Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Individual Anarchist Position Statement - Lou Carabini

Thought some of you folks might enjoy this. I don't completely agree with all of it, but it's still worthwhile reading. The original was un-paragraphed and pretty hard to read; I've put paragraph breaks in to make it a little more approachable, but haven't modified it in any other way. --Barak

INDIVIDUAL ANARCHIST

I have no right to freedom and have as much as I deserve. Neither a state nor anyone else is obligated to provide me freedom. The exercise of my will and any resulting consequences are matters of judgment for which I hold no other responsible.

If I had freedom to exercise my will without interference, I would fly. Gravity owes me no more freedom to fly than my neighbor owes me the freedom to paint my house green.

I am aware that actions and inactions have consequences, and some consequences are preferred over others. Good judgments result in favorable consequences, while poor judgments result in unfavorable consequences.

To make one person responsible for another�s poor judgment is conducive to making haphazard judgments, since critical consideration of one�s actions becomes less consequential.

When states get out of the way of equalizing consequences, people will take greater care in the judgments they make relative to their acts and perceived consequences. Self-reliance is a better tool to peace and prosperity within a societal structure than is the tool of state-reliance, because it promotes a greater perceived value of prudence.

My motivation as an individual anarchist is to seek an understanding of my life and attempt to structure it based on what makes sense to me. I do not seek a universal societal structure that serves my beliefs. My opposition to those who represent the state or other forms of institutionalized coercion is their claim of eminent domain over the lives of their subjects.

I find their claim of domain over my life to be invalid and false. For me to believe their claim would be to mentally enslave myself. How others view such claims over their lives is their business.

Some may feel it necessary and rewarding to partake in the selection of a new claimant periodically; I find such participation for myself degrading. The idea that freedom to vote makes one free is false. It is no less slavery when one is allowed to select their master every few years.

To be free is to believe your life is of your creation and domain and not the creation or domain of a demagogue. Demagogues and their advocates lure their victims by demeaning self-reliance.

Without self-reliance someone else becomes responsible for your life - a very attractive, hypnotic notion. "Why become responsible for anything? Just sit back and enjoy the ride through life at the expense and obligation of someone else."

I find the notion of giving up my life too great a price to pay for such a ride.

Lou Carabini, 2004

Barak,

People see Anarchist and run. A lot of folks here on the fire have many principles in common with this philosophy. Good read.

I thought that one was Mr. Rogers, circa 1978.

A good read.

If I were a few decades younger, I'd say, "Word."


I thought so.

even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. I am sure if you did more than cherry pick mr. Carabini's writings, anything like this that smacks of sanity would prove to be an anomaly.
....and this manifesto, coming from lew rockwell, automatically makes it suspect.

He had the freedom to write that all in one paragraph, and you had the gall to reomove that freedom from him??

Good read sir.

The bible has a word for that.
Idolatry.



And from that comes the "just doing my job" mentality.
Having discarded personal responsibility and individual authority they lower themselves from their actual birthright to a sub-human position.

Authority and equality are universal. Greater than or less than are illusions spun before your eyes since childhood.
The only path to greater than is self idolatry, the only to less than is surrender to those you idolize.
All complete fiction.
Lies, lies and more lies, damn lies.
We live in a world of idolators.

A kneejerk ad hominem reaction, hey?

How are your other ad hominem reactions? Do you automatically swallow everything Mitt Romney says, because he's a [beam of light from heaven, major triad from angel choir] Republican, like Reagan was?

But it's not Llewellyn Rockwell, it's Louis Carabini.

Carabini is the founder of the precious metals trading firm Monex, and the author of Inclined to Liberty.

"Lou" sounds like "Lew," I have to grant you, but they're completely different people. Both anarchists, but not the same guy. Perhaps all Republicans are equivalent and interchangeable, but all anarchists certainly are not.

don't flatter yourself barak. Your attempt at condescension falls on deaf ears.

Anarchy and extreme personal freedom have a lot in common. Both resist any governmental (or social) regulation or restrictions.

Well...evidently not quite deaf enough that they were incapable of driving a reply. Don't sell your ears short.

at least you are consistent fruit cake.

Then he has no reason to complain about anything.

You and I are anarchists but we certainly are not equivalent and interchangeable.

I wanted it edited and here is my version:

INDIVIDUAL

My motivation as an individual is to seek an understanding of my life and attempt to structure it based on what makes sense to me. I do not seek a universal societal structure that serves my beliefs. My opposition to those who represent the state or other forms of institutionalized coercion is their claim of eminent domain over the lives of their subjects.

I find their claim of domain over my life to be invalid and false. For me to believe their claim would be to mentally enslave myself. How others view such claims over their lives is their business.

I have no right to freedom and have as much as I deserve. Neither a state nor anyone else is obligated to provide me freedom. The exercise of my will and any resulting consequences are matters of judgment for which I hold no other responsible.

I am aware that actions and inactions have consequences, and some consequences are preferred over others. Good judgments result in favorable consequences, while poor judgments result in unfavorable consequences.

To make one person responsible for another�s poor judgment is conducive to making haphazard judgments, since critical consideration of one�s actions becomes less consequential.

When states get out of the way of equalizing consequences, people will take greater care in the judgments they make relative to their acts and perceived consequences. Self-reliance is a better tool to peace and prosperity within a societal structure than is the tool of state-reliance, because it promotes a greater perceived value of prudence.

Some may feel it necessary and rewarding to partake in the selection of a new claimant periodically; I find such participation for myself degrading. The idea that freedom to vote makes one free is false. It is no less slavery when one is allowed to select their master every few years.

To be free is to believe your life is of your creation and domain and not the creation or domain of a demagogue. Demagogues and their advocates lure their victims by demeaning self-reliance.

Without self-reliance someone else becomes responsible for your life - a very attractive, hypnotic notion. "Why become responsible for anything? Just sit back and enjoy the ride through life at the expense and obligation of someone else."

I find the notion of giving up my life too great a price to pay for such a ride.

Perhaps the ultimate authority on that question would be Penny, but I expect she'd agree with you.