I call my mindset unideology. I only use three labels to describe myself: Non-sophist philosopher, sovereign, and nonaggressionist.

The first simply means philosopher, a word so abused that I add non-sophist just to clarify. I claim to reach conclusions based on logic and evidence, and am happy to be told of errors or updates in either.

Sovereign and nonaggressionist are explained in the next paragraph. I conclude philosophical discussion is impossible without these.

Murray Rothbard wrote: "The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or 'mixes his labor with'. From these twin axioms -- self-ownership and 'homesteading' -- stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles." (From Law and Property Rights)

Thus I¹ repent of and disavow the toxic culture of initiating emotional and physical violence² I was born into and until recently repeated. I sincerely apologize if these former actions included you and I'm open to further discussion if you so desire. I further apologize, including to myself  ³, for all the resources wasted⁴ and for all the former dysfunctionality.

My birth middle name, Vincent, means "to conquer"... My parents both had college degrees, and I consider them as I was until recently: More traumatized and trained than educated. But I didn't file for government⁵ permission to change my middle name from Vincent to Sovereign Nonaggressionist because I don't recognize those people's ownership of me as they claim by giving me a tax farm livestock inventory tag called a social security number.

So if you respect others' authority more than self ownership, you'll also expect me to avoid talking about the combined scam of religion, toxic culture, and politics (i.e., pseudo economics). Therein lies the rub:
  - My thing is truth⁶. Recently I've been converting my lifestyle to nonviolently resist coercive facades and falsehoods such as government. This includes verbally disagreeing or simply leaving the area when people spout falsehoods countering self ownership and nonaggression. So please be aware:
    -- I'm of the atheist persuasion and I consider religion, spirituality, and the Orwellian context of "metaphysics"⁷ as child abuse and brainbinding. If you want your children religionized, you may not want me around and I'll respect that in word and action until they're no longer children. At that point it's up to them, not you.
    -- I don't recognize any authority that I didn't personally and voluntarily contract for. I recognize the firepower and rape rooms some so called authorities have, but that's all.
    -- To me the word argument is a good thing in the context of logically debating point-by-point; i.e., making a case. If you consider truth secondary to point by point logical examination, or if you simply repackage others' thinking as "truth," you and I will spend minimal time communicating.
    -- Yes, most people will say I'm "way out there", "certifiably insane", or even an example of why promises limiting government such as the Bill of Rights are out of date.
  - I often hear the argument "There's never been and never will be a successful anarchist (or libertarian, nonaggressionist, voluntaryist, etc.) society." My reply:
    -- This is the argument for practicality over morality. It's identical to the one used against abolitionists that ending slavery was impractical. Abolitionists countered that practicality was no excuse for immorality. The argument for practicality over morality, also called positivism (or in Henry Kissinger's words, "realpolitik") over natural law, is a fruitless and bottomless pit for three reasons: It's immoral, we can only speculate about the future, and history has shown morality over practicality to most enable most human flourishing.
    -- To me the the term libertarian has so many different definitions to so many different people that it's an almost useless word, and common Orwellian usage of the term anarchy refers to violent chaos. I'm talking about the AnCap society, short for Anarcho-Captalist. Anarcho refers to society not based on a minority of people taking or being given a monopoly on force. Capitalist refers to a society being based on voluntary cooperation between people; i.e., if an individual or voluntary group of individuals are productive and have a surplus, that's capital. The individual or the group can morally use that capital without owing part of it to anyone else unless they've personally and voluntarily made a prior contract. If coercion is used in connection with productivity or the surplus, it's something other than capitalism; e.g., criminality, socialism, crony capitalism, etc.
    -- To say something, e.g. abolition, is impossible because it's never been done before is false logic. As was the case at the beginning of the 1700s abolition movement, the AnCap society large enough to replace tax farms is at least 100 years away. Rather than being based on one chaotic crisis after another, it's based on:
      --- Human mental health such as children being raised nonaggressively, honestly (i.e., not lies such as religion, Santa Claus, government schooling, corporate media), starting their adulthood at 14 or 15, capable of knowing when they're being scammed, etc.; as opposed to being traumatized into the present industrialized world's dumbed-down life-long childhood patterned after Prussian serfdom; or in the case of the killing-fields and similar areas, traumatized into never having a childhood. Picasso stated that every child is an artist, that the trick is to remain one once grown. I assert the same is true of being a philosopher; i.e., being an individualist rather than a forced collectivist.
      --- Governments being rolled back eventually to zero and any remaining assets being sold in an orderly manner for entrepreneurs to provide services to those who voluntarily pay for them. Of course I can't predict 100 years from now, let alone in detail, but I see the transition along those lines. I don't see the transition happening world-wide all at once, so where it does take place, the people will need to deal with governments seeing AnCap society as low hanging fruit.
    -- The non-AnCap societies aren't what I consider "successful", so what's considered "successful" is a matter of opinion. To me the point is what form of society enables the individual and in turn the community to flourish.

(To comment on this essay: Pete Sovereign Nonaggressionist Walker at my blog. Last updated 10-5-11. Content-related factual inputs welcome, but not so much my-side-against-yours type opinions. This webpage, including essay text, is open source if not taken out of context and if credit is given to http://petewalker.org/.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹I was born when Harry Truman was the U.S. president, I had paper routes from age 11 to 14, when I had four at one time and one of my customers hired me to work at his business. Several years later he and I had a falling out, then for four years I worked on and off in between hitchhiking through almost 40 U.S. states as a party animal hippie. When a young lady and I had a baby on the way, out of ignorance I did 19 years in the USAF but became a Libertarian and took a severance package rather than retiring because military retirement is unfunded and thus paid for by the unborn and recently born -- taxation without representation. My vision at that time was to have a business, but ignorance and being a family breadwinner pressured me to work in a public school for fifteen years. What happened then is explained at About petewalker.org. So I'm presently converting my lifestyle to nonviolently resist government and the facades/falsehoods that support it. I call myself a laborer-writer in the Eric Hoffer tradition, with the writer part also being in the Herman Melville tradition; i.e., my writings may not be ever be recognized, or they may be recognized 50 years or so after my passing. I write because I'm a writer nonetheless.

² Explained in my essay Brainbinding

³Written by Bob Dylan:

Crimson flames tied through my ears
Rollin' high and mighty trapped
countless fire and flaming roads
Using ideas as my maps
"We'll meet on edges, soon," said I
Proud 'neath heated brow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
"Rip down all hate," I screamed
Lies that life is black and white
Spoke from my skull. I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers
Foundationed deep, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preached
sisters led by confusion boats
Mutiny from stern to bow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

⁴To me waste is any action or inaction unnecessarily reducing happiness.

⁵Government is a category, meaning it exists only as a concept inside of the human brain. In the physical world, there's only people who transfer wealth using greater firepower than possessed by those who create wealth. If the general public recognizes a group's right to do so, the group is called government; if not, organized crime. To explain what I mean by public, I define special interest as a minority who can, if they decide to and can pull it off, benefit at at the expense of the remaining majority; i.e., the public. Individuals on each side may change as events change, but the principle remains constant. I observe present human society as having four social classes, the parasite oligarchs, their enforcing parasite nobility, the producers, and the escapees who produce only for each other. This social structure is made possible by the mental unhealth I call brainbinding. What's stereotyped as social class is part of the instinctual charade to hide wealth transfer. Stereotypes take the form of who associates with who and for what reasons. These associations take the form of strata in areas like education, style, wealth, profession, contacts, etc. Whether all the above is done by conspiracy, social inertia, or both is an interesting but merely academic question often becoming an unproductive tangent to problem solving.

⁶Some truth is none of my business and not my thing. If the U.S. president is photographed glancing at a very young lady's posterior, that's none of my business -- it just makes a really good example of what's none of my business. If the U.S. president blatantly lies to the public in speech and action, it's my business because he (or she in the future) as a managed actor/actress uses lies and violence to victimize the public as explained in the previous footnote.

⁷Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of reality, being, and the world. In Orwellianized culture, metaphysics defaults to the mystical to help deprive people of genuine philosophy. Without genuine philosophy there would be no scientific method and there will be no further progress in human happiness.