This is the old self-insert. If you need to check the newest one, go to
Duck-Citizen
In Short
- Civically:
Anti-Authoritarianism - Economically:
Anarchy of Production - Culturally:
Nihilism - Environmental policy: Nihilism
- National policy: Nihilism
- Religious policy: Nihilism
- Gender policy: Nihilism
- Political organization: Do whatever you can. Its better than doing nothing.
Social Contract
War of all against all never actually ended, we might say that social contract was established in 
Switzerland and 
USA, but certainly not anywhere else. Social contract by definiton is a consent to surrender some of your freedoms in exchange for protection of your remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. Many libertarians believe in the NAP, non-agression principle, but it is basically a natural right, which automatically applied on all human beings. Instead I want a non-agression contract, only those who accepted it recieve it's benefits and limitations. To end the war we need to sign one, and anyone who will refuse it, just prefer a "state of nature", thus will be treated as enemies. Everything further will only describe society that is bound by this agreement. Relationships with those who aren't can be described with one of the Anarchy of international relations theories.
Left or 
Right
People form a voluntary association based on the agreement they made. It wouldn't be constant, since people change their mind, they might start to dislike their agreement in the future. There is no need for specific economic model, but probably they will agree on 
Gift Economy or 
Barter/Currency Exchange.
How land for individual ownership will be distributed is only a concern of the agreement, it means all members must be satisfied with borders they want to establish, which makes property collective concept.
I don't believe in labor theory of value, not going to follow anarchists tradition of 
Proudhon, 
Tucker or 
Carson. Instead I prefer value subjectivity of marginalists, which among anarchists is only used by 
Ancaps.
I'm not sure what economic model aligns with this, but I guess it is 
Coop-Capitalism.
Auth or 
Libert
Since association is voluntary relations are purely anarchic, people that break the agreement will probably leave by themself or start to work against association, which will lead to their death. Nothing can be said about it's position on compass, and it have "right" to do anything. It can be subjugated by stronger individuals or it can subjugate all others, act like an 
oligarchy class inside of hierarchical structure, you might say it is authoritarian, but aren't other ideologies define enemies somehow to act against them, doesn't it make all anarchists, liberals or libertarians authoritarian? I believe we should have freedom to define as enemy anyone we desire. I cannot predict whether equal stances of relations between associations are possible.
Technological progress 
Industrialism and mass society are closely related, but mass society is impossible without coercion, if we value individual we must put pursute of progress aside. But don't misunderstand me, I'm not against such progress, I even believe it is vital for survival.
Philosophical Part
I don't believe that philosophy is important, but my ideological beliefs demands me to accept philosophical ideas, I'm going backwards for this: 
Materialism is false because it would mean that freedom doesn't exist since I am unable to make a choice. 
Solipsism is false as well because it would mean that there is no difference between laws of physics and human coercion. So, I am either Pluralist or 
Idealist, whatever provides better explanation of Metaphisical Libertarianism. Science cannot accept such concept because it is externalist since Newton, which means I have to accept that people have soul. There is no necessity for god and afterlife, so I'm not religious.
Various thoughts
Anarchy(ism) 
Many people raise here Ancient Greek translation of this word, but do we actually care? I do not accept authority of the dictionary nor authority of majority, as long as people understand what I mean - it is fine. So for me anarchy is absence of coercion, it means no individual can enforce his will upon you, so to achieve Anarchy you either need to kill everyone or to become the strongest individual, both of them are utopian goals that cannot be achieved, however you can create anarchic relations inside this world of endless coercion, form a unity where everyone use each other out of common interest. You don't need to view anarchy as a political regime, but type of relation between people, you already formed anarchy with people that you call friends, you only need to expand this network.
Why we should all become post-structuralists
Modern state supporters often say conflicting things, you shouldn't try to find coherent beliefs, they can present one value today and mirror opposite of it tomorrow. It is because they have no values, only the will to power and it makes them stronger, Machiavellian idea that amorality makes individual stronger, combined with rejection of metanarrative allows them to win any debate, once you give them any idea you believe is important, they will deconstruct it and use against you.
This is why we need to accept that metanarratives doesn't exist. You have only two options, become statist, and accept that only power accomulation matters, or take freedom of association, because there is nothing else what you can offer against them.
Critique of Voluntaryism
Voluntaryism as an ideology have a very simple foundation: coercion is bad, voluntary relations are good. However such approach can only be possible if we know for sure what is coercion, supporters of Volutaryism state that theft is a coercion, why ownership isn't? It means this ideology proclaims specific moral code everyone should follow, it doesn't make difference with the state, which also enforces it's understanding of morality. You can agree that morality is universal and then, such system will make sense for you, but I hold belief in moral subjectivism, people can do even the most horrible acts, morality didn't stop them therefore it doesn't work. The only solution for myself I found is to attempt to create individual voluntary society with only my understanding of morality, if people agree with my view on morality then we can work together, if people can partially agree with me on such basic things as life and property, then we can leave each other alone, if people belief my existence is coercion of them, then there can be no other solution.
Anarchism was always anti-democratic
‘Government of the people’ no, because this presupposes what could never happen – complete unanimity of will of all the individuals that make up the people. It would be closer to the truth to say, ‘government of the majority of the people.’ This implies a minority that must either rebel or submit to the will of others. - 
Errico Malatesta (1853-1932)
It is becoming understood that majority rule is as defective as any other kind of rule; and humanity searches and finds new channels for resolving the pending questions. - 
Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)
When, among a hundred men one man dominates ninety-nine, it is iniquity, it is despotism; when ten dominate ninety, it is injustice; it is oligarchy; when fifty-one dominate forty-nine, then it is justice, then it is liberty. Could one imagine anything more ridiculous, more absurd, then this reasoning? However, this is the very one that serves as a basic principle for every one who extolls better social conditions. - 
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)
Direct or indirect, simple or complex, governing the people will always be swindling the people. It is always man giving orders to man, the fiction which makes an end to liberty; - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865)
Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. - 
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
In short, we reject all legislation, all authority and every privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even that arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can only ever turn to the advantage of a dominant, exploiting minority and against the interests of the immense, subjugated majority. It is in this sense that we are really Anarchists. - 
Makhail Bakunin (1814-1876)
Markets are literally everywhere
Market is an act of voluntary exchange, but it extends beyond just material exchange, you can buy services, doesn't matter which: someone can teach you, talk with you on a specific topic you want, touch you, whatever you want. On the other side you can use almost anything as a currency if the other side will agree on such payment: money, gold, iron rods, cycle of lections, other types of information or 5 minutes of silence. As you notice just by talking with someone you already participate in a market exchange, since person agrees to give you information under the certain conditions. Now, lets try to imagine a world where markets are abolished: everything is taken by plunder, every human being seen only as a package of stuff, with only difference of how hard is it to take. No communication, no cooperation. People are no longer rational, since making alliance with even 1 person will make your life safer when you sleep, they should all be identical with such attitude. Certainly something we never saw anywhere on Earth.
Propaganda doesn't exist
Let's see the definition: Communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
"Communication that is used to influence or persuade", this is basically any communication, you don't need to say anything if you don't want to do it. "not be objective" Can anyone say an objective truth? With sole excepton of Plato's "I know that I know nothing", you cannot say the truth and you cannot know how closer you are to the truth compare to other statements. "selectively presenting facts" nobody is able to tell every detail because a choice between important and unimportant information is subjective.
Thus, I can conclude that anything people are telling you is a propaganda, therefore we can shorten the equation and instead of propaganda simply say information. Any fight against propaganda is just an attempt to clean the field for your propaganda.
Alignments
Positive
- Neotribalism - Oh God, it is literally me!
Ego-Mutualism - Only might and contract exist. Tucker managed to find a way out from Stirner's grim conclusion for anarchists.
Separatism - The State's property right supported only by might.
Existentialist Anarchism - There will never be the end of the history.
Social Anarchism - If Inky is right on this one, I generally like stance on property and acceptance of market economy.
Illegalism - Initially I was against such association, but actually it have nothing in common with organized crime. Anyway, such activism today is a direct road to jail.
Kleftism - Same thing with illegalism, but also good to troll ego-communists.
Agrarian Anarchism - This is where radical individualism leads to. But still viable because others will not be them.
Global Capitalism - Preferable to imperialism and I don't think we will ever get an alternative.
Neutral
Panarchism - If only morality was universal...- Voluntaryism - I know some theorists there that reject natural rights, but I guess common image of this ideology envisioned like Radical Liberalism.
Avaritionism - Hedonism is an option too, but I am not taking this, however if it is true and all people do only what they want, then I am indeed an avaritionist.
Anarcho-Communism - Direct democracy inside of commune is probably as close as it can be to statelessness, just don't put it above people, general critique is their belief that planned economy doesn't create authority by itself. But gift economy wing is probably based.
Anarcho-Distributism - What I like in distributism is that it doesn't include what marxists would call "wage slavery" into unethical category which leads them to the conclusion that those people must be "liberated", but distributism comes from a religious background as the kingdom of God on Earth, advocates for mild primitivism and also treats family sacred, I love my family but I don't think everyone is equally lucky as much as me.
Catholic Workerism - This is just a second name of AnDistr, but work is good, everyone should work.
Eco-Anarchism - I can imagine them as people who just thinks about their own future, but do they stop there? Eco-centrism can lead to many hurtful conclusions for individuals, do they actually view me, destroying nature as something indirectly coercing them? Actually a legitimate question.
Morality - I don't mind people having any of them, and I hold some moral believes as well, it's fine as long as people don't expect all others to follow it.
Negative
Individualist Socialism - Not a fan of anti-work, it also advocates for abolishment of any property whatsoever, explains socialism like its heaven on earth: no pain, no hardships.
Anarcho-Syndicalism - Vanguard anarchism, if we look on it by Catalonia example, many workers were put under pressure to join collectivization and central planning endeavor, doesn't look like anarchism for me.
Platformism - Vanguard anarchism again, mostly agrarian this time, initially it was perfect economy wise, since people supported army voluntary, but civically I doubt you will argue that Theoretical unity is a restriction of speech.
Hydrarchy - Hard to imagine more restrictive society than a ship crew, everyone must work precicely, like a cog, for ship to move. And when naval boarding starts? Don't see where it is anarchist when people talk about pirates.
Anti-Work - It doesn't work.
Situationism - It is so easy to put failure of your ideas on propaganda. But putting it aside, since 1960 left-wing ideas winning everywhere, 90% of the philosophers, screenwriter, writers are socialists or around that, evil corporation became cliche, critique of capitalism is literally everywhere.
Moral Nihilism - I don't think it's possible to live without goal in mind.
Totalitarianism - Probably the only theory that stands on the way of free association, and because of that it would be impossible to practice anarchism.
Friendly
Heinrich-Cheungism - His endgoal is horrible.
Techno-Esoteric Fascism - Did something change? Also uploading mind in a computer will kill your soul.
Inkyism - His endgoal is fine, except the planned economy part.
Misgnomer Thought - Literally all marxists I met are incredibly aggressive. But with you I can talk just fine.
Ideologically close
Vesselism - Basically me, but hey, what's the deal with virtue ethics?
Lexsiek - Transhumanism is nice as a mean to live normal life for people that did survive horrible incidents, but brain modifications or replacement is basically a murder. I'm not against euthanasia or right to suicide anyway. I don't believe agorism will make any change, but doing something is better than doing nothing.
Bsaheedism - Wholesome individual.
Ego-Progressivism - You probably didn't mean it, you define progressivism as an abscense of cultural rules, meanwhile I see how progressive people prescriptive, how they punish people for not being progressive enough, both conservatism and progressivism should be left behind liberty. I have no hope for anti-work project, everything we use is created by people, if everyone will work when they want - we all run out of vital products and start to work out of need again, not everything can be reformed into play.
AshleyHere Thought - Based social and individual anarchism synthesis.
Quartzism - Apparently I'm not original.
HelloThere314ism - You choose to not act against the state? You are preoccupied with fight against thoughts that you forget about real, physical pressure you are put under.
Negotiable
I wouldn't want to live in their vision of the perfect society, but atleast they give right to secess.
Beryism - I have contradictionary feeling, on the one hand he is ok with self determination i.e not participating in his system, on the other he is georgist, system that treats anyone who holds land as a thief.
Potashism - Not against market relationships.
XarTario - A lot of state coercion, but allows to separate from it.
Tomjazzism - Confederalism is nice. You like Mutualism, I can't align myself with it since it believes in labor theory of value, you might not like it too, idk. And also another "objective" idea, is universal morality, I really would like to learn what theory backs it up.
Neo-Kiraism - You have some sentiment toward decentralized socialism but other part of you is full destruction of markets (Capitalism in marxian language), you dream for the future where people like me are gone, this cannot be achieved in a confederacy, you need a concil of people that understand marxism very well, and they need to terror all "reactionaries", even if they are from proletariat. This is an oligarchy by definition, but why should anybody believe this small group of people, with unlimited power, be ready to work for your interest and not their interest? But for now I will hope you are not like that and closer to Neozapatismo you are influenced from.
Opponents
Bruhman Thought - Unironically accepts Engels' theory that all slavs should be gone, I am Slavic genetically, so it is in my best interest to oppose his communism.
The Iced - Still federalism.
- Federalism as well.
Pantheonism - I don't want to pay taxes.
Xirlan Thought - You believe people in power should do what you want, work in your interest, without even checks and balance, just a benevolent oligarchy.- File:Vermaatism2.png Vermaatism - You just want to kill all people.
Owfism - The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And your intentions are good, freedom of individual, prosperity, peace, if only you pay taxes, after all taxes is a price for living in the society, but this isn't my society, I didn't made it, it just going to take me and tell me what to do. Freedom of speech, civil liberties are just a way for a the state to maximize it's benefits, just like monarchs found that when you give a small piece of land to your feudal, and give him freedom to do whatever he wants to do for a price, it generates more wealth, you claim to be influenced my Machiavelli, then tell me what is going to be an incentive to rule, when everything is so fair for the people?
.png){kind=small}
