Who are the anarchists really?!

[acptulsa]

Both of the identical halves of tptb, but especially the neocons, have been having a good time painting us as anarchists. Being minarchists, I don't guess we can blame their victims for buying that bull. That said, who are the anarchists really?

Most people fear anarchy because they can't imagine people trying to get along with each other without the rule of law as a tool of human interaction. And yet--which is a greater threat to the rule of law--too few of them or too many?

Is it more of a threat to the rule of law that there are few enough that a child can keep track of them all, or is it a greater threat if the body of law is so extensive that no one--not even the experts--could possibly know them all?

Is it more of an aid to the rule of law that there are so many things declared illegal that the police have probable cause to check you out if you sneeze, or is it a greater aid to the rule of law if not everyone has reason to fear the police?

Is it a greater threat to the rule of law if people know that the authors of that law are bigger than it is, or is it a greater threat to the rule of law if the law stands above all and everyone knows that even those who write them must obey them?

Who is trying to destroy America's tradition of the rule of law? Us? Bah--humbug. Time for us to take the moral high ground!

[roho76]

Both of the identical halves of tptb, but especially the neocons, have been having a good time painting us as anarchists. Being minarchists, I don't guess we can blame their victims for buying that bull. That said, who are the anarchists really?

Most people fear anarchy because they can't imagine people trying to get along with each other without the rule of law as a tool of human interaction. And yet--which is a greater threat to the rule of law--too few of them or too many?

Is it more of a threat to the rule of law that there are few enough that a child can keep track of them all, or is it a greater threat if the body of law is so extensive that no one--not even the experts--could possibly know them all?

Is it more of an aid to the rule of law that there are so many things declared illegal that the police have probable cause to check you out if you sneeze, or is it a greater aid to the rule of law if not everyone has reason to fear the police?

Is it a greater threat to the rule of law if people know that the authors of that law are bigger than it is, or is it a greater threat to the rule of law if the law stands above all and everyone knows that even those who write them must obey them?

Who is trying to destroy America's tradition of the rule of law? Us? Bah--humbug. Time for us to take the moral high ground!

+1

[Truth Warrior]

"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

:D

[heavenlyboy34]

both of the identical halves of tptb, but especially the neocons, have been having a good time painting us as anarchists. Being minarchists, i don't guess we can blame their victims for buying that bull. That said, who are the anarchists really?

Most people fear anarchy because they can't imagine people trying to get along with each other without the rule of law as a tool of human interaction. And yet--which is a greater threat to the rule of law--too few of them or too many?

Is it more of a threat to the rule of law that there are few enough that a child can keep track of them all, or is it a greater threat if the body of law is so extensive that no one--not even the experts--could possibly know them all?

Is it more of an aid to the rule of law that there are so many things declared illegal that the police have probable cause to check you out if you sneeze, or is it a greater aid to the rule of law if not everyone has reason to fear the police?

Is it a greater threat to the rule of law if people know that the authors of that law are bigger than it is, or is it a greater threat to the rule of law if the law stands above all and everyone knows that even those who write them must obey them?

who is trying to destroy america's tradition of the rule of law? Us? Bah--humbug. Time for us to take the moral high ground!

+1776 ;):d What's the best issue to start with, In your opinion?

[LibertyEagle]

Both of the identical halves of tptb, but especially the neocons, have been having a good time painting us as anarchists. Being minarchists, I don't guess we can blame their victims for buying that bull. That said, who are the anarchists really?

Most people fear anarchy because they can't imagine people trying to get along with each other without the rule of law as a tool of human interaction. And yet--which is a greater threat to the rule of law--too few of them or too many?

Is it more of a threat to the rule of law that there are few enough that a child can keep track of them all, or is it a greater threat if the body of law is so extensive that no one--not even the experts--could possibly know them all?

Is it more of an aid to the rule of law that there are so many things declared illegal that the police have probable cause to check you out if you sneeze, or is it a greater aid to the rule of law if not everyone has reason to fear the police?

Is it a greater threat to the rule of law if people know that the authors of that law are bigger than it is, or is it a greater threat to the rule of law if the law stands above all and everyone knows that even those who write them must obey them?

Who is trying to destroy America's tradition of the rule of law? Us? Bah--humbug. Time for us to take the moral high ground!

Obviously, right now, it's the government who has overstepped its bounds.

I'm not an anarchist, but since we both agree that a great deal of government has to be dismantled, we can fight together to achieve those ends. We just disagree on how far to take it. I want government dismantled back to a Constitutional level; while anarchists want it completely gone. We have so very far to go until this argument would come into play, we should be able to work together for a very long time.

I am confused about one thing you said however. It has to do with the rule of law. Under anarchy, is there any rule of law?


Most people fear anarchy because they can't imagine people trying to get along with each other without the rule of law as a tool of human interaction. And yet--which is a greater threat to the rule of law--too few of them or too many?



Is it a greater threat to the rule of law if people know that the authors of that law are bigger than it is, or is it a greater threat to the rule of law if the law stands above all and everyone knows that even those who write them must obey them?

[acptulsa]

+1776 ;):d What's the best issue to start with, In your opinion?

It was my opinion that you start by taking issue with anyone who calls all libertarians 'anarchists'. They're trying to short circuit our best arguments when they do it. Ensure they fail.

If this general subject is the whole of the conversation, find out what part of this overreaching, overbearing body of law we now have pisses them off the most, and start there. No small part of our victory when we have it will be us learning to convince the leadfooted driver that the business owner isn't being overly harsh or silly when he rails against OSHA, and the business owner that he has more valuable allies than he knows in fast drivers who are sick of paying for, and carrying around, a thousand pounds' worth of dangerous airbags. We can have all the strangest bedfellowes if we can show them what they all have in common.


We have so very far to go until this argument would come into play, we should be able to work together for a very long time.

Interesting how a comment so rife with the tragic can make me smile. But there it is--the more carried away the government gets, the more allies they make for us. If we have the sense to ally ourselves with them.

And as for the anarchists' rule of law, at least most casual observers would say there is no such thing. I guess the old rock lyric best describes how those who love it most do it the most harm:

Hold on loosely, but don't let go
If you cling too tightly, you're going to lose control.

As soon as the rule of law ceases to be a means and becomes the end unto itself, it loses purpose and thus it loses legitimacy. It ceases to be there for the purpose of promoting civilization and becomes an instrument of control for control's sake.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

[LibertyEagle]

Acptulsa,

Don't you think we'd be more effective if we stopped with the labeling and just focused on principles and solutions for how to fix this mess we are now in?

There's a reason why the MSM attaches labels. We can spend all our time trying to convince people that Libertarians aren't really pedophiles and druggies, or we can focus on principles and solutions. There is really a lot in common between everyone in the various parties. Maybe we should focus on that.

[Truth Warrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

[acptulsa]

Acptulsa,

Don't you think we'd be more effective if we stopped with the labeling and just focused on principles and solutions for how to fix this mess we are now in?

There's a reason why the MSM attaches labels. We can spend all our time trying to convince people that Libertarians aren't really pedophiles and druggies, or we can focus on principles and solutions. There is really a lot in common between everyone in the various parties. Maybe we should focus on that.

Sure. Thing is, we still get labeled. Often. With unswerving determination, even. That's why I'm always looking for ways to make the point in question and bash the latest manufactured myth about us at the same time. This isn't really a call to wander around saying to every neocon, "Hey, you're a more effective anarchist than I am." But in the course of another argument, it can be a highly effective parry/thrust move. So, I recommend the food for thought.

Whether they should or not, casual observers will try to decide who sounds more sane--especially if they're having trouble following the argument. That's why they try to paint us the way they try to paint us. That said, we can try to paint them, or we can make it obvious that they're trying to deflect from the real issue by painting us a certain way. And that sort of manipulation can really piss off those casual observers who are the intended victims of it.

So, stop calling the liberals this or that, and stop calling the neocons this or that. Just be ready to call them on everything--and I do mean everything--they try to pin on us. "You're calling me an anarchist? But if your buddies Dubya and Cheney, not to mention Villiers and Lay and Daschle and their ilk, weren't so busy trying to avoid complying with the laws they wrote and spent more time trying to codify a body of law they and everyone else could obey, would not the rule of law be stronger today? So, let's not distract everyone by implying who does and doesn't appreciate the rule of law, as you don't have a leg to stand on."

[LibertyEagle]

I see. It's a good suggestion.

[sdczen]

These posts about Anarchy are frustrating.

Is there something wrong with Anarchy? Really? I believe that most people don't understand the definition of what Anarchy is. The media propaganda over the last 50 years has everyone thinking that Anarchists are violent, destructive people that run amok. That is simply not true.

Take for example the recent riots in Greece. Somehow, the people that were protesting were labeled as Anarchists, both by the media and by themselves. That is just like the media calling the RP supporters anarchists in the context of us being violent, which, is simply not the case. The rioting people in Greece were nothing more than an angry mob. They wanted justice for government acts of brutality and wanted governmental change. Where does the Anarchy fit in? Just because they smashed up private buildings and threw stones at the police? Still, not anarchy. Under this description, we could also call the Icelanders whom overthrew their government in violent protests Anarchists too? Oh wait, they just wanted a new government ruler.

Anarchy is very basic. No government. This doesn't mean that the people will run around raping and pillaging just because they think the lawdogs don't exist anymore. Most people won't rape & pillage, steal or harm others. The people that do, will incur the well justified wrath of the people they harm. I know it's hard to think that Anarchy could actually work. But, if we look at the Native Americans, they were in a state of Anarchy and they coexisted along with many other tribes for centuries.

[Truth Warrior]

Take "anarchy" back to the original Greek roots.

"without a ruler"

;) :)


Hasn't "archy" worked out well? :D

[heavenlyboy34]

These posts about Anarchy are frustrating.

Is there something wrong with Anarchy? Really? I believe that most people don't understand the definition of what Anarchy is. The media propaganda over the last 50 years has everyone thinking that Anarchists are violent, destructive people that run amok. That is simply not true.

Take for example the recent riots in Greece. Somehow, the people that were protesting were labeled as Anarchists, both by the media and by themselves. That is just like the media calling the RP supporters anarchists in the context of us being violent, which, is simply not the case. The rioting people in Greece were nothing more than an angry mob. They wanted justice for government acts of brutality and wanted governmental change. Where does the Anarchy fit in? Just because they smashed up private buildings and threw stones at the police? Still, not anarchy. Under this description, we could also call the Icelanders whom overthrew their government in violent protests Anarchists too? Oh wait, they just wanted a new government ruler.

Anarchy is very basic. No government. This doesn't mean that the people will run around raping and pillaging just because they think the lawdogs don't exist anymore. Most people won't rape & pillage, steal or harm others. The people that do, will incur the well justified wrath of the people they harm. I know it's hard to think that Anarchy could actually work. But, if we look at the Native Americans, they were in a state of Anarchy and they coexisted along with many other tribes for centuries.

+1 I like you. Thanks for coming to the forums! :D

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

What is so wrong with a government that leaves anarchists alone. We do not need government.
Obviously, these fools that are afraid of anarchists need someone to hold their hand and tell them what to do. I would not seek to tear down their government. The last thing I want is throngs of angry statists free to run around raping, stealing, killing, and otherwise trying to do what governments do. It is the threat of anarchist calling them on their shit that keeps government from doing everything they want.

[Truth Warrior]

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

[acptulsa]

These posts about Anarchy are frustrating.

I well and truly understand. Even so, sorry but it ain't my fight.

That said, I do very much appreciate you, as a person who would do away with the rule of law for everyone equally, much much more than I appreciate someone who would do away with the rule of law only for a select group, and use it to keep the rest underfoot! Rest assured!

[Truth Warrior]

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

[MGreen]

That said, I do very much appreciate you, as a person who would do away with the rule of law for everyone equally, much much more than I appreciate someone who would do away with the rule of law only for a select group, and use it to keep the rest underfoot! Rest assured!
I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, but a first step in working together is understanding and respecting the beliefs of those you're working with. Anarchists do not believe in doing away with the rule of law, but government law. We believe law can be upheld through the market.

Not that anarchists and minarchists should ever spend substantial amounts of time squabbling with each other. As you said, we have a long way to go before the distinction between anarchy and minarchy is of any importance. I don't believe any government at any level has any just authority over people, but for now I'd support moving power from the federal government to the states, and then the states to the local communities. We both are fighting for decentralization, and some of us want it more decentralized than others.

[sdczen]

+1 I like you. Thanks for coming to the forums! :D

Thanks! I'm happy to be here. It's nice to have a forum to discuss things with like minded people. I believe the end goal is mutual.......To be left alone by TPTB

[LibertyEagle]

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

Do you not understand that when you post this divisive crap, all it does is do just that?

Or, is that your goal?

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks! I'm happy to be here. It's nice to have a forum to discuss things with like minded people. I believe the end goal is mutual.......To be left alone by TPTB

You'll find, sadly, that some members have difficulty imagining life without relying on TPTB. :(:p There are several folks here who I like in that regard, tho(that is, they shun TPTB). Hang around and you'll find some good posts hither and thither. :)

TTYL,
HB34.

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you not understand that when you post this divisive crap, all it does is do just that?

Or, is that your goal?

How is this article divisive? :confused: I've read it, and didn't find it any more divisive than RP's debate and rally speeches.

[LibertyEagle]

How is this article divisive? :confused: I've read it, and didn't find it any more divisive than RP's debate and rally speeches.

The tag line, hb.

" So are all civilized men, in practice."

Inferring that anyone who is not an anarchist is not civilized.

Do you see now how this is divisive?

[Truth Warrior]

Do you not understand

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Lew posts a lot of things, TW, from a variety of viewpoints. It's far from all anarchist. Makes sense, since Ron Paul is not either. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

The tag line, hb.

" So are all civilized men, in practice."

Inferring that anyone who is not an anarchist is not civilized.

Do you see now how this is divisive?

oic. LRC is quite good with provocative titles and subtitles like that.:D :) You're right though-if it were to be published among a more diverse audience, that subtitle should be cut.

[Truth Warrior]

viewpoints


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif


"Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" -- Ron Paul

[LibertyEagle]

So much for what WAS an interesting conversation.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, well, that's the point, isn't it?

I'm happy to argue the point that most anarchists are more civilized than most tyrants. But not everyone sees this. And quite honestly, it isn't usually the thing I personally most want to argue. An anarchist has the uphill battle right from the foot of the hill. I don't feel that I'm throwing you under the bus by taking up the argument that libertarians have more respect for the rule of law than statists. I'm more just starting from the foot of my own particular hill.

I'm happy to refrain as best I can from misusing the term 'anarchist' when I do. But please understand that the subject will most often come up when my statist antagonist misuses the term on me...

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, well, that's the point, isn't it?
What? To derail the conversation?


I'm happy to argue the point that most anarchists are more civilized than most tyrants. But not everyone sees this. And quite honestly, it isn't usually the thing I personally most want to argue. An anarchist has the uphill battle right from the foot of the hill. I don't feel that I'm throwing you under the bus by taking up the argument that libertarians have more respect for the rule of law than statists.
All libertarians are not anarchists. Quite a few libertarians believe in a small, constitutionally-limited government. Do you call those people "statists"? I ask, because I know TW does, although Rothbard strongly differentiated between statists and those believing in constitutional government.


I'm more just starting from the foot of my own particular hill.

I'm happy to refrain as best I can from misusing the term 'anarchist' when I do. But please understand that the subject will most often come up when my statist antagonist misuses the term on me...
You're not the one who attempts to be divisive.

[Truth Warrior]

"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

:D

Bump!

[acptulsa]

TW, it was bumping along just fine, thanks. Quote yourself in your own threads, please sir.

Try to be nice to the anarchists, and what do you get?

Sorry, LE, what was the question again? Do I consider myself, as a libertarian, also a statist? Well, nooo...

[heavenlyboy34]

Bump!

Bumpity bump! http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gif;)

[Truth Warrior]

The Rockwell Manifesto (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/left-right-and-state.html)
Lew Rockwell on The Left, the Right, and the State.

[Truth Warrior]

TW, it was bumping along just fine, thanks. Quote yourself in your own threads, please sir.

Try to be nice to the anarchists, and what do you get?

Sorry, LE, what was the question again? Do I consider myself, as a libertarian, also a statist? Well, nooo...

Yep, I can see how post #32 REALLY screwed up your thread. :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

And now for a word from our sponsor--or, at least, TW's sponsor.


The Rockwell Manifesto (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/left-right-and-state.html)
Lew Rockwell on The Left, the Right, and the State.

This is the Liberty Forest blog network. It's two ten eastern time.

*chimes*

We'll be right back after a word from HB's sponsor.

http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gif

[Truth Warrior]

And now for a word from our sponsor--or, at least, TW's sponsor.



This is the Liberty Forest blog network. It's two ten eastern time.

*chimes*

We'll be right back after a word from HB's sponsor.

http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gif

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

[M House]

I'm not getting this "anarchism" stuff. You mean no government thus no economy except barter or private?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll have you know that bunchies is everyone's sponsor. ;):)


And now for a word from our sponsor--or, at least, TW's sponsor.



This is the Liberty Forest blog network. It's two ten eastern time.

*chimes*

We'll be right back after a word from HB's sponsor.

http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gifhttp://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gif

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not getting this "anarchism" stuff. You mean no government thus no economy except barter or private?

You chicken? ;)

[M House]

I like some commercial goods so alittle.

[heavenlyboy34]

I like some commercial goods so alittle.

Private businesses produce commercial goods and services quite well without government control, thanks. ;):) May I ask where you did your business studies? I studied small business operation and ownership at Phoenix College. :)

[LibertyEagle]

I'll have you know that bunchies is everyone's sponsor. ;):)

Speak for yourself.

[heavenlyboy34]

Speak for yourself.

I mean in the philanthropic sense, LE. Not trying to get collectivist on you, I promise. :)

[M House]

I took adv. economics in high school. Though, there my teacher admitted it doesn't always work like it should on paper.

[Truth Warrior]

Ron Paul: What you give up on is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem. We endorse the idea of voluntarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(politics)), self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion, it never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person, it can't make you follow good habits. Why don't they put you on a diet, you're a little overweight...

The Morton Downey Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey,_Jr.) Show, July 4, 1988

[M House]

It's not really about controlling the industry, it's maintaining stable currency and preventing trade disputes which were common before we had the constitution. The rest shouldn't be their business.

[sdczen]

I'm not getting this "anarchism" stuff. You mean no government thus no economy except barter or private?

Government can't be responsible for the economy, it might think it's responsible. But, in reality it's like a 4 yr old trying to catch a greased up sheep. All they end up with is messy hands and dirty knees. Unfortunately, now they are trying to shoot it. :eek:

I believe in the end, the market will bring all the mutton busters down, as is currently happening.

[M House]

One thing about "anarchists" here is a total dodge on what you want. So no government just private businesses? You do realize some of the economic elements are governmental entities themselves. You're not gonna get what you want.

[sdczen]

It's not really about controlling the industry, it's maintaining stable currency and preventing trade disputes which were common before we had the constitution. The rest shouldn't be their business.

A stable currency is Silver or Gold (or anything else you want to barter with). It does not need a stamp of approval from government for it to work.

Trade disputes can be resolved without billions of dollars spent and multiple government agencies that cause more harm than good. Remember, there can be a rule of law without government.

[acptulsa]

Government can't be responsible for the economy, it might think it's responsible. But, in reality it's like a 4 yr old trying to catch a greased up sheep. All they end up with is messy hands and dirty knees. Unfortunately, now they are trying to shoot it. :eek:

I believe in the end, the market will bring all the mutton busters down, as is currently happening.

Shhh...! You're letting out the great secret! So long as men are not gods, anarchy always has the potential to have the last laugh. Problem for the anarchists is, nature (or at least human nature) seems to predominately abhor a vacuum. Thus there's always something--no matter how smelly--that fills that vacuum when the previous "rulers" have left it vacuous.

Much of our argument lies in the fact that the more men reach, the more they over-reach.

Thus the minarchist. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then why do none of the experts even have enough knowledge of the law to be able to honestly boast that they are in no way ignorant of it? This promotes the rule of law by......?

[sdczen]

One thing about "anarchists" here is a total dodge on what you want. So no government just private businesses? You do realize some of the economic elements are governmental entities themselves. You're not gonna get what you want.

What economic elements would they be? How do they help society or the individual?

[Truth Warrior]

Shhh...! You're letting out the great secret! So long as men are not gods, anarchy always has the potential to have the last laugh. Problem for the anarchists is, nature (or at least human nature) seems to predominately abhor a vacuum. Thus there's always something--no matter how smelly--that fills that vacuum when the previous "rulers" have left it vacuous.

Much of our argument lies in the fact that the more men reach, the more they over-reach.

Thus the minarchist. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then why do none of the experts even have enough knowledge of the law to be able to honestly boast that they are in no way ignorant of it? This promotes the rule of law by......? Yep, and they aren't any too fond of cancer either.

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State

[M House]

They don't. Group of private banks plus a group of allied businesses is all you need to have government again. It may be weak at the start but seems like with enough public support there you go again. Security is security. It'll be no better or worse.

[Truth Warrior]

What economic elements would they be? How do they help society or the individual?

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

[sdczen]

Shhh...! You're letting out the great secret! So long as men are not gods, anarchy always has the potential to have the last laugh. Problem for the anarchists is, nature (or at least human nature) seems to predominately abhor a vacuum. Thus there's always something--no matter how smelly--that fills that vacuum when the previous "rulers" have left it vacuous.

Much of our argument lies in the fact that the more men reach, the more they over-reach.

Thus the minarchist. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then why do none of the experts even have enough knowledge of the law to be able to honestly boast that they are in no way ignorant of it? This promotes the rule of law by......?

Yes, I realize that human nature strives for power and money. Hence the perfect reason government should be abolished. They only exist for your money and to maintain power. They can do what they want and do it with a straight face.

[acptulsa]

They don't. Group of private banks plus a group of allied businesses is all you need to have government again. It may be weak at the start but seems like with enough public support there you go again. Security is security. It'll be no better or worse.

And in every Western village they found the best gunfighter they could buy and hung a star on his chest.

Government is supposed to protect us from bullies. The only problem is, what sort of person exactly can do the job?

Thus the minarchist, the anarchist, and everyone else: The anarchist says, no rewarding bullies--that can't take their own reward. The minarchist says, hire your gunfighter, but don't let him forget for a second that all of the town has enough guns to kill him if they all come at once. Everyone else says, don't wake me until he's raping my daughter. And notice I said my daughter. I said nothing about yours...

We have to be vigilant with government. Yet we hire governments so we don't have to be vigilant. Maybe it is a fools' game. But I really don't see the exit.

[M House]

You give the job to me. I get the guns. I'll distribute them to you. I mean I want to make sure you've at least got a shaped-charge instead of a high-explosive to take out a tank, if it invades your village.

[powerofreason]

It's not really about controlling the industry, it's maintaining stable currency and preventing trade disputes which were common before we had the constitution. The rest shouldn't be their business.

Maintaining stable currency? Really?

You need a history lesson bud. Only the private marketplace can provide stable currency.

Some people do not seem to be able to grasp that the market (we, the producers and businessmen and laborers) and the government (parasitical criminal organization w/ propaganda arm) are entirely separate. People will find ways to work out problems and disputes on their own (and with the aid of non-government entities) because thats whats best for business. Examples: Railroad companies establishing the time-zone system, private maritime courts in Britain, the Xeer of Somalia, Common Law, so on and so forth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Maintaining stable currency? Really?

You need a history lesson bud. Only the private marketplace can provide stable currency.

Some people do not seem to be able to grasp that the market (we, the producers and businessmen and laborers) and the government (parasitical criminal organization w/ propaganda arm) are entirely separate. People will find ways to work out problems and disputes on their own (and with the aid of non-government entities) because thats whats best for business. Examples: Railroad companies establishing the time-zone system, private maritime courts in Britain, the Xeer of Somalia, Common Law, so on and so forth.

+a zillion! :D You get an A+.

[M House]

Um what do you want? I've taken history as well. Government or not somebody's gonna try to control the currency. It might not happen but when has that actually not happened in history?

[acptulsa]

Um what do you want? I've taken history as well. Government or not somebody's gonna try to control the currency. It might not happen but when has that actually not happened in history?

On Andrew Jackson's watch. Unfortunately, Ol' Hickory just couldn't manage to live forever. Gotta give him credit for trying, though.

Wonder if being on a FRN feels to him like being eternally burned in effigy?

[M House]

I think he just fought the banks alittle didn't he? He certainly didn't win.

[acptulsa]

I think he just fought the banks alittle didn't he? He certainly didn't win.

He won. Outright.

But when he died, no one manned up and stepped into his shoes. Or, at least, the public didn't find enough sense to only entrust power to someone who would continue the fight.

[M House]

According to wiki, I guess he had some success but I wouldn't call it a downright win. Sounds more like an economic fallout but atleast he removed some debt a alittle while. Definitely need to read more about it.

[heavenlyboy34]

He won. Outright.

But when he died, no one manned up and stepped into his shoes. Or, at least, the public didn't find enough sense to only entrust power to someone who would continue the fight.

Jackson's epitaph: "I killed the bank" ;):):D

[Truth Warrior]

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson) — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis." -- Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House) (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Roosevelt) (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.

[acptulsa]

According to wiki, I guess he had some success but I wouldn't call it a downright win.

Didn't happen on his watch. He left his enemies so thrashed that it didn't happen in his lifetime. What more do you want from the man? Did he have to destroy every cockroach to be considered the hero he is?

If victory is to remove all chance of a fiat currency being set up forever more, there is no victory. All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. And that's what Jackson's successors accomplished. But Jackson won.

[mediahasyou]

You make a good point. When men in power act above the law, those men make the law meaningless, thus we have anarchy.

However, the law is nothing more than words. We have always had anarchy.

Voluntary consent maintains order. The social system does not matter. Totalitarian government or anarchy or anything will maintain order as long as there is consent.

Therefore, I choose the moral system: http://voluntaryist.com/

[acptulsa]

Therefore, I choose the moral system

There you are. This massive canon of goofy laws has nothing to do with morality. If it does have anything to do with morality, it is there to try to render it meaningless.

Now, this may be a pretty advanced concept for some listeners. But there it is. Now, laws are more often (and perhaps more rightly) concerned with the common good than with morality. But if there is no morality in the underlying structure--if morality is not what the foundation for the body of law is made of--what is the point and are they good laws?

A huge part of our legal code is not supported by any discernable moral principle. And while this part may be beneficial to these people, and that part beneficial to those people, much too much of it does nothing to serve the common good.

[Truth Warrior]

There you are. This massive canon of goofy laws has nothing to do with morality. If it does have anything to do with morality, it is there to try to render it meaningless.

Now, this may be a pretty advanced concept for some listeners. But there it is. Now, laws are more often (and perhaps more rightly) concerned with the common good than with morality. But if there is no morality in the underlying structure--if morality is not what the foundation for the body of law is made of--what is the point and are they good laws?

A huge part of our legal code is not supported by any discernable moral principle. And while this part may be beneficial to these people, and that part beneficial to those people, much too much of it does nothing to serve the common good. Nah, laws are more often (and perhaps more rightly) concerned ONLY with getting the politicians elected and re elected.<IMHO> :p :rolleyes: The country can just go to HELL, just as long as they get "their's", as far as the US Congress is concerned.

[acptulsa]

Perhaps more rightly.

Right is right and that is that.

[Nate]

You make a good point. When men in power act above the law, those men make the law meaningless, thus we have anarchy.

However, the law is nothing more than words. We have always had anarchy.

Voluntary consent maintains order. The social system does not matter. Totalitarian government or anarchy or anything will maintain order as long as there is consent.

Therefore, I choose the moral system: http://voluntaryist.com/

+1

[gilliganscorner]

In the present, areas falsely labeled as 'anarchistic' have all-out violence. What happens in those areas is that multiple groups are competing TO BE THE NEW GOVERNMENT. The stakes are high, because the winner gets to loot and pillage a large area, having a violence monopoly that the cattle perceive as legitimate. Those areas are not a valid counter-example to real free markets, because none of the participants have been convinced 'Who needs a monopolistic State anyway?'

[Truth Warrior]

In the present, areas falsely labeled as 'anarchistic' have all-out violence. What happens in those areas is that multiple groups are competing TO BE THE NEW GOVERNMENT. The stakes are high, because the winner gets to loot and pillage a large area, having a violence monopoly that the cattle perceive as legitimate. Those areas are not a valid counter-example to real free markets, because none of the participants have been convinced 'Who needs a monopolistic State anyway?'

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State

[powerofreason]

bump for truth