ACTIVISM, trivial ideological debates and what unites us

My rant on anti-state.com forums:

I joined this website today because im sick of the state of the world. We need to start moving but we are stuck in our ideological wars over what type of anarchism is the right type. I used to think of myself as an anarcho-capitalist, but FUCK IT. Left, Right, it does not matter, the main point of anarchy is "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO." Taxation is theft and all anarchists agree with that. Now, after the state is abolished, we can go make our liberal/conservative/communist/capitalist societies or whatever, with or without state-like institutions... as long as its done with consent!

Here is the point: if your born into your parents system of government, and they agree to it and you don't, you have every right to break from their contract. Anarchy is basically fighting for the right to be able to break contracts. A contract that does not have a clause to be able to break from the contract is slavery and this is exactly what the government runs on.

If you agree with this, (the point that you should be able to break contracts), you are an anarchist.

Anarchy is not about 'anti-capitalism' or 'fuck free trade' ... its about freedom. So stop writing that shyt on your signs.. its not what we are about and it makes all of us look stupid as fuck. Instead, write things that ALL anarchists agree with like 'taxation is theft' and 'fuck the police' ...
and we should not use violence against non-state entities... (I regard using violence against the police as self-defense).

If you agree with what I say and live in Toronto/Montreal, message me. Do it. Just say "I agree with what you say and I want to help make a difference."

Help us with future protests.

If you disagree, tell me why I am wrong and I will be happy to debate.

Project 2b : Henry David Thoreau

From Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau:

"The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least: —

"I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."

He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.

How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also."

Thoreau had written his own type of Anti-Contract through a letter to his government.

Project 2a : The Anti-Contract

Kantian obligation theory and Utilitarian ends theory both give moral obligations to the well being of others. The opposite of duty to others is, duty to the self. In some contexts, this may be termed "selfishness," when really, it is nothing more than "rational self interest."
Both these theories have been tried, both have failed. The connections between the theory and reality will have been made clear. In both cases, they have produced the deaths of thousands. However, the Nazis and the Communists are not the only ones I speak of. Even the definition of the state implies the destruction of self interest for the masses, thus producing monsters willing to, not only die, but kill for all those who oppose the nation.
Of course, there is not only one nation. Some will find themselves die off and replaced, like Soviet Russia, and some will dominate and take control, like the United States. Yet, they all have a lifespan; its just, the effecient and healthier ones last longer.
Now we are supposedly experiencing the destruction of the United States. It could be true, as I believe it, that it will collapse and depending on how long it can keep the trust of the citizens and when their trust will diminish, that their may either be wars or negotations. Depending on how much the human race has evolved, we will either choose the latter or the former. There is a chance that some of us may be evolving through 'using war' instead of 'using negotations,' however. Some of our brothers believe they know whats best for us, but even so, I would rather choose my own doctor. Sure, even if the social contract was implicit, I should be allowed to break it because all contracts have that clause. Contracts without that clause, and being a fair clause - meaning that both sides agree to it without any threats -, cannot be called true contracts. So, it is possible to use another type of contract, the anti-contracts, which can be made to release yourself out of any contract that did not have that clause in it already.