No Flag For Me

in anarchism •  7 years ago  (edited)

I’ve never been inclined to use the anarcho-capitalist flag (the yellow and black thing). This is not because I think there’s anything really wrong—morally or philosophically—with using symbols to represent ideas, but only because it seems a bit weird to me to display a symbol that means a lack of a belief in a particular thing. (Before anyone gets riled up, this isn’t a criticism or complaint; just a personal preference.)

“Anarchism” means being opposed to the existence of a ruling class. And “capitalism,” once upon a time, just meant human economic interaction without interference by the state. (If you ask me, that makes the term “anarcho-capitalism” redundant, but that’s another issue.)

The word “anarchism,” in and of itself, does not describe a complete philosophy. Instead, it merely describes one thing that a person opposes: having a ruling class. It really just expresses one negative belief—the idea that one certain thing shouldn’t exist—while not saying anything about anything else. (The term “voluntaryist,” in contrast, has a more specific and positive meaning: the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary, and by consent.)

By analogy, suppose there was a term for someone who didn’t believe in Santa Claus. Let’s call such people “anti-Santa-ists.” And suppose the anti-Santa-ists made a flag with an image representing this belief. How weird would it be for them to proudly display that? Why would someone primarily define themselves by pointing out one thing that they don’t believe in?

Granted, since the vast majority of people today do believe that violent aggression is justified, even necessary, if and when it is carried out via “government,” it is quite significant when someone doesn’t. And if millions of people were being oppressed or murdered in the name of Santa Claus, maybe an anti-Santa flag would be understandable. Nonetheless, usually a flag or similar symbol represents some positive belief, or set of beliefs, or some overall agenda or master plan shared by all those who display that flag or symbol. A flag more or less means, “This is what I stand for!

But how does one zealously and actively engage in non-statism? Some will answer, by trading privately, doing the agorism thing, using alternative currencies, using private defense or dispute resolution methods, and so on. But really that's just doing a bunch of things that aren't statist. Again, by analogy, imagine that someone made an “anti-murder” flag, and proudly displayed it. Obviously I’m all in favor of not committing murder, but what would the point of such a flag be? What would an anti-murder organization or “movement” look like? Would they proudly list and advertise all the things they do which aren’t murder?

A: “Hey, buddy, I noticed your flag. What are you guys all about?
B: “We’re about not murdering people.
A: “Um, okay. That sounds good. But what does your movement do?
B: “We go around not murdering people.
A: “Is that all? I mean, I’m glad to hear it, but is that all you do?
B: “Well, individually we each do lots and lots of things that aren’t murder.
A: “Do you go out and try to stop murderers?
B: “Some of us do, but it’s not a requirement. Want to join our organization?
A: “Well, I already don’t murder people. What would I gain by joining?
B: “A cool flag.

Okay, so maybe I’m being overly flippant and nitpicky here, but to me a flag tends to represent a movement, or an organization, or an agenda, or some master plan. And for the most part, I don’t really have any use for any of those. I have no desire to rally under a flag, whether it be anti-Santa, anti-murder, or anti-statism. Maybe this is partly because once something seems like a “movement,” I expect it to be hijacked and corrupted, after which it turns into a self-serving drama spectacle, with different people trying to be “leader,” before in-fighting and personality conflicts crash it into the ground.

I suppose the yellow and black might at least sometimes be a good conversation starter. If someone asks what the heck it means, the person might have a chance to explain a bit about voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism. But to me, a flag still implies some club or gang to join, or some banner to march under while screaming vague slogans into a bullhorn. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t associate the whole concept of a flag with “exercise peaceful coexistence, don’t be an aggressive douchebag, and don’t vote for someone else to be an aggressive douchebag on your behalf.”

Again, I’m not saying that other people shouldn’t use it, or saying there’s anything actually wrong about it. I just suddenly felt compelled to fling out this relatively pointless blurb about why I’m instinctively “anti-flag.” Hmmm, maybe I need a flag that represents those of use who don’t like to use flags to represent our beliefs. Then we can start a movement, become militant, and move to forcibly eradicate all flags from society! (Or not.)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

no flag no country.. Im good with that bring on the Internet world citizens

Stated in positive terms, I'd define anarchy as recognition of equal human rights (none have a unique/asymmetrical right to rule others), and capitalism as specifying that human rights are best defined as exclusive relationships between individual humans and specific scarce resources.

I agree that "anarcho-capitalism" could be considered redundant as I think each half logically implies the other, but given the degree of confusion and controversy a bit of redundancy for clarity isn't a bad thing.

What happens is that at the political level and in terms, both anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, they represent concrete ideas that are not perfectly alike.

I great post made even better by the Calvin and Hobbes illustration. Excuse me, Calvin and Susie.

Bill Hicks, a personal favorite of mine, had a great bit on this!

Did not know you were here! THANK YOU for this, and all you have done for so many years. We are a modern day Babylon, with people using words that mean one thing to them and the exact opposite to the person they are trying to communicate with.
tip!

I too do not understand the concept of organizing under the banner of any form of anarchy. It defeats the whole meaning of anarchy.

There are two fundamental problems with anarchocapitalism

  1. private law, private violence companies, private judges and individuals forcing their values and beliefs on others through purchasing these is not anarchist, it is merely private statism. Anarchism merely states opposition to all external authority, conflict resolution, and economic models are not defined. NAP is nice and all but its a human protocol not a part of anarchism. that said i like the NAP although there are multiple forms of agression not just violence altough its the worst.

  2. Land cannot be owned only possessed
    land can be used, and built upon, but being 3d land mammals we require a 3d just to exist. Using violence to hoard land you do not use prevents others from freely using to cover their needs and forms a monopoly over the land, causing the renters to be economic slaves to the landlords. This requires a more indepth analysis but i would be happy to provide it.

That said capital (goods that create goods) can be privately owned. Land is a complex thing that cannot be allowed to be monopolized. Besides who determines that? no one. Anarchism requires a lot of common sense to work, not a fixed code like the NAP or others.

It's a principle, nothing else The things people call it, or the things they derive from it is a second thing. But it's not to say that that is the thing that will be the case.

For instance a private DEFENSE company may be something that follows but it's not a given. It could just as well be a neighbourhood watch or a defense organization with volunteers, or maybe someone says; I defend myself.
Or I defend my family.

Again it's a principle not a system,not a fixed code, not a human protocol, I've seen some people think of it like a constitution, or someone who wants to make a contract and let everybody sign it. Some think it's a law that needs to be implemented. It's a principle nothing else.

I would say that there is more...

I think that the incentive would be to not own so much property that you could not afford to manage it. The larger the property owned the harder/more expensive it would be to keep it from those who would squat on/ take over it. It seems to me that the less you own in an an-cap society the better off you are. I could be wrong. This is all off the cuff.

The slaves love their corporate flags 😂.

I'm with you. 😃 But a nefarious little faery in my novel, To Coin a War, would disagree with you:

“A pulchritudinous parlance can propel a people, Gavenleigh, no one knows that better than I do.” [Brighid] slapped a coin on the bar. “But you can't wave words on a flagpole.”

Let's make this world a global world
Where people have love , prosperity, and so on
Most important understanding

I agree, I am also one who has mostly done away with flags, all flags in my life. It is weird how not having a flag upsets so many people who believe you should have their flag. Kinda new to steemit so I hope this tip! thing works.

I really like your post, I will wait for the next post

Great article. LOL “anti-Santa-ists”. Brilliant as usual

I have several pagan friends that more often than not say they like it because they aren't Christian, or aren't male dominant.

Defining ones-self in the negative always seems incomplete to me.

That's were I like voluntaryist. Maybe "peace, love and voluntaryism?"

Some flags are honestly an embarrassment to some people.
Like for example : I will not proudly wave the flag of my country as it represents corruption, crime and hate. I would much rather be labelled as the person people get to know as the person from "that faction" or "that country"

Good point and good read...cheers mate

LOL..Okay you anarcho-capitalist, anti-murdering, non flag flying guy you. Your post is good and just makes great sense, I'll have to say that I tend to agree with your anti-flag flying statements. Thanks for the "pointless blurb", that really makes some great points.

I like my flag:
Image
Time's Up flag

Aside from the flag being a good conversation starter. It represents pro-voluntary interaction. It represents pro-capitalism ideals. Yes it is anti-state but it represents positive ideals. If it helps catch the eye possible converts from the religion of the state, I think it's a good thing.

Congratulations @larkenrose, this post is the fifth most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Superuser account holder (accounts that hold between 1 and 10 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Superuser account holders during this period was 629 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $2832.54. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.

If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.

I like your reasoning, Larken. A flag often represents a group and that's exactly what anarchists aren't. This might create confusion and prejudice (Oh, are you one of those libertarian types?). This brings nothing positive to a conversation and so it's definitely a good idea to just discuss individual opinion instead of assuming stereotypes.

In the land of statists I use their language to pry open their minds long enough to slip a bit of truth in before it slams shut again. When my neighborhood is filled with state and country and football and college flags -- sometimes I can use peoples curiosity at the unknown as a brief in.

Most of the time, Statist muggles don't know what the gold and black flag even symbolizes. I have a shirt that has it on with the phrase, "I Believe in a Voluntary Society. Universalize Non-Violence" around it. One person has asked about it.

Ah, @larkenrose - always the voice of reason... ❤

Nice post Larken,
Fly a flag/ or be a Citizen of any country and you are saying your ok with everything that country does.

  • Stop Paying taxes or your contributing to this madness and War.

Thank you I am following you, I hope you will also follow up vote me this honor to me

Great post man the statist shit has got to got to go.

Check this post out if you like it follow
https://steemit.com/photography/@martinn1017/collage-from-million-mask-march-denver-nov-5th-2013-the-1st-one-2017921t234418176z

always a quality and interesting read 👌

Excellent post.
So if I understand you correctly you are not anti-flag but you are sort of, A-flag
Just like an A-theist is not an Anti-theist.
Or to say it differently an A-theist is not Anti-god, but A-god. ;)

leave symbols to the simple minded.
:D

I liked your publication, and I agree perfectly, that is to say, I believe in a more positive approach to the situation, in symbols and movements that defend something in concrete, and not that they are the product of a reaction, that is, that owes its existence to that something to which he opposes.

Hi! :)
I came across something related to Steemit and youtube videos.

I am not 100% sure about this, but as far as i have understood, there is something called BTube on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC45R8lRxq_JcU9IuMMVnpnA

According to some people on the chat here, if people like your videos there, and those videos are connected to this site, then it will count as a up vote here too.

Since u have a lot of videos there, i thought it might be a good idea to look in to that, and see if you can connect them all to each other or something.
(i am not sure how it works, but it sound like something it might be worth taking a closer look at for you.) ;)

DTube

Love your work @Larkenrose and I appreciate the sound exhaustive logic you have promoted throughout the years. I think flags often do symbolize a movement and as you pointed out movements are often easily hijacked and manipulated into controlled opposition. Ideas are much more difficult to hijack than symbols. If you take a good idea, change it into a bad idea and then promote that idea, why would anyone listen? But if you take a symbol representing a good idea, and promote bad ideas while displaying that symbol, people can easily assume those bad ideas are representative of what the general collective using and promoting that symbol believe in.

Why do you say anarchism is be "opposed" to the existence of a ruling class. Could it not just as easily be framed as "promoting" the liberty of self-ownership or at least the option of self-ownership, thus emphasizing what is done instead of what is not done. If I am missing something, I would ask you to please clarify but I think voluntarism and anarchy are to some degree conflicting given the definition you provided of anarchism.

Say we all live in a voluntary society, and I lack either the will or the skill to farm fresh fruit. I should be allowed to voluntary delegate my farming activity to someone who I believe to be a better fruit farmer than myself and compensate them accordingly. Obviously, this requires me to place a certain amount trust in this fruit farmer, we will call him Tommy, for he could decide to lie to me about the freshness of the fruit, the chemicals used, etc. What if Tommy polluted a river providing fresh water to a large group of people downstream in the growing of this fruit? Or perhaps he murdered some neighboring farmers and took the farms to grow the fruit he sells to me. Would you say it becomes my responsibility to find out and maintain certainty that my self-delegated farmer is acting according to my moral values or beliefs? How could I ever be absolutely certain? It comes to a certain point where, given how much time I spend just keeping an eye on what Tommy and what he is up to, that I could just grow my own fresh fruit more efficiently. In this sense, it is never advantages to delegate any job to anyone, which would mean in a voluntary society, everybody does everything themselves. Perhaps I can only justified to delegate tommy as my fresh fruit farmer after I determine him, to the best of my ability, to be trustworthy and operating under solid morals? Now say a lot of people decide to voluntary delegate their fresh fruit needs to Tommy, have we not just collectively decided to give tommy governance over our farming production and given him power roughly equal to our desire to consume fresh fruit? With out comparing Tommy’s actual power in this scenario to the power of the ruling class of today, is Tommy here, now part of the new ruling class? Does voluntarism inevitability lead to some sort of a ruling class, with power delegated to them from the people? If that is the case, anarchism and voluntarism are conflicting and must go separate ways at some point.

You cant stop people from delegating authority to whoever they choose without instigating aggression or threatening forceful violence. Who would decide which farmers people were allowed to delegate their trust in? Who would monitor the farmers for moral production methods. Who would enforce the prohibition of said black market fresh fruit from unauthorized farmers. It just seams like there is still a lot of room for error in a voluntary society. Its kind of easy to inadvertently create various delegates with certain powers with the capacity to do great harm to others, for profit, as a result of a misguided decision with good intentions, to voluntary place authority and trust in an entity other than the self.

In a way we already live in a voluntary society. The biggest problems we see are a result of the vast majority of people, the statist, naively delegating power and authority, which they do not have, onto the state.

It is very common for statists to buy things they can not afford. They call it credit. They often overlook the obvious distinction between delegation of authority we do not have and buying things on credit, the commitment and possibility to someday pay it back and settle up. As the natural rights of rational free human beings have never changed, it is logically absurd to essentially delegate authority you do not have, nor never will, under the assumption or commitment of someday settling up. I wonder what interest might look like for those operating under this kind of moral deficit.

Just because you delegate your “trespasses on other people”, murder extortion, etc., to someone else, that does not magically make those acts morally sound, logically justifiable or at all necessary. People are only allowed to do this because people are inherently allowed to believe whatever they want. It’s a shame to see the freedom of belief manipulated into this self destructive convoluted waste of possibilities.

If we take as an axiom that Anarchy is not an “absolute” goal or ideal, it would follow that anarchism does not seek to destroy all power and authority but rather restore a balanced justified system of self ownership. Perhaps the idea of anarchy was born out of divine necessity with a single mission, coming to collect the moral debt owed by the statist society. Once it collects that debt, it should no longer be necessary. If and when that day ever comes, anarchy will become obsolete. Perhaps a new pattern of balance and unbalance will emerge, to be experienced by a proud society of peaceful self ownership. In this way Anarchy could be defined as a balancing force aimed to revoke the excessively overdue moral debt of the statist society operating under morally unauthorized power and unjustifiably consistent trespasses on individual freedom.

Congratulations @larkenrose! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of comments

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

What I particularly don't like about this flag is the raising black (darkness). Do you remember this classic Deutsche Bank logo. It states increasing results. It's that simple. I occassionaly flip the flag over for that reason. More yellow, meaning more light to the equation.

It's for the same reason that I love to flip over the A. It becomes like the V but without the dash.

What I ponder about is your statement "And if millions of people were being oppressed [..] in the name of Santa Claus, maybe an anti-Santa flag would be understandable." And this Santa to me being educational theorists and terrorists like incumbent politicians and bureaucrats are. So we talk mostly about statists. I just don't have an idea for a good graphic art to showcase it to the ones who are not blinded enough to already see.

20171014-comment-larken-rose-flag.jpg

Oh, maybe it's a good idea to flip the flag back over and think of turning black more and more of this dazzling light that all these statists toot like crazy.

Congratulations, your post received one of the top 10 most powerful upvotes in the last 12 hours. You received an upvote from @teamsteem valued at 47.23 SBD, based on the pending payout at the time the data was extracted.

If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, reply with the word "stop".