Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of October and November.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


September 2014

Repensar la anarquía: Video conferencia de Carlos Taibo

TPL · How My Monthly Budget Looks in 2014

In , I went through my annual ritual of carrying around a notebook and keeping track of every time I spent money, with an eye to making sure my spending is sustainable under my deliberately limited income.

In order to meet that target, my taxable expenses must be less than the Adjusted Gross Income ceiling that I need to stay below in order to keep my federal income tax at zero. This year, that means $18,000 annually, or $1,500 per month. My taxable expenses don’t include business expenses, which get subtracted from my gross business income before they have a chance to show up as Adjusted Gross Income. They also don’t include medical expenses, which I can pay for with pre-tax money via my Health Savings Account.

I took the numbers from what I explicitly spent this month and then added in a few more items: estimates for my utility bills based on those from previous months, an estimate of my average monthly expenses on cat stuff (my spending for my expensive, diabetic cat comes in bursts at irregular intervals, so it’s hard to account for by looking at an individual month’s expenses), and some regular expenses that I didn’t happen to spend anything on this month but that I do spend money on throughout the year and so I felt I should include in the tally. Here is what I found from this year:

CategoryDaily expenseMonthly expense
Total$40.98$1,242.11
Rent$12.50$375.00
Food (groceries)$9.05$275.48
Cat stuff$5.51$167.70
Miscellany$3.31$100.76
Utilities & internet$3.29$100.22
Commercial beer/wine/booze$1.95$59.46
Coffee$1.82$55.41
Homebrewing$1.48$45.10
Food (eating out)$1.33$40.33
California state taxes$0.74$22.65
Transportation$0.00$0.00

(The numbers may not all add up quite right due to rounding. Also, I adjusted the 30-day September totals to correspond to the average 30.4-day month.)

I started separating California state sales tax into its own line item, and I have combined that with my expected California income tax bill (I don’t resist my state tax, just as a matter of picking my battles) for the “California state taxes” line.

I didn’t have very many unusual expenses of note this month. I spent $25 to help kickstart a friend’s free and open database of farming and gardening knowledge and $44.09 to rent our public library’s conference room in order to throw a Sharing SLO WikiJam next month. I spent more than usual on homebrewing, as some of my equipment needed replacing and I forgot to bring my refillable malt syrup container to the brew supply store, but I spent less than usual on transportation as my bike is in good repair, the weather has been fine, and I haven’t needed to borrow a car or travel anywhere out of the area. I spent $10 on a component video cable to hook up our hand-me-down DVD player to our hand-me-down projector. I spent another six bucks on a hand-cranked food mill at a garage sale.

Here’s how my current burn rate compares with past years (I’ve had to rejuggle the numbers a bit so that the categories remain the same from year to year; and in many past years I didn’t account for sales tax separately, which probably messes up the numbers a bit):

monthly totals
Category
average
Monthly total$1,167.76$1,242.11
Yearly total$14,013$14,905
Rent$508.91$375.00
Food (groceries)$194.42$275.48
Miscellany$198.60$291.11
Coffee/tea/beer/wine/booze$107.47$159.97
Utilities$55.75$92.69
Internet (hosting) fees$14.53$7.53
Transportation$58.69$0.00
Food (eating out)$31.23$40.33

Some of the numbers compare awkwardly. For example, during the past decade I have lived in places where utilities were included in the rent, which had the effect of raising the rent and lowering the explicit utility payments. Today, we pay the utilities ourselves, so the situation is reversed. I also get a reduction in rent in exchange for buying the bulk of our household groceries, so my grocery budget (and some of the drinks-of-vice budget) is elevated this year as a result while my rent is artificially low.

A $14,905/year burn rate is quite sustainable given my current technique of staying below the tax line by keeping my adjustable gross income below $18,000.

Here are the results from years past, if you’d like to compare:

Opinión: Elecciones en el Colegio de Ingenieros, una partida de ‘Monopolio’

Rafael IribarrenEl CIV, diez años sin elecciones En enero del 2004 fueron las últimas elecciones para directivas, Nacional y seccionales del Colegio de Ingenieros de Venezuela, CIV. Los directivos actuales, todos, lo son desde hace diez años largos;…

Continue reading at El Libertario: Anarquismo y movimientos sociales autónomos …

The Weekly Abolitionist: Do We Want Cops & Politicians in Prison?

Do we want cops and politicians to go to prison? Is that a demand that individualist anarchists, radical libertarians, and other enemies of the state should get behind?

Intuitively, it seems like we should. We’re instinctively outraged that cops can outright murder people and almost never get locked up for it. We’re understandably incensed that politicians from Richard Nixon to Ted Kennedy can commit heinous crimes and stay free, just because of their high social standing.

More fundamentally, even when cops and politicians are operating strictly within the limits of the law, they commit acts that would otherwise be seen as high crimes. As long as they follow all the right rituals of law, cops can threaten and kidnap completely peaceful people, and batter them if they resist. By waging war, politicians commit mass murder, and by expanding the prison state for campaign contributions, they literally sell people into slavery.

Ordinary people would certainly at least go to prison if caught doing any of those things. Anarchism is in part defined by a rejection of political authority, which means that we do not morally distinguish between the actions of a cop or politician and the actions of any other individual. So, one might think that the straightforward conclusion here is to one day set up libertarian tribunals to dish out punishments against agents of the state.

This view is understandable, but gravely mistaken.

Before law enters into the situation, we tend to hold to a pretty strict standard of self-defense. Which is to say: in any interpersonal conflict, we reject the initiation of force and only accept violence to the extent that it’s both proportional and genuinely necessary to protect the person being harmed or threatened. When someone goes beyond that minimally necessary amount of force, then they also become an aggressor, and their actions must also be condemned. After the fact, we demand that aggressors make restitution to their victims, but never counsel revenge.

There are very, very rare instances in which forced confinement may be justified, but this is only the case when someone is proven to actually be an ongoing threat to everyone in the community. Even then, this justification doesn’t apply for even the vast majority of violent criminals, and a justification for forced confinement does not justify forced confinement in any particular place. Nor does it justify the near total control that prisons have over prisoners. Hence why prisons are still inherently unjust.

A response might be offered that cops and politicians are indeed ongoing threats to the community at large. That much is true.

Yet the reason cops and politicians are ongoing threats to the community is not because of some psychological condition shared by all cops and politicians. Nor is it about any other quality shared by the particular individuals who occupy those positions of power. Rather, the individuals in those positions of power are ongoing threats to the community precisely because of their positions of power.

In other words, the minimal amount of force necessary to subdue them is just to get them fired or out of office, with the long-run goal of eliminating their jobs entirely. As for getting justice, what should be demanded is restitution – either in the form of hefty monetary compensation, or making amends through some other restorative process. Unlike punishment, that restitution can actually work toward giving back some of what’s been taken from their victims.

Which brings us to what may be the most important point: putting cops and politicians in prison does absolutely nothing to actually solve anything. When some on the left called for the trial and incarceration of George W. Bush (and others in his administration), prison abolitionist Dean Spade dissented, writing:

[T]he call to imprison Bush Administration officials is unsatisfying to me.  Imprisoning them would do nothing for those who have been killed in the wars, and making the call, to me, suggests that we believe the criminal punishment system is an apparatus for dealing with dangerous people and seeking justice, which is not true.  I would rather we put our energies into fighting for things we actually think can ameliorate the harm that has been done and prevent it from continuing.

Even if Bush had gone to prison, the United States government would still be bombing Iraq again in 2014. Even if Darren Wilson goes to prison, the police will continue to arrest black youth at wildly disproportionate rates. To the extent that their sentences would count as victories, they would only be symbolic victories. Those symbolic victories would lead many of us to believe everything was finally under control, numbing our passions for justice, and distracting us from the root causes of their aggression. Just like any other case of punishment.

The desire to fill prisons with those who are most truly dangerous in our society – namely, agents of the state – is a hard one to shake. Even still, it must be seen as a lingering form of retributivism felt by radicals brought up in a culture of criminal law, and like all forms of retributivism, it must be rejected. Especially given that its rationale is the same that empowers the very people it’s trying to fight against.

flattr this!

Ilan Against the Wall 2014-09-30 13:25:00

Palestine-Israel,The joint struggle and the vicious Israeli transfer effortsArkib (1948 Bedouins), Bil’in, Dahams (Ramla 1948 village), East Jerusalem (occupied 1967 mainly Sheikh Jarah, Shuafat, and the Bedouins of the region) Ma’asarah, Nabi Saleh, N…

Continue reading at Ilan Against the Wall …

Ron Paul: Thick or Thin?

At the Liberty Political Action Conference in Alexandria, Virginia, Ron Paul had a few words about libertarianiam, the non-aggression principle and tolerance. He pointed out the two basic principles of liberty are non-aggression and tolerance, “we have to become quite tolerant of the way people use their liberty.” Much to the lament of self-identified “thin libertarians,” (not that that is even a valid concept) Paul is acknowledging there are values, which are complementary to, or even required by, a belief in liberty.

Paul went on to point out that many want to embrace liberty up to the point of allowing something they disapprove of. But this obviously isn’t the libertarian attitude that affirms liberty is a fundamental human right not up to debate. Each person deserves the freedom to choose – just because you disapprove of their practices, be it doing drugs or practicing a different religion, doesn’t give you the right to use force against them.

However this doesn’t imply some sort of cultural or moral relativism. “Just because you allow somebody to have a lifestyle you disapprove of doesn’t mean you have to endorse it,” Paul explains. So while I may not agree with your choice to do heroin everyday, I should let you be. I can’t let my moral preferences morph into rights violations. If everyone understood this and didn’t let their own opinions and biases lead to creating systems of coercion, the world would be a much freer place.

And what is underlying this respect for human rights? Paul rightfully says it’s tolerance, “…liberty is liberty and it’s your life and you have a right to use it as you see fit.” In other words, the driving factor of a belief in non-aggression is being tolerant of others’ choices.

Writing in 1929, Mises understood this well, “…only tolerance can create and preserve the condition of social peace without which humanity must relapse into the barbarism and penury of centuries long past.”

Explaining why non-aggression necessarily involves other beliefs, Lew Rockwell writes, “…no political philosophy exists in a cultural vacuum, and for most people political identity is only an abstraction from a broader cultural view. The two are separate only at the theoretical level; in practice, they are inextricably linked.”

What Paul, Mises, and Rockwell understand is what Charles Johnson describes as “strategic thickness.” Strategic thickness is the view that certain ideas and values are useful for promoting, implementing, and maintaining the morality of non-aggression in the real world. After all, there are obviously going to be some ideas that are more complementary to non-aggression than others.

Sheldon Richman points out one of the values that complements non-aggression is anti-racism (Paul has done so as well), which is, after all, just a form of the tolerance that Paul and Mises refer to. I’ve gone even further and argued libertarians ought to be proponents of feminism, gay and trans liberation, and worker empowerment. Now even if these values, for one reason or another, turn out to not be complementary to non-aggression, the reason, if we are agreeing with Mises’ and Paul’s conception of liberty, it can’t be because the philosophy is only concerned with that single idea: for non-aggression is going to inevitably bring along other ideas with it.

For reasons that Paul, Mises, and Rockwell have shown, non-aggression can and does involve, even benefit from, complementary values. They have embraced “strategic thickness” and rightfully so.

 

 

 

 

 

flattr this!

Climate Action: Stand on the Ashes of Power

In recent comments at the United Nations Climate Summit, US president Barack Obama espoused an urgent need for all the nations of Earth to work together and engage anthropogenic climate change. Obama ensured his peers in attendance that the “United States of America is stepping up to the plate” and that (the collective) we “embrace our responsibility” to combat climate change. Curiously, though, as the Nobel Peace Prize winner spoke, bombs bearing the USA’s insignia fell on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.

War is incompatible with sustainability. Serious engagement of anthropogenic change demands peace.

The United States is a permanent wartime state. The Obama administration’s new military engagement with ISIS is yet another testament to the fact. This should be no surprise. Just over a year ago senior administration officials told the US Senate there exists a “broad consensus” that military operations in the Middle East are to be extended, in their “limitless form,” for at least another decade, possibly two, before adding the United States has reached only the midpoint in its global war on terror.  This was before ISIS became a topic of dinner table discussion.

This wartime state is responsible for the mass slaughter of innocents, exacerbation of global terror and property destruction – all while advancing anthropogenic climate change. Rest assured, the state will not be “going to bat” on climate.

The US Department of Defense is the nation’s single largest consumer of fossil fuels. From arms production to the grand machines of war, the military emits more greenhouse gas than any other state institution. War also wrecks natural ecosystems. Ongoing interventions have damaged forests and wetlands across the Middle East. According to CostOfWar.org, Afghanistan has lost 38% of total forested area to illegal logging. This deforestation is associated with warlords who rise to power from the ashes of military campaigns that continually destabilize the region. This plunder eliminates beneficial ecosystem services to surrounding populations and gives rise to further conflict and violence as people are left with depleted resources. Forest loss also reduces the amount of available habitat for a number of species, including avian communities, currently experiencing a precipitous population decline – a dangerous precedent in the midst of Earth’s sixth mass extinction.

The state organism is continually exalted by those in positions of power as the only legitimate mechanism of social organization. We are told only the state can ensure peace and sustainability in an increasingly complex and ever fragile world. But given the role of the nation-state in the world, as an economic and military power, it is time to acknowledge the organism is a global threat to peace, security, liberty and the environment.

States will not act on climate. Nation-states work as rational actors, advancing their own self interests. They seek the expansion their power, largely through the exploitation of natural resources. There is an inherent conflict of interest among states: The state with the most territory has the most resources for consumption. This is why war (be it military or economic) is the health of the state – it provides a monopoly over a territory and thus resources.

All of this, as 300 to 400 thousand people marched outside of the United Nations, and around the globe, to urge environmental protection. Progress starts in the streets, but true change requires everyday neighborhood environmentalism. Social power can render the state, and all of its illegitimate authority, useless. Don’t just step up to the plate. Stand on the ashes of power.

flattr this!

Some Events Coming Up in the Week Ahead!

-Thurs. Oct. 2nd, 7:30pm for sign-ups & 8pm begins, 1st Thurs. Open Mic! Open mic is a space for you to share yourself in anyway that feels right to you. You can read a story, poem or journal entry that fe…

Continue reading at SubRosa - a community space …

New Zines in Our Distro Catalog

From Sprout Distro:

We’ve added some new titles to our distro catalog, check out the links below. Additionally, we’ve started to add screen reading versions of the zines (where possible) to our site.

As always, you can order these zines from us via our online store or get in touch to pay via mail.

Finally, if you download the PDFs of any of these newer zines, you will see that they are hosted on Archive.org. We’re in the process of uploading our entire zine collection to Archive.org as a way of ensuring that it will remain accessible in the event that this site ever went down. With Zinelibrary.info closing down and many of the zines hosted becoming inaccessible, it seemed like a good idea to think of redundancy. Archive.org works perfectly because it has been around for years and respects user privacy by not logging IP addresses and using SSL.

New Zines:

Accountability and Consent

Anti-Oppression

Direct Action

History

Legal

Organizing

The post New Zines in Our Distro Catalog appeared first on Sprout Distro.

What Will We Leave Our Great Grand Children?


        Can we trust the greed driven corporations and the puppet politicians that in their pocket, to honestly assess this problem and come up with answers that will perhaps diminish their wealth and power, but work for the benefit of all? I personally think that will not happen, greed blinds logic, it is up to the people to sort this out before it is too late, if it is already, not too late. What is the legacy that we will leave future generations? What will your great grand children inherit?


Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk