Not Your Mama’s Anarchism

February 23, 2010

Gary Chartier, riffing on his riveting book, launches some potentially game-changing language over the bow of absolutist libertarianism.

Property-based anarchism without the NAP? It’s certainly not your mama’s anarchism. I think mutualists especially will find this intriguing because of the Golden Rule language but also because it does so using typically un-mutualist natural rights language. He doesn’t argue for the premises here but they do show off their ability to do some heavy lifting while remaining coherent, which is a type of evidence in itself; and, to steal a phrase from another natural lawyer, its seeming ability to “reconcile…sides of the Liberty debate is itself an extremely good reason for thinking it’s true.”


3 Responses to “Not Your Mama’s Anarchism”

  1. […] 26, 2010 I recently brought the reader’s attention to Gary Chartier’s excellent post on New Classical Natural Law […]

  2. I gotta say… I have been anarchist for going on 50 years and I can truly say, I don’t know a word of what you said. Over my years I have never fed into the system, never held an unethical job, never had a credit card, always spoken and stood for what was common sense and right for humanity, and always been in education mode and up to date on things from alternative media, not the usual.

    I have never partaken of the usual social conditioning that so decimated my generation, or watched the same tv or movies and so never fell into the snooze stage. My children were brought up with true values and learned the real cost of every single thing they wanted ~ within age appropriate limitations.

    I have been arrested for what I believe in as have my daughters at ages 6 and 9. My job now is opening minds and educating people, waking them up and so I speak the common language. In other words, I have been walking the walk for a long time as well as talking the talk.

    Since I am hindered by not understanding a word you say here, I got hopelessly confused on several writings, does that mean I am not an anarchist?

    You don’t have to answer me, honest.

  3. Neverfox Says:


    Are you talking about this post in particular or something else when you say “several writings”? Can you please be more specific so that I can address your concerns? I’m sorry to have created any confusion. But I have to say that I myself am a little confused as to why you have shared this facts about yourself with me. While I appreciate your sharing, I am at a loss about how it is relevant or a response to anything I’ve said. If it is to quell doubt that you are sincere as an anarchist, I have no reason to think otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: