krugman e David Brooks que repercutem nos EUA há muito tempo, defendendo uma burocracia que domina todas as áreas da vida. Individualistas de esquerda e descentralistas entendem que não há pessoa ou organização que possua o “segredo da vida”. Assim, devemos resistir à tentação de dar o poder arbitrário e coercitivo ao estado, que, por natureza, não pode jamais ser altruísta ou ter preocupações genuínas com o povo.

Traduzido por Erick Vasconcelos.

flattr this!

The Picket Line — 21 August 2014

I’d previously noted that Italy’s Northern League had threatened to launch a tax strike in November. It’s been difficult for me to learn details, largely because of the language barrier, and I’ve been a little skeptical since the Northern League has a history of big talk about tax resistance and I haven’t seen much come of it in the past.

That said, in the latest episode party leader Matteo Salvini announced that the strike would begin on and would include businesses of resisters making their sales off the books and sympathetic customers cooperating by frequenting such businesses and paying in cash.


From the Monmouthshire Merlin:

The Toll Grievance.

On , a very numerous meeting was held at Newbridge for the purpose of taking into consideration the Toll grievance of pressure of which this town and neighbourhood have great reason to complain. It appears that there are here three gates within 400 yards of each other. There is a gate at each end of the town, and one in the middle, besides another at the distance of only a quarter of a mile, These, however, are not the only gates felt oppressive, but they are the most flagrant; at one of them the charge for a horse and cart is no less than nine pence. This is indeed, intolerable. The course about to be adopted by the people of Newbridge is one, which reflects much credit upon them, as they prefer appealing to the constituted authorities and the law instead of adopting the violent and illegal course which aggrieved parties in other parts pursued. They intend to memorialize the magistrates of the district, to cause the removal of the obnoxious and illegal gates, and if these gentlemen have not the power to relieve the people, they are determined to petition Parliament on the subject. The violent and unconstitutional conduct of Rebecca has been successful in its object, she demolished the gates, and they are not to be re-erected. — We trust that the inhabitants of Newbridge and neighbourhood will find at least equal redress by obeying the law, with those who took relief by breaking it.

The Making of “Outside Agitators”

1a

On August 19, ten days after police murdered Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, a slew of corporate media stories appeared charging that “criminals” and “outside agitators” were responsible for clashes during the protests. CNN alleged that “all sides agree there are a select number of people—distinct from the majority of protesters—who are fomenting violence,” quoting a State Highway Patrol Captain, a State Senator, and a former FBI assistant director to confirm this.

But what exactly are “outside agitators”? Where does this concept come from, and how is it deployed? In this feature, we analyze this rhetoric, what functions it serves, and what it conceals.

Read The Making of “Outside Agitators.”

Meanwhile, in response to popular demand, we have made a hasty zine version of our previous article about the events in Ferguson, What They Mean when They Say Peace. Download a printable PDF here [7.1MB].

Finally, the above illustration is available in poster form from artist Corina Dross, to raise funds for arrestees in Ferguson.

Tagged with:

Liberal and Libertarian Conceptions of Policing: Response to Armanda Marcotte

Armanda Marcotte recently wrote about the supposed refutation of libertarian arguments represented by the Ferguson protests. She acts surprised that a “few libertarian types,” other than Radley Balko, are attempting to sound consistent on police power in Ferguson, as if most libertarians had previously been endorsing this kind of policing response.

She also goes on to accuse libertarians of thinking that civil liberties violations allegedly created by Bush are actually the invention of Obama. A baseless charge for which I am aware of no evidence. As if that weren’t bad enough, she postulates that libertarians are just “ass covering”. A notion implying that they aren’t really seriously opposed to this stuff.

All that aside, the meat of the piece revolves around a contrast between the liberal and libertarian conceptions of policing. Her central piece of empirical evidence for the liberal conception is what happened when Liberal Democratic governor, Jay Nixon, got involved. She specifically mentions him putting the head of highway police, Ron Johnson, in charge, and his marching with the protesters.

The central problem with this line of reasoning is that Jay Nixon recently declared a state of emergency along with a curfew in Ferguson, Missouri. He also recently sent in the National Guard. There are also police abuses still occurring such as the threatening of reporter, Chris Hayes. Ron Johnson broke a promise to not enforce the curfew with military style trucks and tear gas. He also ordered the arrest of journalists. It appears that the old approach is still in effect.

Another major part of her thesis is that non-violence has proven itself more effective than violence. This is ironically combined with mentioning that Ronald Reagan cracked down on blacks carrying guns in the form of the Black Panthers. Not to mention that there is no unifying libertarian view on the use of violence against government as a form of protest. We can grant truth to her argument without believing it’s refuted libertarianism.

The final part of her piece worth addressing pertains to her queer view that libertarians view police as inherently authoritarian. This implicitly means all libertarians believe this. The fact is that some libertarians do oppose all police while others want to have private policing. Not all libertarians even think government police are inherently authoritarian. There are minarchists who support them.

That having been said, her liberal conception of government police as serving in an accountable “serve and protect” function ignores a number of factors. The factor of officer friendly belonging to a monopolistic organization. This means people can’t escape abuse easily. Another issue is that the government police may only be officer friendly for respectable members of the community who aren’t violating any unjust laws deemed socially necessary.

The final problem with her analysis is that all government relies on the initiation of force to survive. Officer friendly will eventually have to be unfriendly to anyone seeking the services of a non-government protective association. In the context of most governments, they also have to eventually be unfriendly to those evading compulsory taxation. Her goal of police who genuinely serve communities is better realized in left-wing market anarchy. One way to go about creating rights protection outside of government is to encourage things like non-government sanctioned neighborhood watch and jury nullification. Both of which can serve to protect rights without the state. The first by deterring violent crime through citizen watch and the second by freeing people unjustly headed for imprisonment. Please get started on this vital task today!

flattr this!