Students for a Stateless Society

Happy Birthday W.H. Auden!

(To JS/07/M/378) This Marble Monument Is Erected by the State

He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be

One against whom there was no official complaint,

And all the reports on his conduct agree

That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint

For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.

Except for the War till the day he retired

He worked in a factory and never got fired,

But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.

Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views,

For his Union reports that he paid his dues,

(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)

And our Social Psychology workers found

That he was Popular with his mates and liked to drink.

The Press are convinced that he bought a Paper every day

And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.

Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured

And his Health-card shows he was once in a hospital but left it cured,

Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare

He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Installment Plan

And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,

A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.

Our researchers into Public Opinion are content

That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;

When there was peace he was for peace when there was war he went.

He was married and and added five children to the population,

Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation,

And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.

Was he free? Was he Happy? The question is absurd:

Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

Upon hearing the news that a court ruled in favor of the police discriminating against inducting new officers with high IQs (125, not even that high), I think that the government has royally fucked itself over.

Until now, the government would like you to think that it is made up of the smart individuals who determine and enforce the laws of the land for all of us to follow.  Well, this example has proven this wrong.  The government is made up of blind followers or people who might think they are the smartest in all of the land because of their status.

I am not saying that a high IQ necessarily defines all realms of intelligence, but it certain defines some.  People with high IQs may be able to determine a more fair and rational construct of society rather than what we have today — or they may feel belittled and “brought down” for having to succumb to the circumstances that those with an inferior intelligence (sadly, the majority) have brought upon them in the form of a government.

Generalizing, intelligent people are most likely not to be the kinds of people who commit murders and crimes against humanity on a regular basis.  They have most like thought about and developed within their minds a society that promotes the most peace, the best standard of living and general prosperity for all.  These people have taken into account the problems of the past and today and developed workable solutions for a better future.

Technology and communication have made it possible to facilitate interactions amongst people who feel as if they are “stuck” in a world that is beneath them.  They are frustrated, angered, and trapped  in a world that seems to lack genuine progress.  While these people are the ones that are making the “world go round” through their hard work, academic strength, entrepreneurial spirit, philosophical ideas, community service and so on, they are still held back by means of a government that not on their level and inflicts social ills that are morally damaging.

For example, while a few collective individuals of a certain country play around with nuclear arms and create unrest in the world, as well as potentially creating a variety of issues for the citizens of their countries, it should be of no concern to people who are fully capable of realizing the irrationality of this occurrence.  Why should I, for instance, be a part of such outright silliness that has nothing to do with my day-to-day activities as a student and part-time worker?  Many people feel the way that I do, yet they are forced to pay taxes to support the establishment continuing to make a mockery of intelligence in front of our very eyes.

Therefore, I would like to declare that after taking into account this court case debacle and the current state of governments throughout the world, that those of us who feel as if the overall “intelligence quotient” of government is beneath us, we should either A) declare ourselves exempt from it (this may win in court if citing this case) and B) simply living our lives peacefully and as we would like them and inevitably committing acts of civil disobedience against the state.  Option B, for example, would include not paying taxes because this is a peaceful way of living life without government.  Now is our time!

(Original Post Here)

Last Monday, January 9^th 2012, the Appellate Commerce Court in Paris liquidated the French ferry firm SeaFrance, after the European Commission ruled the bail-out by the French government to be illegal. A very unfortunate event. Not because of the inability for the French State to nationalize yet another service economy enterprise, but because of the Court’s ruling that a possible buy-out by a co-operative of the workers employees was “neither viable nor acceptable”. The Court’s decision sealed the fate of nearly a thousand employees and their families.

The Court’s decision ends months of speculation about SeaFrance’s future after several failed rescue plans. The French government promised a € 200 million support, but this was deemed illegal under EU competition legislation. While the Parisian banksters of Société Général, BNP Paribas, Dexia en CA get bailed-out with billions of taxpayers’ euro’s, the workers of SeaFrance and their families will have to look for a new job in 2012. The closure comes as a political blow to French president Nicolas Sarkozy, four months from the presidential elections, in which he seeks a second term. The French prime minister François Fillon promised “to find a solution for the workers”. Ah, politicians and their promises. The socialists, ahead in the polls for the presidential elections, remained silent on this case. It’s a well-known fact that they oppose any form of self-management by the workers. The Socialist Party would like to see the ferry industry to be nationalized, certainly not self-managed by its employees. But they remain silent, because they need the vote of the North Sea Workers Union in the presidential race, the same union that came up with the idea of the co-operative to take over SeaFrance. Unfortunately, the union has already decided to endorse François Hollande, the socialist leader, for the presidency of France. Beati pauperes spiritu.

The Court stated that “there is no credible offer to take over SeaFrance’s assets.” The idea of the workers’ cooperative ‘Skop’ to take over the assets is neither viable or acceptable, because the co-operative doesn’t have a “distinct management and” consists only of the money brought into the company by its shareholders: the workers and their families, and not big corporate finance. They’re not a “real” company and cannot be legally accepted as being a credible candidate-bidder for SeaFrance’s assets. A horrible ruling for all free workers and students who believe in the co-operative business model.

A last-minute glimmer of hope came from Eurotunnel, which announced it was considering putting in an offer for SeaFrance’s 3 remaining passenger ferries. The idea would be to buy the SeaFrance assets, then lease them back to the workers’ co-operative. Eurotunnel, a French-British concern, has enough capital and a “real” balance sheet, so they will probably be able to buy SeaFrance’s ships for a reasonable price. In abstract terms, this would probably be a reasonable solution, because Eurotunnel has guaranteed that about 800 of the 1000 employees of SeaFrance could maintain their jobs, wages and social benefits. Unfortunately, this would maintain the capitalist wage-slavery system and disables any bottom-up initiative for a self-managed firm of such a scale in the service sector. We’ll wait and see what Eurotunnel’s next move will be and whether they will grant the workers’ co-operative, who will be leasing the ships back, enough autonomy to compete with P&O in the English Channel. If so, the SeaFrance experiment as a worker-owned company, will be very interesting to follow. All eyes on Calais in the following months, I’d say.

On January 7th, we remember the birthday of Nikolai Tchaikovsky (1851 – 1926), one of the great Russian anarchist intellectuals and founder of the famous Circle of Tchaikovsky. He was a strong opponent of violence and Bolshevism, and always propagated class reconciliation as a means to achieve a free society, not class warfare.

In the mid-19^th century, the intelligentsia of Tsarist Russia were dissatisfied with the social stagnation of the nation and began demanding major reforms. While Europe was rapidly industrializing and democratizing, Russia was still a feudal empire without geopolitical or economic relevance in the modern world. While politics and economy globalized, Russia became more and more isolated from the rest of the world. The Tsar’s regime didn’t posses any political credibility or influence around the world and were on the edge of fading away into the oblivion of history. Even when Tsar Alexander II emancipated the serfs in 1861, which marked the official end of feudalism in Russia, the public demanded more reforms and much faster.

The intellectual revolt against this political and social anachronism gave rise to a number of secret organizations rooted in anarchist thought, such as “Land and Liberty”, “The People’s Revenge”, “The Circle of Tchaikovsky” and, most notably, the Narodniks.

The Circle of Tchaikovsky was founded in Saint Petersburg during the student uprisings in 1968-1869 by a group of students and residents opposed to the reckless violence of Sergey Nechayev, a violent revolutionary anarchist who wanted to end the reign of the Tsar through a violent and bloody revolution. Nechayev’s shenanigans had horrible consequences for the popular support for social and political reforms. Most commoners, especially farmers, remained loyal to the Tsar. Even though they were poor, there was peace and the feudal landlords offered them protection. The revolutionaries on the other hand, promised nothing but the destruction of everything. To the general public, the only goal of the revolutionaries was to kill, pillage and destroy. And it those days, they were probably right.

The initial purpose of the circle, predominantly consisting of medical students, was to share books that were prohibited under Tsarist rule. This form of dissident activity was called “Samizdat”. Two of the most widely distributed books by these illegal publishing companies and book clubs were “Das Kapital” by Karl Marx “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill. Later, it evolved from being a secret book club to a well-oiled propaganda organization aimed at uniting the students and workers of Saint Petersburg and the provincial peasants with the purpose of conceiving a structural social revolution. Tchaikovsky set high moral standards for the members of the Circle in the face of Nechayev’s unscrupoulesness and his “blind violence”. These moral codes and Tchaikovsky’s vision of a free society was formulated in “Program for the circles of self-education and practical activity”, a work I can highly recommend to all of you. After the first two years of full operational activity, the circle had about 60 members, many of whom would become important protagonists in the Russian Revolutionary War and key figures in the opposition against Lenin. In 1872, Tchaikovsky began organizing circles for workers with the purpose of training propagandists who could relate better to the working class and peasantry than the middle and upper class students. These activities were very successful in Saint Petersburg and Odessa, where the circles were able to train about 400 workers. It shouldn’t be a surprise to us that Saint Petersburg (and Kronstadt!) and Odessa would remain two very rebellious cities against the Bolshevik government, both during and after the Russian Revolutionary War.

The first political action of the Narodniks (from the Russian word “Narod”, meaning “people”) date back from the early 1860’s. Predominantly middle-class better educated Russians were unsatisfied with the Tsarist Decree that emancipated the serfs in 1861. Arguing that freed serfs were being sold into wage slavery, in which the landowners were replaced by industrial bourgeoisie, the Narodniks wanted to become a political vessel to put pressure on the Tsarist government and demand reform through social and political action. A key element in Narodnik rhetoric was strong opposition against the uprooting of the peasants from the traditional “obshcina” or “mir”, communal farms owned by the peasants who lived and worked on the land, as opposed to the individual farmsteads of “khutors”. Indeed, the Narodniks believed neither in feudalism or Jacobinist central planning but promoted the idea of self-managing farms, owned and operated by the same people, namely a small community of farmers (what we call “manorialism” in the West). The Narodniks focused on the growing conflict between the poor peasantry and the “kulaks” (more prosperous farms), fearing the newly freed serfs would trade in their serfdom under a nobleman for a new serfdom under a rich farmer (what I would consider to be capitalism). The Narodnik plan was to distribute land fairly under the peasantry. They generally believed that it was possible to skip capitalism and enter straight into libertarian socialism, contradicting Marx’ historic materialism. Although I must add that a great deal of Narodniks – the so-called “Critical” Narodniks – were more flexible and understanding towards capitalism and were more open to its opportunities and benefits. Yes, the Narodniks believed the peasantry to be the revolutionary class, as opposed to the Bolsheviks, who believed the industrial proletariat to be the spearhead of the revolution. However, the Narodniks agreed with the Bolsheviks that the peasantry could not achieve revolution on their own, insisting indeed that history could only be made by “outstanding personalities” who would lead by example. This was the basis of an important schism between the Narodniks and the Circle of Tchaikovsky. In 1874 the Narodnik intelligentsia left the cities for the villages, attempting to reach the peasantry and convince them to revolt against the Tsar and the kulaks. They found almost no support and the movement collapsed. Given the Narodniks social background as middle and upper middle class citizens, they could hardly relate to the Russian peasants and their folkloristic, sometimes even pagan culture and mindset, even though the Narodniks had studied the peasant culture into great detail, including their dialects and even their eating habits. The Russian peasantry, at that time an absurd anachronism in the industrial age, was probably very suspicious of those weird-looking modern people from the big evil city. A second attempt in 1877 also failed miserably and lead to the imprisonment and death of most of the Narodnik protagonists. After the debacles of the failed peasant uprisings of 1874 and 1877, the less radical wing of the Narodnik movement denounced revolution and violence and started up a democratic party called “Narodnaya Volya” (“The People’s Will”), although there are serious indications the party funded terrorist cells across the country. The peasants had this image of the Tsar of being a sacral, supernatural, messiah-like being, which resulted in ardent support of the peasantry for the regime, while the Narodnik terrorist cells wanted to kill the Tsar, so they could show the peasants that he was just an ordinary moral man. On march 1^st, 1881, terrorists were finally able to assassinate Tsar Alexander II. As expected, the peasantry was horrified by the murder and turned their backs on the Narodniks. Party leaders were arrested and hanged for treason. This marked the definite end of the Narodnik movement.

Because of the Circle’s support for the terrorism of the Narodniks, Tchaikovsky – a pacifist himself – broke away from the movement that was named after him and emigrated to Kansas in the United States, where he established a commune. Unfortunately the commune failed and Tchaikovsky started to travel around the world, in search of a project to work in. In 1905, after the First Russian Revolution, when there was no chance anymore of revenge by Narodniks (he feared his assassination for treason by his old comrades), he returned to Russia. When the Bolsheviks took power in 1917 and the Russian Revolutionary War broke out, Tchaikovsky joined side with the White Army and opposed the Bolsheviks. He became head of the White government in Arkhangelsk during the War. When the White Army surrendered in 1923, Tchaikovsky fled the country. He died in England 3 years later.

For us peaceful anarchists, Tchaikovsky is an inspiration. I would like to pinpoint three “strategic” opinions I share with him. First, his ardent belief in peaceful revolution and community organizing as opposed to violent revolution. Second, his argument for class reconciliation as opposed to class warfare. And third, his choice to side with the White Army instead of the Red Army.

Tchaikovsky’s belief in peaceful revolution and community organizing is an idea picked up by a lot of the Western anarchist syndical movements (“Don’t Mourn, Organize!”, Joe Hill). Indeed, just like the peasants have shown in the 1870’s, violence can easily cost you the support of the very people you want to inspire. Violence can’t be a solution to anything. In fact, I am convinced that violent anarchism is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to promote freedom through force.

Second, Tchaikovsky didn’t believe one class should “rule” over the means of production. He believed in a classless society – just like the Bolsheviks – but didn’t believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat as a means to get there. He believed that class reconciliation, between the landowners and the farmers, between the factory owners and the workers, between clergy and the people, was the only way to achieve a free society based on kinsmanship and solidarity. This is also an idea I have always defended.

Third, his choice to side with the White Army. I totally agree with Tchaikovsky’s choice and it is sad to see a lot of modern anarchists – probably influenced by the FAI and CNT – would rather side with the reds. I am convinced that if the Black and the White Armies would have joined sides against their common enemy, the Bolsheviks, they could have made a deal: Ukraine and Belarus would be granted to the Black Army and its supporters, Western Russia could be given to the White Army and Siberia would be divided under the White and the Green Army. It is sad to see this didn’t happen. How many millions of lives could we have speared in the darkest days of the 20^th century?? Siding with the White Army was the best sign of his belief in class reconciliation. His alliance with the patriots and Tsarists prove his pragmatism. Like the Critical Narodnik he was, Tchaikovsky figured that a compromise could be reached between capitalism – as promoted by the Tsar and his court – and anarchism – as promoted by Tchaikovsky. Unfortunately, the black army of Maria Nikiforova and Nestor Makhno, didn’t trust such a strategic alliance, and feared the Tsar would betray his word. Although one could argue that the Tsar himself wasn’t too excited about a plan to ally himself with the same people that assassinated his father. Nikolai Tchaikovsky and the Russian Revolution is a story of missed opportunity. One with the most horrible consequences imaginable.

On January 4th we celebrate the birthday of one of the most influential contemporary anarchist thinkers in the US: Bob Black.

Black is mostly known for his contemporary works on anarchist thought and anarchist epistemology such as “The Abolition of Work and Other Essays”, “Beneath the Underground”, “Friendly Fire” and “After Anarchism”. Anarchists who use contemporary criticism of contemporary problems as well as anarchist self-criticism are unfortunately scarce in the world of anarchism. Let this to be plea to think about these issues.

Bob Black was one of the first post-war thinkers who propagated what is commonly referred to as “post-Left anarchism”. With his fulminating and confronting style, he has criticized many of the core principles of leftism, anarchism and activism. In his essay “My problem with Anarchism” he writes: “Calling yourself an anarchist is an invitation to identify yourself with an unpredictable arsenal of associations. Un arsenal that probably doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone, not even two anarchists. In fact: there are as many anarchisms as there are anarchists.”

The Abolition of Work

In “The Abolition of Work” Black pleas for ending the false dichotomy between producers and consumers, which has become the cornerstone of our social structure. Black propagates that the social mantra of producing and consuming, which has become the human raison d’être, should be replaced with a new vision, one in which man is truly free. Black argues that the only way people can live free is to “reclaim time” from market capitalism they are spending on their jobs as wage-slaves or entrepreneurial puppets and turn the market into a joyful game where people can exchange goods and services voluntarily. In this “merry” society, no one would ever HAVE to work – like they do under capitalism – because Black considers work (in its capitalist definition as forced labor, obliged by politics, economy and legislation) to be the root of all unhappiness and misfortune. Black has the interesting idea that subordination to a boss, supply and demand, prices, debt etc. creates an aversion for freedom, because people will always hold on to the chain gang of capitalism, not to slide into the Great Unknown. I do not agree with his statement that work erodes the human spirit though, which is his primary conclusion in the work, but his ideas are interesting to think about.

Black v. Bookchin

From 1997 onwards, Black became involved in a long philosophical, sometimes pointless and downright semantic, discussion with Murray Bookchin, an outspoken anarchist critic of the post-left anarchists. In his book “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: an Unbridgeable Chasm” Bookchin mocked the post-left anarchists to be “lifestyle anarchists”, who are idle, not undertaking and averse to work. According to Bookchin (and I am inclined to agree with him) “Anarchy as a way of life”, as promoted by Bob Black, John Zerzan and others, is childish. The great non-sequitur of “lifestyle anarchists” – according to Bookchin – as that they ardently believe in achieving social change through individual lifestyles. These methods of “leading by example” instead of “leading by example through action” are futile, and defines no clear alternative, let alone pose a threat, to our capitalist system. Bookchin argues in favor of a “plural” anarchism, which revolves rather around social action than individual lifestyle, in which oppositions between freedom and capitalism evolve dialectically, according to classical Marxist theory. The “unbridgeable chasm” from the book’s title refers to the chasm between individual “autonomy” – according to Bookchin a bourgeois illusion – and social “freedom”, which encompasses direct democracy and communal self-management; maybe even “cultural interventions” (a reference to the Maoist cultural revolution?). Boockhin finally argues that “lifestyle anarchism” is contradictory to the fundamentals of anarchism itself. He accused lifestyle anarchists to be decadent and bourgeois. And frankly, I tend to agree with Bookchin.

As a reaction, Black wrote “Anarchy After Leftism”, which is a direct refutation against Bookchin’s “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: an Unbridgeable Chasm”. Black accused Bookchin of moralizing anarchism, which he perceives as locking up anarchism in abstract categories and shifty fundamentals that suppress and alter personal desires. He creates the dichotomy between his “free” anarchism and Bookchin’s “puritan” anarchism. Bookchin’s acceptance of “labor ethics” and the fact that a anarchist society should better be based on labor and productivity, is according to Black contradictory to the very essence of anarchism. In this sense, Black is a contemporary Max Stirner as opposed to Bookchin, who distances himself from the “inherent decadence” of Stirner. He points out that Bookchin’s ardent – almost religious – belief in technological evolution is serfdom in itself. This could be an interesting think to discuss between the pro-technology, transhumanist anarchists and the “paleo-anarchists” on this blog. Black finally claims that Bookchin is not an anarchist, because he believes in direct democracy and economies “guided” by localities (such as the early peasant soviets and sovchozes in the early 20’s in Russia) and democratic compromise. In my opinion, this is not a valid criticism. You could argue that Black was right, because later in his life, Bookchin denounced anarchism and became a full-blown “communalist”, but I don’t believe both “isms” are that much different from each other. However, a very interesting topic to think about.

Interesting Appellate Court case finally ruled in my native town of Ghent (Belgium) this morning. Last year, 51 year-old Steven De Geynst from Temse was detained by police authorities after staff members of a local supermarket caught him red-handed while he was stealing two bags of muffins from one of the supermarket’s waste containers. He also harassed the supermarket staff members and resisted his arrest. He was charged with violent robbery. The trial court in Dendermonde sentenced him to six months “adjourned imprisonment” (which means he doesn’t really have to go sit his sentence out, he is just sentenced for the record) in May. De Geyndt, referred to in the Flemish press as “the Muffin man”, appealed to the Appellate Court in Ghent, arguing that the goods in the waste container were no longer the property of the supermarket, so therefore he couldn’t be charged with robbery. The court in Ghent followed the ruling of the judge in Dendermonde.

An interesting court case for us anarchists to debate, so I decided to throw it on our blog here. Of course, the American property laws are much different from our continental-European laws, but never the less, an interesting precedent to discuss (although there is no stare decisis in Europe, but anyway).

According to the Belgian legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – and in globo the Western-European jurisprudence – “trash” is still the property of the person or enterprise that used the goods, in this case the supermarket. The supermarket also has a contract with a waste disposal firm, which means the garbage in the waste containers, are the matter and cause of their mutual contract. The “duty of care” – according to jurisprudence – for the garbage lies on the owner of the goods until the waste disposal firm performs its duties of the contract, in this case picking up the garbage on the time and conditions of the contract. The muffin man’s argument was root of a heated debate among libertarians and anarchists online earlier today. He claimed that the trash was a “res nullius” (literally: a good belonging to no one”), which means the goods in the waste container have no owner. If this were the case, the goods could be taken by anyone who pleases it. If it contains food, a passerby can legitimately claim the food for himself and consume it. This however, isn’t the legal case. “Res nullius” is for example an animal in the wild that belongs to no one or an abandoned property of which the owner can’t be tracked down. According to Belgian and Western-European law, trash is not a res nullius but a so-called “accessorium” of the assets of the supermarket, and according to the rule “accessorium sequitur principale” (“the accessorial good follows the principle good”) trash is still owned by the firm, even though putting it in a waste container signals that they want to get rid of it. For a lot of anarchists in the online discussion, the key element was the will of the supermarket to get rid of the goods, and therefore couldn’t be attributed as their property anymore. I on the other hand argued that it is a common practice of supermarkets to dwindle the price of perishable goods or hand them out for free, usually in the front part of the facility, and commercially marked as being “perishable goods that are close to expiration date”. If they wanted the products in the waste container to be distributed, they would have done it that way. By putting the goods in the waste container, they didn’t out their will to disclaim their property right over the trash, but they clearly indicated that the products weren’t up for consummation any longer. Some anarchists claimed the goods weren’t res nullius but “res derelicta” (literally abandoned goods”), which means the owner has expressed his will not be the owner anymore. But, according to my argumentation above, I don’t think these goods qualify as a res derelicta. Neither did the judge.

Also, if the muffin man would have become sick from the goods that maybe would have gone bad, he could have sued the supermarket for negligence and breach of duty. In Belgium, there’s the jurisprudence of the “defective good”, which means if a defect of a certain good causes damage to a person or someone else’s property, the owner of the “defective good” is liable for the damage caused. The muffin man would have to prove that the goods were indeed defective. In France, the liability is even stricter. There, the muffin man wouldn’t have to prove the goods were defective, he would only have to prove he became sick of the muffins. The judge ruled – in my opinion rightfully – that perishable goods are not “defective” when they surpass their expiration date, because expiring is essential to a perishable good, such as muffins. In this way, the decision of the supermarket to sue the muffin man and the court’s decision, could be seen as a model judgement, to signal to scavengers not to look for food in waste containers, because it would put too much risk on the supermarkets because of their strict liability.

Another big discussion between the anarchists was whether opening the waste container could be considered to be trespassing. Indeed, the waste container belonged to the supermarket (but sometimes they belong to the garbage disposal company) and the muffin man was not an authorized staff member to access the waste container. Some anarchists argued that the muffin man has “a right to scavenge” into a waste container that probably contains food, because he has a right to feed himself (the right to life) and doesn’t harm the integrity or property of the supermarket by taking food from its waste containers. Keeping in mind that I – as well as the judge apparently – ruled that the food in the waste container was not a good, but the object and cause of the contract between the supermarket and the garbage disposal firm, I think this argument doesn’t fly.

This court case is useful in Belgium to introduce a new discussion on our strict liability legislation and jurisprudence. Even in an anarchist society there have to be some sort of a liability structure. For environmental damage, the answer is easy: the polluter pays for the damage his “accessoria” (for example the smoke of a smokestack) inflict on other people and other property, on the condition that there is proof of the damage being caused by a negligence or behavior of the polluter. In the case of the muffin man, anarchists have to make a choice. Would we hold the muffin man accountable for taking the muffins from the waste container or would we refuse the supermarket’s claim? And on what grounds? And if we were to decide that the muffin man acted rightfully, who would be accountable for the hypothetical damage (for example food poisoning)? The man, because “he came to the nuisance”, or the supermarket? And on what grounds? And if we were to rule the supermarket was accountable, on what ground would we decide that? Breach of his duty of care over his trash, or negligence? Or another ground?