Imitation is suicide.

~Ralph Waldo Emerson

There is a raging debate ongoing in the anarchist community, primarily between two groups known as the "AnCaps" (Anarcho-Capitalists) and the "AnComs" (Anarcho-Communists). Like most highly polarized, emotionally charged debates, the underlying root issues are rarely addressed, as they are so often obscured by vitriol, dogmatic rhetoric, and emotionalism.

In the interest of full disclosure, I freely and proudly identify as a Voluntaryist/"AnCap," but wish to speak on some of the problems I see with taking too dogmatic an approach to any philosophy in life, whether it be anarchism related, or not. Whatever the philosophy, school of thought, or discipline, my rule is let logic lead.

In this essay it is my goal once and for all, to define "true anarchism." A lofty aim to be sure, but one that I feel is certainly attainable nonetheless, if only in general terms. Let's start out by examining a few of the common objections and criticisms that each camp (AnCaps and AnComs) has in regard to the opposing camp's philosophy. Whether some of these criticisms are "strawmen" or not, I wish to address them all the same in the light of reason and see where they land.

I will start with some of the criticisms I often hear leveled against AnCaps from the AnCom camp.

1. "Anarchism is the absence of hierarchies. Working for a boss, or for a wage, is a hierarchical arrangement!"

What is also hierarchical is not allowing individuals to freely enter into contract or verbal agreement with one another. If an AnCom insists that I cannot voluntarily pick apples on my neighbor's farm for a day's wage, or some other form of compensation, this beloved black and red "comrade" has just effectively asserted his or her dominance over my free will to choose which social interactions I may or may not enter into. Can I pick apples for free, then? What is the difference? In one case I do it because I want money, and in the other because I want the enjoyment of being outside in the fresh air. Is this "oppression" as well? Is fresh air oppressing me because it does not automatically come to my nose when I am laying in bed at home?

2. "AnCaps approve of sweatshops and abusive child labor."

No. AnCaps just don't believe that any human being has the right to arbitrarily set limits on what another free individual may or may not do with his or her own body. Abusive child labor practices would not be beneficial in a private law society, as most find the practice abhorrent. Would you patronize a business that abused children if you had other choices? I am hoping your answer is no. As far as these abuses happening in the past, remember that the worst abuses occurred under heavily centralized, coercive states. As far as children working now, for some in third world countries it is the only option they have to stay alive. For some youths in developed countries, they simply wish to gain experience in a field or make a little spending money. Shall we legislate against that?

3. "There is no such thing as private property. There is only 'personal' property."

I have yet to hear a clear or rationale, method, or metric for determining when something is or is not "personal property." I read an AnCom comment on Steemit today: "A house is personal property as long as you are using it. As long as you are living in it." Okay, well then, what if you leave to go visit your mother in the next town over? How long can you be gone until your house becomes "not yours?"

You can see all the problems this idea creates. What if my neighbor, who worked long hard hours of wage slavery to afford his house, wishes to take a vacation? Let's say he leaves me the key and is paying me to watch the house. He will be on vacation for one month. Is it okay for me to let somebody else occupy and claim the house? By what logic? By what right? What if I leave my laptop at school for a week over summer vacation? I forgot it there. It is a means of production. Do you seize it!? Now we are getting somewhere if you will please bear with me a bit longer.

Common criticisms leveled against Anarcho-Communists by AnCaps.

1. "AnComs just want to replace the existing state with a new one!"

While I agree that this is likely what much Anarcho-Communist theory put into practice would result in, I realize that this is not actually what AnComs profess to want. Most I have talked to seem to sincerely desire a stateless, hierarchy-free society, even if all the while failing to understand the difference between voluntary and coercive hierarchical arrangements.

2. What about your toothbrush!? That's property! What about your oven!? That's a means of production! Are you going to kill your neighbor for it, to let the working class take over his house!?"

Technically these arguments raise some valid points, but to some degree they strike me as being on a par with the common argument AnComs use against the Non-Aggression Principle, or "NAP:"

"According to the NAP, if someone steals a paperclip from you, you have the right to kill them! How barbaric!!"

What these two arguments have in common is that they rule out what I would call plain sense, for lack of a better word.

Where do we go from here?

Most AnComs don't want to kill you for your oven (although I have received veiled "death threats" from several). Most AnCaps don't want to kill little kids who accidentally wander into their yards. Both of these criticisms are almost equally silly for the same reason. They rule out something I will call "The Way." Yes, I just said that. Now you can close this article and safely write me off as a bullshit, insane cult member.

What I mean by "the way" is just simple common sense, or things so obvious that almost all people (save those with severe disorders) accept implicitly and largely subconsciously as they go about their daily lives. You don't take your friend's hamburger when he gets up to go to the bathroom at McDonald's. Why? You know it is his, even though he isn't "using it" right then. You don't kill your little nephew when he play punches you because he "violated the NAP." These criticisms are absurd. The way of the anarchist is simply the way of the natural law. And the natural law is this:

You MUST, at all costs, and at all times, regardless of the philosophy you adhere to, or the colors you wear, regardless of religion, friendships, family, gods, boyfriends and girlfriends: THINK FOR YOURSELF. This is the way of the anarchist.

In closing, I have found that the Voluntaryist ethic most closely aligns with nature and with my own sense of reason and logic. I see many fatal flaws in the philosophies of communism and socialism, and of course in the historical attempts to implement these ideologies. I hope, however, that this essay can at least be a jumping-off point for the blacks and yellows, and reds and blacks, to have a respectful and maybe even friendly conversation in regard to these topics. If I were on Facebook right now, I may have just posted some asshole meme and been done with it. But instead, on this platform where actual discussion and valuable dialogue seem to be encouraged, I decided to write this instead.

Thanks, Steemit.

Anarchy on, brothers and sisters.

~KafkA