Yeah often. And they all agree on the fact that the state has no moral authority, and refuse to recognize the authority of the state’s representatives (police, judge, etc.) which only derives from the threat of violence. They agree on absolutely nothing else but that, but on that they are in agreement.
And that’s why cops need to be trained to just arrest these people as soon as the cop recognizes that they’re spouting SovCit nonsense. There’s literally no point to having a discussion with them, they will never acknowledge that they’re in error. Cuff them, book them, let the judge sort it out.
Sorry to respond so late, was busy being a corporate slave today! 
So, since we always argue semantics here, I won’t worry about doing it again. A lot of the more recent posts have been because different people use different definitions. For example, Webster’s -
anarchist
noun
an·ar·chist ˈa-nər-kist
-ˌnär-
1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy
especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
Is pretty harsh in terms of outlook, while if I quote the first paragraph or so of Wikipedia -
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including, though not necessarily limited to, governments, nation states,[1] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies or other forms of free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, usually placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement.
it’s a lot more nuanced, and less judgemental.
So, having said that, I’m going to defend my statement. IMHO the self-described anarchists I’ve met fall into two general categories: destructive anarchists, and isolationist anarchists. Neither of which, as I said earlier, are really SovCit types.
The destructive anarchists aren’t automatically wanting to destroy the world, but they do want to destroy all coercive trappings. However, almost all of them (especially on college campus where I meet them the most) have zero practical ideas about what’s next. There is the (incredibly optimistic) assumption that great minds like theirs will create a new utopian society where all can freely benefit from the fruits of their intellect and work, without a government leeching off of them.
Which leaves what other, less enlightened governments may do that are adjacent, such as we see in Ukraine right now, but at least they tend to be good intentioned, just short on forethought.
Okay, back to the isolationist sorts. They have no trust or faith in the government, and think it’s coercive, parasitic, and infringe on the natural rights of individuals. In this, they may have some overlap with the SovCit sorts, but without the pseudolegal ‘magic words’. They tend to either be the rugged, well armed, isolationist mountain man who wants to live off the grid and be (as much as possible) entirely self supportive, or a more ‘hippie’ communal style living, where they tend to work together without availing themselves of our mass consumerism.
We get both types here in Colorado.
Anyway, back to my statement above, which I think was not examined in it’s entirety. It’s about accepting responsibility for yourselves, quite unlike a SovCit who wants to be able to benefit via ‘magic words’ from the existing society while being unanswerable to it. An anarchist should, ideally, be working to create the new, non-coercive society, and find solutions to people working and living together that do not require force.
Of the two groups I’ve mentioned, the destructive sorts are handwaving that part away for the future folks to figure out, and the isolationist types tend to figure it’ll work well on small scale, but may not be able to apply to the larger.
See, the vast majority of anarchists I’ve met are cooperative anarchists. They want to replace current social structures with structures based on mutual aid. Spend any time around them and you’ll hear that phrase–mutual aid–until it’s burned into your brain. They open anarchist bookstores and start community gardens and feed homeless people and generally live like decent human beings.
And they don’t deny the reality of the state. They just don’t like it. That’s a huge difference between them and the SovCit folks, which is why I think it’s so weird to conflate the two.
No argument. And the isolationist types I’ve met that fall into the ‘hippie’-esque groups I mentioned probably would do the same, but seem to have largely given up on preaching, at least, in my community.
You have to remember, I’m stuck in Colorado Springs, the most X-tian, right-wing portion of the entire Colorado Front Range (not the state as a whole though, the east/west portions are blood red). If I were in the People’s Republic of Boulder (I kid), it would be a very different experience. But here at least, it’s the dippy college types and the Rugged Self-Support Man Free From the Coercive Government ™ types.
The commune style folks we run into at big local independent garden supply place near the old town, the one that hasn’t been overrun by the Grow Garden for MJ types.
And I agree, while there are SovCits that overlap with the RS-SMFFtCG, it’s a very minor number. Because, back to my first post, it’s a lot of work, a lot of responsibility, and a belief in magic words doesn’t get you very far. The biggest overlap is both tend to have very short shrift for people coming onto what they consider their property and demanding it meet all local, state and federal guidelines in terms of access and such.
If you start reading long texts re. anarchism, e.g
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
you will find a lot of mentions of “individualist anarchists”; however I agree with @MrDibble that these guys are still supposed to be left-wing intellectuals, not Sovereign Citizens (in fact I doubt the people buying the cargo-cult stuff are any kind of philosophers).
So one aspect in which SovCits are different to anarchists is your average cop may well share some (of the less batshit, slightly more right-wing mainstream*) beliefs with your average SovCit, not to mention probably looking and sounding like him. So he’s likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Your average anarchist? Let’s just say that would not be the case based on my experience:)
-
- it should be remembered post-Trump the mainstream American right wing political would be considered completely out there extremism in most other circumstances.
Or create a one-hit-wonder.
I knew anarchists. Anarchists were friends of mine. Sovcits, you are no anarchists.
What do you think is the point of arguing dictionary-based semantics with an actual anarchist?
You don’t think living in Colorado greatly skews your view?
And “Don’t have a well-thought out plan for after the revolution” doesn’t make the student anarchists wannabe-mountain-men, it just makes them poorly-educated in the political stances they claim to espouse. Are any of them even members of anarchist organizations, or otherwise part of the movement?
Now, I don’t have a problem with you bringing up your local anarchists as an example of kinds of anarchists. Like I’ve said in this thread already, there are almost as many types of anarchism as there are anarchists. Every movement has nutbars and poseurs. Anarchism is no different.
But you made a statement about anarchists, sans qualification. And thereby gloss over the whole body of anarchists who are collectivist and educated in their anarchism. That’s not going to fly.
Well, I wouldn’t say always…
The part that I struggle with, that falls into the “it’s so obvious, why is this so hard for you” is this:
Clearly, the overwhelming majority of people all around you, accept the system that you see and experience. And as long as that’s the case, even if your magic incantations really are based in some secret past, it doesn’t matter because you will, ultimately, be subject to the rules society decides to subject you to.
MrD - I think you’re just as guilty of ignoring context, but I appreciate that this is far more passionate for you than it is for me. So I’ll respond to your specifics, and then back out if if this discussion, which is ALREADY damn far off topic, even in the Pit.
- What is the point of arguing dictionary-based semantics with an actual anarchist?
You’re seeming to insist that only your definition, as an actual anarchist, are those that matter. This leads to a purity test like level of sub-definition wherein you are the sole arbiter of what counts. I’m making the point that others use the phrase, and identify as such, even if you disagree.
- You don’t think living in Colorado greatly skews your view?
I made EXACTLY this point, to quote:
So calling me out of a skewed view seems to be more an issue with you than with me. I would just as rightly point out (as I did on the first question) that doesn’t being an anarchist by your own definition skew your perspective?
- “…doesn’t make the student anarchists wannabe-mountain-men.” I didn’t say that, I said their were both types, and let me quote myself again
Notice, because you’re really, really pushing on some sort of ideological purity, the self-described in my own statement. Again, you have set yourself up as some sort of arbiter of purity and I find that disingenuous. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, as I am 100% sure that the majority of the student-based anarchists will abandon that PoV over their years, or are indeed poseurs attempting to look cool for girls or to piss off their parents. And some will move on to a deeper understanding and try to put their ideals into effect as actual activists.
But in closing -
This is what YOU are doing, not I. You are saying all anarchists must be ideologically pure to your standards, where I’m saying that no, there are a fuckton of people who identify as such, and hold different levels of ‘purity’ in their belief and approach. You absolutely can have this opinion, as a member of the group, but so does each and every other self-described anarchist.
Okay, done with this, I’ll check back if we get back to pitting SovCits, the theoretical focus of the thread.
No. I’m insisting that your preferred definition doesn’t shape the entirety of what anarchism is. I agree that others mean many different things by the word. But that doesn’t mean my definition doesn’t exist.
…but that didn’t stop you from making comments about what anarchists (no qualifications) are.
How am I doing that when I’ve repeatedly said there are a myriad kinds of anarchist?
No, I’m not.
What I’m saying is it’s a mistake to make statements about “anarchists” based off a skewed sample.
If you’d kept your initial statement to “some anarchists”, this whole discussion wouldn’t be happening.
No disagreement here. I know an entire spectrum of different sorts of anarchists, from individual- to communist- to -primitivist, and different levels of commitment from live-in-commune to merely-think-it’s-a-good-idea.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t lifestylers and poseurs, though.
Cite: Kids I knew in school who would draw the anarchist “A” symbol on things and had no idea what it meant. 
Yeah, I see that and I think punk, not anarchist, and pretty much always have. At least, no activist anarchists I know use it - they’re all using the black flag or one of the black/ flags.
Yeah, next to the anarchist sign you would see almost always the obligatory Dead Kennedys logo and the incantation “Punx not dead”, around 1982/83.
They’ve been sold the bill of goods that
- The vast, vast majority of people don’t know the magic words and cluelessly go along with the System.
- The few who do know say the magic words and they do get away with it. The System does in fact let them get away with it. But the System keeps that secret very hush-hush so everybody else doesn’t catch on. So the Believers believe because it does work. Or so they think until they’re face-down by the roadside learning their first lesson in real reality, not fantasy reality.
It would be fun to see video of these idiots in the courtroom when a judge has his say in the matter.
Oh there are plenty of videos. A&E even got in on it.
They don’t disappoint.