VIDEO: Why a Republic is Superior to Anarchy.

[Chosen]

Excellent video, pass it on:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

The authoritarian collectivists have really been pushing anarchy because it has worked for them in the past. You may experience it lately on many forums you frequent. There will be bizarre extremists claiming to be for freedom and Liberty, some may even say they are minarchists...This is because in the past, anarchy has provided the possible deterioration of societies to the point where a tyrant can gain control. It should be fought against as it will be our undoing.

For the childish and illiterates who reference the dictionary for facts...
In the end anarchy means no rule and only no ruler by default as implied by the suffix. In Greek "an" does not mean without. Absolutely not. It is an adjustment of the suffix. ARCHY means RULES, not ruler! In construction the definition (since you have descended to such a juvenile footing) is to manage without rules. The "y" indicates action taken by the suffix, as in monarch-y. Rule by a monarch. The Greeks had NO consideration of anything other than ruler or no ruler. There was no gray area or idea of individual sovereign. In fact, the word was invented for the sole purpose of providing an anti-thesis to the definition of mob rule by an oligarchy.

Minarchists, which are not anarchists think somehow that a very small government designed only to protect the rights of others would be possible and the real kicker is that they believe that the government would operate off small donations! Enough said about this bizarre political theory.

To dispel the myths currently about anarchy, one has to wade thru quite a bit of extremist and radical nonsense. But it is better to look at where this recent tirade of incompetence is coming from. Many extremist Libertarians believe that their roots are in anarchy, that our roots as Americans are in anarchy. One school of thought is philosophical, the other is empirical. To say that America has roots in anarchy (as is the flavor of the week with the social outcasts turned politicos- anarchists) is so far from the truth it is mind boggling. Our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with anarchy or its condition. They knew that a Constitutional Republic was what would be the most minimal and preserving of freedom.



Observe the video as it explains quite perfectly what a Constitutional Republic actually is and what anarchy is and why it doesn't work....And for you bloated sense of entitlement millennials infected with vanity and narcissism, don't worry its only 10 minutes. You can get back to checking your myspace page and facebook shortly. Your false sense of self worth won't suffer.

America=Republic. Americans are not anarchists, they are constitutional moderates. No examples of minarchistic societies exist and of course there are no anarchistic societies. We do have an example of a Republic under siege by an authoritarian oligarchy...

[torchbearer]

Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
Can't have property rights with no law.

[Chosen]

"Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; 'nail knocks out nail,' as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but any one who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power. Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him."
Aristotle

[Chosen]

Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
Can't have property rights with no law.
Seriously, try reading what is written. Put your malignant narcissism aside for one second. The comments are to the oft presented notion that Americans are in effect anarchists.

Besides you need to keep tabs on your wacky homeboys:
http://libertariananarchy.com/

[pcosmar]

Point / Counterpoint

http://www.nowpublic.com/spp-agent-provocateur-cops-caught-red-handed-attempting-incite-violence

[torchbearer]

Seriously, try reading what is written. Put your malignant narcissism aside for one second. The comments are to the oft presented notion that Americans are in effect anarchists.

Besides you need to keep tabs on your wacky homeboys:
http://libertariananarchy.com/

Let me make a website called Christiananarchist, because, you know, if i go around calling myself that.. and make a website.. then it must be so.
Shouldn't you be on the border shooting mexicans?

[pcosmar]

COINTELPRO
the real enemy.
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIcd.htm

[sdczen]

Why are you so determined to place your boot on the necks of us, that don't want to be ruled? It's interesting how much you go on about these "Anarchists" you so loathe, when we're all being stifled by a fascist oligarchy. Shouldn't you be targeting them?

We may end up as a nation of laws; however, in order to keep the laws minimal I would suggest having a strong non-aggressive Anarchist tendencies to keep the temptation of the every growing & tyrannical government at bay. Remember, government by nature grows until it destroys itself.

Every government from the first days of history have fallen at the expense of the people and this one is no different.

[bossman068410]

Your arguments are well thought out.

What I am worried about is the General Perception of ANARCHIST.
If they paint us a ANARCHIST then they can destroy us in the public's eyes.

[0zzy]

teachers should show this
they would hate it though
jeez i hate my teachers whom love socialism

[Xenophage]

If a government has some other responsibility than protecting individual rights, what exactly is that responsibility?

If a government steals from its people, how can you claim that it protects property rights?

What do you think the proper role of government is?

I think you're frightened of freedom.

[Chosen]

Why are you so determined to place your boot on the necks of us, that don't want to be ruled? It's interesting how much you go on about these "Anarchists" you so loathe, when we're all being stifled by a fascist oligarchy. Shouldn't you be targeting them?

We may end up as a nation of laws; however, in order to keep the laws minimal I would suggest having a strong non-aggressive Anarchist tendencies to keep the temptation of the every growing & tyrannical government at bay. Remember, government by nature grows until it destroys itself.

Every government from the first days of history have fallen at the expense of the people and this one is no different.Name a time I haven't spoken terribly about all forms of collectivism?

Anarchists, whether you believe you are or not are actually the useful idiots of collectivism. All tyranny has come to power as a result of anarchy and ideology of this variant.

Ayn Rand and Objectivism has been a smokescreen behind which the oligarchy has gained globalist power and agenda by stoking its useful idiots into a frenzy of semantic arguments about theoretical minarchist societies anytime anyone produces a question mark.

I believe in a Constitutional Republic.

You recommend having "tendencies? " LOL. Yeah, that fixes everything! I recommend pragmatism and coming to the realization that only a Republic will function to protect freedom and Liberty. Not some literary post-modern fantasy, which even in the core of its own doctrine cannot be implemented.

Libertarianism is non-action. It is the enabler of tyranny. In the real world only pragmatic Republicanism succeeds in protecting freedom.

I wonder...Do you "anarchist zealots" think that your ultimate collectivist intent is well disguised? Did you think folks would not be able to see how history is repeating itself (just like last century) where radical anarchists and nihilists set the stage for tyranny and oligarchy to gain ground and power? Good luck. I think you won't be much of an opponent for those of us who want to restore our Republic and its Constitution.

I am very sure that you will be able to reason away your cowardice thru Objectivism.

[Chosen]

I think you're frightened of freedom.
Idiotic. Most especially if you are trying to make the point that a Republic is not freedom!??!? LOL

Republic equals logical protection of freedom.

[LibertyEagle]

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."- Ronald Reagan

[Xenophage]

Chosen, your arguments are so ignorant of the various philosophical schools you attack as to be laughable. Socrates was fond of saying that truly wise men do not presume wisdom about that which they are actually ignorant.

[Xenophage]

Idiotic. Most especially if you are trying to make the point that a Republic is not freedom!??!? LOL

Republic equals logical protection of freedom.

I don't disagree, but you seem to think there is a role for a government beyond the protection of individual rights. What role would that be, if it isn't the role of slave-owner?

[Chosen]

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."- Ronald ReaganAbsolutely.

[Chosen]

Chosen, your arguments are so ignorant of the various philosophical schools you attack as to be laughable. Socrates was fond of saying that truly wise men do not presume wisdom about that which they are actually ignorant.
You are trying to hard to sound intelligent, that is a terribly worded sentence. Might I use it as an example of your pedantic fetishes? Cool, thanks.

Socrates also had a fondness for boys, I am sure this is in your realm of understanding. I believe the founder of Nambla is a minarchist.

I completely laid out the fundamental flaw of minarchy and you seem to be panicked. remain calm and do not get confused. You would do best to study up on your post modernist fetishes before indulging in them. I would have thought you would be able to illustrate this understanding...But of course.

[LibertyEagle]

Seriously, try reading what is written. Put your malignant narcissism aside for one second. The comments are to the oft presented notion that Americans are in effect anarchists.

Besides you need to keep tabs on your wacky homeboys:
http://libertariananarchy.com/

Why are you saying this to Torchbearer? He's not an anarchist.

[LibertyEagle]

To all concerned:

Either discuss the matter without being insulting, or don't discuss it at all.

[Xenophage]

You are trying to hard to sound intelligent, that is a terribly worded sentence. Might I use it as an example of your pedantic fetishes? Cool, thanks.

Socrates also had a fondness for boys, I am sure this is in your realm of understanding. I believe the founder of Nambla is a minarchist.

I completely laid out the fundamental flaw of minarchy and you seem to be panicked. remain calm and do not get confused. You would do best to study up on your post modernist fetishes before indulging in them. I would have thought you would be able to illustrate this understanding...But of course.

Its a grammatically correct and precise sentence that conveys its entire meaning without extemporaneous verbiage. I construct such masterpieces of logical symbolism purely for the benefit of the minds which can comprehend them.

Suffice to say you are apparently not one of them.

[Chosen]

I don't disagree, but you seem to think there is a role for a government beyond the protection of individual rights. What role would that be, if it isn't the role of slave-owner?
What a ridiculous and over dramatic conclusion? Slave owner. There really is no need to indulge this false premise.

The role of the government is to protect individuals VIA the constitutional authority granted to it by the people.

Not some sort of bizarre hired private contractors doing their bidding or by a private donations based government, LOL.

YOU seem to think that government would be small under minarchy, that's the funny thing. It would be MASSIVE. Most especially when "I" think "you" have violated my rights and "you" don't think I have? What are we supposed to resolve this by hiring thug agencies? Professional rights litigation entities? What if I hire a violent one and you hire an arbitrator? The minarchist system is for sci-fi novels not reality.

Get pragmatism, move into the real world.

[Xenophage]

What a ridiculous and over dramatic conclusion? Slave owner. There really is no need to indulge this false premise.

The role of the government is to protect individuals VIA the constitutional authority granted to it by the people.

Not some sort of bizarre hired private contractors doing their bidding or by a private donations based government, LOL.

YOU seem to think that government would be small under minarchy, that's the funny thing. It would be MASSIVE. Most especially when "I" think "you" have violated my rights and "you" don't think I have? What are we supposed to resolve this by hiring thug agencies? Professional rights litigation entities? What if I hire a violent one and you hire an arbitrator? The minarchist system is for sci-fi novels not reality.

Get pragmatism, move into the real world.

Can someone tell me what the hell this dude is talking about?

Conza, where are you... hopping around in your mother's pouch probably... damn it.

[Chosen]

Its a grammatically correct and precise sentence that conveys its entire meaning without extemporaneous verbiage. I construct such masterpieces of logical symbolism purely for the benefit of the minds which can comprehend them.

Suffice to say you are apparently not one of them.


Chosen, your arguments are so ignorant of the various philosophical schools you attack as to be laughable.
I never spoke of precision or correct grammar. I said it was poorly worded. As always you are trying on the pedantic cloak without checking the size.

Let me help you here. Also, take this as a lesson in pragmatism. Being that this simplification can also be adopted by you as a philosophical idea, outside of your apparent contrived vanity.

Try this:
Chosen, your arguments are so ignorant of the various philosophical schools you attack they are laughable.

That is correct.

If you would like to correct your extemporaneous pole vault, you may try understanding that you don't actually have to mentione the "to be" verb LOL! You even went so far as to add "as." You may wish to examine modals for more help.

[Chosen]

Can someone tell me what the hell this dude is talking about?

Conza, where are you... hopping around in your mother's pouch probably... damn it.
Again you don't even understand your own philosophy? LOL

[tremendoustie]

Chosen, I am for rules, and property rights. What I am against is the initiation of force. Would you seek to use violence against peaceful people, to take the product of their labor against their will?

This video is a good example of how people talk past each other, regarding the idea of "no government". In this video, no government=chaos and violence. Yet, no government does necessarily imply these things at all.

What's more, "republic" could be eliminated as well -- because if the majority really wants something -- or the majority of the power -- it will happen. That is what is happening to our republic. There are supposedly rules restricting the government, but these rules are ignored.

What the video describes as a "republic" is simply a democracy, where the majority believe in the constitution above their own interests. When the majority begin to place their own interests above the constitution, as they are in our country, the constitution becomes worthless -- a paper by itself cannot protect rights.

[Chosen]

Chosen, I am for rules, and property rights. What I am against is the initiation of force. Would you seek to use violence against peaceful people, to take the product of their labor against their will?

This video is a good example of how people talk past each other, regarding the idea of "no government". In this video, no government=chaos and violence. Yet, no government does necessarily imply these things at all.

What's more, "republic" could be eliminated as well -- because if the majority really wants something -- or the majority of the power -- it will happen. That is what is happening to our republic. There are supposedly rules restricting the government, but these rules are ignored.

What the video describes as a "republic" is simply a democracy, where the majority believe in the constitution above their own interests. When the majority begin to place their own interests above the constitution, as they are in our country, the constitution becomes worthless -- a paper by itself cannot protect rights.There is an historical imperative which indicates that a "government-less condition cannot exist." It is always exploited. At some point force has or will to be injected into the picture.

I disagree. We are slipping into oligarchical control.

[tremendoustie]

Actually, I would say every country is in effect, anarchy, in the sense that power always prevails. Nothing can prevent the dominant power from accomplishing what it will, in any system.

In a dictatorship, the power belongs to an individual, who believes in his absolute right to rule the lives of others.

In an oligarchy, the power belongs to a group of individuals, who believe in their absolute right to rule the lives of others.

In a democracy, the power belongs to the majority, who believe in their absolute right to rule over the lives of others.

In a republic, the power belongs to the majority, who believe in their right to rule over the lives of others in certain ways, but not others.

In a voluntary society, the power belongs to the majority, who believe they do not have a right to rule over the lives of others.



What would prevent a dictator form taking over a republic? It is the fact that he does not have as much power as the majority, who believe they have a right to defend their lives against tyranny.

What would prevent a dictator from taking over a voluntary society? It is the same -- the fact that he does not have as much power as the majority, who believe they have a right to defend their lives against tyranny.

There is no reason to believe that a voluntary society is a weak defense against tyranny, if the majority believe in their right to defend it, as much as the majority of a republic believe in their right to defend the republic. Actually, it is less vulnerable, because in a republic there are existing power structures vulnerable to abuse, whereas these power structures do not exist as strongly in a voluntary society.

What is a weak defense against tyranny? Chaos, violence, and a people who do not have the power, or principles, to defend their rights. The video confuses chaos with no government, which is a fallacy.

Interestingly, this fallacy is quite similar to that of many people regarding America, upon its founding. Rule by the people would be equivalent to chaos, it was thought, leaving the country vulnerable to attack.

Freedom does not equal chaos. Voluntary order is not only possible, it is stronger than the coerced variety.

[Xenophage]

Again you don't even understand your own philosophy? LOL

Look dude, why are you so antagonistic? I do understand my philosophy. YOU do not, but you presume to call me names and incite some sort of troll war. Do you think I'm your political enemy?

[Minarchy4Sale]

Excellent video, pass it on:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Minarchists, which are not anarchists think somehow that a very small government designed only to protect the rights of others would be possible and the real kicker is that they believe that the government would operate off small donations! Enough said about this bizarre political theory.



This is a misunderstanding, what the author is describing is probably 'voluntarism'. Minarchism is not inconsistent with republicanism, in fact, minarchism usually assumes a republic. The greater the majority required for republican law, the more minarchistic the republic is. Our current 51% system has devolved into tyranny, and may devolve into anarchy. A republic that required a 90% supermajority of elected representatives to write law would very likely both be very minarchistic, and most likely not devolve into tyranny. It is yet unclear to me what supermajority is ideal, but I suspect it is in the 75% to 95% range.

[sdczen]

Name a time I haven't spoken terribly about all forms of collectivism?

Isn't a Republic a form of collectivism? :rolleyes:



Anarchists, whether you believe you are or not are actually the useful idiots of collectivism. All tyranny has come to power as a result of anarchy and ideology of this variant.

Not a single Anarchist/Minarchist/Panarchist/Anarcho-Capitalist that I know is a collectivist. Neither are most Libertarians. We are quite the opposite. We abhor most collectivism in any form. We're also the first to stand up and say something when we feel the jack boots of tyrannical government you so adore.

Where in history has tyranny come to power through Anarchy? This couldn't be further from the truth. All tyranny has come through some form of government or form of controls on the people. Why don't you make it really easy on yourself and just look back at the last 200 hundred years of history and tell me which despot came to power through Anarchy? :rolleyes:



Ayn Rand and Objectivism has been a smokescreen behind which the oligarchy has gained globalist power and agenda by stoking its useful idiots into a frenzy of semantic arguments about theoretical minarchist societies anytime anyone produces a question mark.

You sure have a skewed perspective. Now you're throwing Objectivists under the bus? I'm no Randian, however they surely haven't brought about today's Oligarchy (or yesterdays Oligarchy). The globalist Oligarchy has it's origins in Communism, Fascism and Socialism. They rely on the fact that if they (the gov) gives the people just enough to keep from revolting, they can slowly take over more control of the society. It keeps people apathetic and lazy, until they start enjoying some of the government benefits. This includes people that once thought a republic was the best form of government. They will rollover just as quickly as the democratic socialists as long as they are the ones that are receiving the handouts or are in some form of control of others.



I believe in a Constitutional Republic.


If you are going to have government, I would agree this is the best form. However, with all government throughout history. This form of government will end up tyrannical and despotic just as the ones before. Proof is in the pudding and we're watching it slip away into never never land as we speak.



You recommend having "tendencies? " LOL. Yeah, that fixes everything! I recommend pragmatism and coming to the realization that only a Republic will function to protect freedom and Liberty. Not some literary post-modern fantasy, which even in the core of its own doctrine cannot be implemented.


In a republic who protects the people from the government? Who protects the people from other collectivist groups? You sure speak a great game, but in the end governments have killed more people than any form of Anarchy. In fact, the killing is second only to organized religion. It's hard to dispute these facts.

How can you have due process on a laws that shouldn't even exist in the first place. It's absurd, this constitutional republic you speak of. It's turned out quite tyrannical.



Libertarianism is non-action. It is the enabler of tyranny. In the real world only pragmatic Republicanism succeeds in protecting freedom.


Time to throw the Libertarians under the bus too. :rolleyes: From what I've seen the pragmatic republicans have done nothing for this country, except be part in parcel to it's ruin.



I wonder...Do you "anarchist zealots" think that your ultimate collectivist intent is well disguised? Did you think folks would not be able to see how history is repeating itself (just like last century) where radical anarchists and nihilists set the stage for tyranny and oligarchy to gain ground and power? Good luck. I think you won't be much of an opponent for those of us who want to restore our Republic and its Constitution.


You are really stretching here. These "Anarchist zealots" you speak of are not Anarchists. These are people with higher aspirations of power and control of money & people. They want their own form of government to fit their world view. This is not anarchy, you are very confused with your terminology.

Anarchists want to be left alone to live their lives and protect their families. They don't want power, nor control. They want to have the freedom to do as they wish as long as they do no harm to others.

I also think you'd be surprised as to who the Anarchists truly are. In fact, they might actually be fighting next to you for the country and land that we live in. You will be none the wiser after all is said and done when these peaceful anarchists go back on their merry way right under your nose. I really don't know what you are so threatened about?



I am very sure that you will be able to reason away your cowardice thru Objectivism.

Cowardice? Oh please. I guess that is why we're right here next to you fighting for our rights back eh? :rolleyes:

[sdczen]

Look dude, why are you so antagonistic? I do understand my philosophy. YOU do not, but you presume to call me names and incite some sort of troll war. Do you think I'm your political enemy?

Apparently he believes everyone that doesn't believe in his form of constitutional republic is his political enemy. I see a future tyrannical dictator in the future....I'm sure it would suit him well.

[reduen]

Great video here. How can I get a copy of this to send to school with my two boys...?

Edit: I also believe the title of your thread to be a little missleading but I love the video...

[LibertyEagle]

Great video here. How can I get a copy of this to send to school with my two boys...?

Edit: I also believe the title of your thread to be a little missleading but I love the video...

You can download the whole thing to a DVD, or you can order it from the John Birch Society. What Chosen posted is an excerpt of a longer DVD.

[rightofpeople]

The film is called Overview of America.

JBS sells the DVD for only $1 each:

http://www.shopjbs.org/magento/index.php/videos/overview-of-america-public-service.html

[reduen]

You can download the whole thing to a DVD, or you can order it from the John Birch Society. What Chosen posted is an excerpt of a longer DVD.


LE, how would I go about downloading it? I have no problem with getting it from JBS but as always, the faster the better...

[LibertyEagle]

LE, how would I go about downloading it? I have no problem with getting it from JBS but as always, the faster the better...

Reduen, there are freebie utilities out there to download Youtubes and the like. I have a couple of them bookmarked, but I'm no expert at it. If you want to go this route, I'd suggest posting a thread with that question and someone much more versed in this area will come to help. :)

Still, the video quality is not going to be nearly as good. If you really want to get it shown in class, if it were me, I'd spend the dollar and order it from JBS. They're pretty fast as I recall.

Note: I guess the other thing you could do is to see if the teacher could just stream it for the class from Google video.

[jack555]

What a ridiculous and over dramatic conclusion? Slave owner. There really is no need to indulge this false premise.

The role of the government is to protect individuals VIA the constitutional authority granted to it by the people.

Not some sort of bizarre hired private contractors doing their bidding or by a private donations based government, LOL.

YOU seem to think that government would be small under minarchy, that's the funny thing. It would be MASSIVE. Most especially when "I" think "you" have violated my rights and "you" don't think I have? What are we supposed to resolve this by hiring thug agencies? Professional rights litigation entities? What if I hire a violent one and you hire an arbitrator? The minarchist system is for sci-fi novels not reality.

Get pragmatism, move into the real world.


I think you are very confused sir. It sounds like YOU ARE A MINARCHIST arguing against anarcho-capatlism. But you act like you don't like minarchism. Maybe it was a typo or maybe you should look up the definition. Minarchy is small limited government similar to what Jefferson wanted.


edit- And you talk about anarchists and anarcho-capatalists as if they are the same thing. You sound very confused. You need to do some reading!

[RevolutionSD]

Excellent video, pass it on:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

The authoritarian collectivists have really been pushing anarchy because it has worked for them in the past. You may experience it lately on many forums you frequent. There will be bizarre extremists claiming to be for freedom and Liberty, some may even say they are minarchists...This is because in the past, anarchy has provided the possible deterioration of societies to the point where a tyrant can gain control. It should be fought against as it will be our undoing.

For the childish and illiterates who reference the dictionary for facts...
In the end anarchy means no rule and only no ruler by default as implied by the suffix. In Greek "an" does not mean without. Absolutely not. It is an adjustment of the suffix. ARCHY means RULES, not ruler! In construction the definition (since you have descended to such a juvenile footing) is to manage without rules. The "y" indicates action taken by the suffix, as in monarch-y. Rule by a monarch. The Greeks had NO consideration of anything other than ruler or no ruler. There was no gray area or idea of individual sovereign. In fact, the word was invented for the sole purpose of providing an anti-thesis to the definition of mob rule by an oligarchy.

Minarchists, which are not anarchists think somehow that a very small government designed only to protect the rights of others would be possible and the real kicker is that they believe that the government would operate off small donations! Enough said about this bizarre political theory.

To dispel the myths currently about anarchy, one has to wade thru quite a bit of extremist and radical nonsense. But it is better to look at where this recent tirade of incompetence is coming from. Many extremist Libertarians believe that their roots are in anarchy, that our roots as Americans are in anarchy. One school of thought is philosophical, the other is empirical. To say that America has roots in anarchy (as is the flavor of the week with the social outcasts turned politicos- anarchists) is so far from the truth it is mind boggling. Our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with anarchy or its condition. They knew that a Constitutional Republic was what would be the most minimal and preserving of freedom.



Observe the video as it explains quite perfectly what a Constitutional Republic actually is and what anarchy is and why it doesn't work....And for you bloated sense of entitlement millennials infected with vanity and narcissism, don't worry its only 10 minutes. You can get back to checking your myspace page and facebook shortly. Your false sense of self worth won't suffer.

America=Republic. Americans are not anarchists, they are constitutional moderates. No examples of minarchistic societies exist and of course there are no anarchistic societies. We do have an example of a Republic under siege by an authoritarian oligarchy...

Sorry, I don't accept a society organized by violence, even if it's much less violence than we have today.

Government is coercion, even a small bit of coercion is still using the threat of violence to get your way.

A constitutional republic, as we have seen, cannot last, because government at it's root is an evil concept- so getting the "right people" into office becomes an impossibility.

[RevolutionSD]

The JBS also thinks that gays are immoral and Christianity should be part of government. Why trust this organization?

[reduen]

The JBS also thinks that gays are immoral and Christianity should be part of government. Why trust this organization?

Because being gay is an immoral act and true Christianity teaches one to treat other people as you want to be treated yourself.(Friends, enemies, everybody..)

Simple...

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry, I don't accept a society organized by violence, even if it's much less violence than we have today.

Government is coercion, even a small bit of coercion is still using the threat of violence to get your way.
No. Our constitutional republic was established to protect the rights of the minority against the force of the majority.


A constitutional republic, as we have seen, cannot last, because government at it's root is an evil concept- so getting the "right people" into office becomes an impossibility.

It has nothing to do with "getting the right people". It has everything to do with the people being educated and vigilant and requiring their public servants to adhere to the Constitution. We didn't hold up our end of the bargain.

Now, if you want to talk about something that does not last, it's anarchy. A bully always comes in and wants power. Only now, we don't even have a Constitution that the people can enforce to restrict him and his kind.

[LibertyEagle]

I think you are very confused sir. It sounds like YOU ARE A MINARCHIST arguing against anarcho-capatlism. But you act like you don't like minarchism. Maybe it was a typo or maybe you should look up the definition. Minarchy is small limited government similar to what Jefferson wanted.


edit- And you talk about anarchists and anarcho-capatalists as if they are the same thing. You sound very confused. You need to do some reading!

I think one of the problems is that some of the anarcho-capitalists around here, refer to themselves as anarchists. Personally, I don't think this serves them well, but to each their own.

[Xenophage]

I never spoke of precision or correct grammar. I said it was poorly worded. As always you are trying on the pedantic cloak without checking the size.

Let me help you here. Also, take this as a lesson in pragmatism. Being that this simplification can also be adopted by you as a philosophical idea, outside of your apparent contrived vanity.

Try this:
Chosen, your arguments are so ignorant of the various philosophical schools you attack they are laughable.

That is correct.

If you would like to correct your extemporaneous pole vault, you may try understanding that you don't actually have to mentione the "to be" verb LOL! You even went so far as to add "as." You may wish to examine modals for more help.

Who's being pedantic? :rolleyes: At least whenever I choose to criticize someone's linguistic skill I double check to make sure I know the difference between a question mark and an exclamation mark. Your own command of English is pretty weak.

The real funny part here is: you either refuse to answer my questions or communicate a single non-fallacious retort, or you're unable. Which is it?

[Chosen]

Where's the insult?

[Theocrat]

Thanks for the video, Chosen. It was very educational and a great reminder of how tyranny can come by the rule of one (monarchy), by the rule of some (oligarchy), or by the rule of none (anarchy). Ultimately, men's hearts need to be changed before any system of government will function to the benefit of a society.

[BuddyRey]

Chosen, I'm curious. As much as you seem to love lambasting Anarcho-Capitalism, how many works of its foundational theorists have you read? Any Rothbard or early Nozick? If so, what was it that struck you as impractical?

Not knocking you or your idea of a Republic, just curious.

[cujothekitten]

I totally agree Chosen. Anarchists just want power and control. The only way to stop them is to forum a group (we'll call it a government) and force them to live the way we want to live. We could even force them to pay for our group (we'll call it taxes)!

This way we'll never have to worry about people deciding to live their life the way they want to. They'll all play nice and follow the rules... as long as they're are rules, amirite?

Where do I sign up?

[krazy kaju]

Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
Can't have property rights with no law.

This is why you should never comment about something you have no clue about. Anarchism isn't a society without law. See this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html).