RE: True Anarchism is not "AnCap" or "AnCom." It is Thinking for Oneself.
I am an individualist, but I don't have the certainties the ancaps have, nor the certainties the ancoms have. Maybe that is a good thing. I feel both ways' critiscisms are valid to some point.
We should try to find what unites us.
Do we agree that reduction, fragmentation of states are a good thing? Do we all reject the continental nations in favor of smaller countries, smaller concentration of power and resources, smaller armies?
The whole concept of a huge nation/empire suck (greece, egypt, rome, aztecs, mayas, napoleon's france, bismarck's germany, usa, fascists, soviet communists, china, etc etc etc).
Do we all agree that 500 netherlands or 500 belgiums (yes, risking 500 swazilands) would be better and would interfere less do/allow better for the human beings?
I just reject the use of violence. There is no compromise for me here (not to come off as being combative or contrarian). The bottom line is, if it is not consensual, then it is not moral.
The thing is, what is the definition of violence ?
Do you mean violence, or aggression (initiation of violence) ?
We use violence in defense of us or others. But initiation of violence is not moral. The thing is that is so hard to define or judge. Wars are always triggered by mutual provocations.
The definition of violence or aggression is linked with the definition of an individual and the definition of property, in the sense that to unjustifiably harm one's body or take one's property is considered aggression by most if not all cultures. But property has become a complex, historical thing that dates back to the property of land in the middle ages.
More than that, there is graduation in the use of violence. You can contain (i.e. use force against) someone who is perpetrating aggression (to be proven), but only with proportional force, not abusive nor uncontrolled force.
What I am trying to say is. There are so many questions that need to be answered before you can honestly say " I'm a anarcho-********* ". And people can and should band together according the their type of answer, provided there isn't also no aggression between such groups.
I still believe there is nothing wrong with all the different colours of anarchism and we all can get along.
For example. There are a lot of people that claim verbal aggression does no exist, there is no such a thing as a verbal aggression, it must be physical to be an aggression.
Ok, then what about a threat? The announce of aggression. If one answered it with "preventive" violence, was it aggression or just responding a threat ?
Then you hide your threat in a symbol that not everyone would recognize immediately as a threat, and then go showing off. Flags ?
If my neighbour has a nazi flag and I want it removed, who is the aggressor ? Does the answer change if I set fire to it ?