anarchists: STOP!

[JohnnyRebel]

You cannot win a debate with someone holding a gun. As long as there are people that support the state (ie support welfare and warfare) then force will always be their base. Minarchists (statists) will always support the use of force in order to make you comply with their moral code. These are going to be the religionists who view government as some divine arm of God because that is what they have always been told all the while government is a rejection of God.

Trying to educate them is not going to work. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" as the old saying goes or as Cat Steven's said, "You can lead a ho to water but you can't make her think."

True liberty is something that they will need to discover on their own... maybe after they have spent and voted themselves into political atheism. We are all here because we like Ron Paul but he ain't Jesus. He is living off money taken through theft and coercion.

Anyway, that's my .02. I just come here for news now.

[torchbearer]

The mafia will always exist- no matter how real your dream world is.
Deal with it.

[torchbearer]

as long as there is one man and a few willing followers who want to rule over others- we will never have a government-less world.

[JohnnyRebel]

The mafia will always exist- no matter how real your dream world is.
Deal with it.

See the aggression in his post? No way to reach him. Just let him be.

[torchbearer]

See the aggression in his post? No way to reach him. Just let him be.

read post 3- and deal with the facts.
or just pretend like the facts show anarchist aren't dreamers- just like Karl Marx.
It all sounds great, but isn't reality.
You have to deal with people- and people aren't the same.
Some want to dominate.
As long as some people do this- you will not be free from tyranny- unless you devise a voluntary association of family/clans who come together for the sole purpose of protecting their rights and property from the outlaws of the waste. and that would be your constitutional republic or some form of loose confederation.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Some people need government. We just ask that you leave the rest of us alone.

[paulitics]

as long as there is one man and a few willing followers who want to rule over others- we will never have a government-less world.

qft.

[acptulsa]

Minarchists (statists) will always support the use of force in order to make you comply with their moral code.

That must be why it says "Banned" under your name.

[sailor]

as long as there is one man and a few willing followers who want to rule over others- we will never have a government-less world.

You mean because people like you will rush to hand him the power? :D

[Dr.3D]

You mean because people like you will rush to hand him the power? :D

No.

Obviously you have never lived in a bad neighborhood.
It doesn't matter what the state does, those in that neighborhood will do what they want to do and rob you blind. That my friend is anarchy.

[Kraig]

The mafia will always exist- no matter how real your dream world is.
Deal with it.

That's no reason to fund them, infiltrate them to make them better, encourage others to do so, etc. etc. etc.

So they will always exist, I agree they will exist for a LONG time, but always is a strong word, either way, if they will always exist - keep them as small as possible but not giving them your support.

[sailor]

No.

Obviously you have never lived in a bad neighborhood.
It doesn't matter what the state does, those in that neighborhood will do what they want to do and rob you blind. That my friend is anarchy.

No, that my friend is a constitutional republic. Just think of the robbers as the taxmen. :eek:


Anarchy is when you`re packing and they can`t robb you.

[Dr.3D]

No, that my friend is a constitutional republic. Just think of the robbers as the taxmen. :eek:


Anarchy is when you`re packing and they can`t robb you.

What is to stop them from robbing you? It isn't like you are going to stay awake all night guarding your stuff.

[Kraig]

No, that my friend is a constitutional republic. Just think of the robbers as the taxmen. :eek:


Anarchy is when you`re packing and they can`t robb you.

Lets have a discussion of said neighborhood and think about ways to make it better, we'll see how many of it's problems were cause by government, and how many of the solutions are derived from it.

[acptulsa]

...keep them as small as possible b[y] not giving them your support.

They don't need any more of your support than they can get from the ends of their guns. All they need is for you not to vote for their opponents, not talk about their misdeeds with others, and refuse to keep an eye on the polls to ensure their honesty.

As long as you refrain from doing these three things, they'll get along just fine.

[Todd]

See the aggression in his post? No way to reach him. Just let him be.

We all would like to see government completely wither away. Unfortunately human nature dictates that there will always be men that wish to lord over others. That's at least the conclusion I've come to.

Were the founders completely wrong on this point? Because, I don't think any of them were anarchists. At least their system of government presumed that they understood that was not realistic.
Anarchy is very appealing to me. But then, so is socialism. Everybody having complete freedom and everyone getting along. All sound really grand on paper. It's in practice that it poses so much problem IMO.

[TonySutton]

There was no true government in the early west. I do not think people really want to live in such a world.

[Kraig]

There was no true government in the early west. I do not think people really want to live in such a world.

Why not? I would.

[Dr.3D]

Why not? I would.

So you would like to be robbed when ever your back was turned eh?

Interesting concept.

[Todd]

Why not? I would.

What would you do about the Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla? The Lord Humungous?

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2007/11/lord1a.jpg

BTW: I hope your exit from politics won't keep you from parusing the forums and the lively discussion. ;)

[Kraig]

So you would like to be robbed when ever your back was turned eh?

Interesting concept.

How so?

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/07/15/wallace.htm

[sailor]

What is to stop them from robbing you? It isn't like you are going to stay awake all night guarding your stuff.

Stop it right there.

I didn`t say in anarchy there would be no crime. I said in anarchy all crime would be illegal.

What is stoping them from robbing you now? Considering you have consented to making their robbery legal?

Is it harder or easier for them to robb you these days? How much of your paycheck do you see?

[sailor]

Anarchy is very appealing to me.

Why do you lie?

[Dr.3D]

How so?

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/07/15/wallace.htm

Right... uh huh... it isn't that way and you know it.

It isn't like you are going to have people around you every minute helping you keep your stuff. You have to sleep some time and when you are sleeping, you will loose your stuff and probably your life if you were to wake up while they were taking the stuff.

If you say you would hire somebody to watch your stuff, then that somebody would suddenly be called the Sheriff and pow, no more anarchy.

[Todd]

Why do you lie?

Huh? Why do you want to stifle discussion like that? Sure...It sounds great. Where's the lie?

[Brian4Liberty]

We all would like to see government completely wither away. Unfortunately human nature dictates that there will always be men that wish to lord over others. That's at least the conclusion I've come to.


I agree. It's human nature. The progression of government power and oppression is a symptom of how humans operate. Government is not the cause or the root. At best, this human trend is a treatable disease, with no absolute cure. Separation of powers and decentralization are our best ally. Rothbard certainly advocates that in his own way. The smaller and less powerful the organizations of humans, the better.

I am guessing that small, competing businesses for the vast majority of our needs is our shared vision here. And for the minarchists, that includes a touch of local government, even less State government, and even less than that for Federal government.

I believe these quotes sum it up best:

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton

"We have met the enemy, and they are us" - Walt Kelly (who modified a quote from Oliver Perry)

[acptulsa]

Why do you lie?

Why do you ask why people think you're fighting?

It's utopian. Who wouldn't find the concept of a society so full of honest and civilized people that no police would be necessary to enforce the rules? Of course it sounds wonderful. There's no rhyme nor reason to calling him a liar.

[Kraig]

Right... uh huh... it isn't that way and you know it.

It isn't like you are going to have people around you every minute helping you keep your stuff. You have to sleep some time and when you are sleeping, you will loose your stuff and probably your life if you were to wake up while they were taking the stuff.

If you say you would hire somebody to watch your stuff, then that somebody would suddenly be called the Sheriff and pow, no more anarchy.

I think you have some huge misunderstandings about anarchy, you can still have private security forces and private court systems. The difference between that and government is that you have the choice of which security service to use, or even the choice to do it yourself. Government does not give you that choice, it is their way or the highway (on your way to jail).

[Kraig]

Why do you ask why people think you're fighting?

It's utopian. Who wouldn't find the concept of a society so full of honest and civilized people that no police would be necessary to enforce the rules? Of course it sounds wonderful. There's no rhyme nor reason to calling him a liar.

I guess you do too, anarchy doesn't mean no "police", it means no government backed police force that has a monopoly on police service. There would be difference choices.

[Dr.3D]

I think you have some huge misunderstandings about anarchy, you can still have private security forces and private court systems. The difference between that and government is that you have the choice of which security service to use, or even the choice to do it yourself. Government does not give you that choice, it is their way or the highway (on your way to jail).



Main Entry:
an·ar·chy Listen to the pronunciation of anarchy Listen to the pronunciation of anarchy
Pronunciation:
\ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date:
1539

1 a: absence of government
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order
b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

So I take it you are talking about definition 1 c: ?

[acptulsa]

I guess you do too, anarchy doesn't mean no "police", it means no government backed police force that has a monopoly on police service. There would be difference choices.

They chose to give Ma Bell a monopoly on phone service back in the day. It was a mistake, but the existing companies refused to run compatible equipment and connect their exchanges, so you had to have two or three phones to be able to call anyone else with a phone. This was such a pain that people actually called for an awful monopoly.

First time two of your police forces declared war on each other, the anarchy would be over.

[Kraig]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

So I take it you are talking about definition 1 c: ?

No, 1 a.

[Todd]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

So I take it you are talking about definition 1 c: ?

To be fair. The so called "definition" of words isn't always an honest assessment of an idea either.

[Kraig]

First time two of your police forces declared war on each other, the anarchy would be over.

A small spat when compared to two governments declaring war on each other.

[sailor]

Huh? Why do you want to stifle discussion like that? Sure...It sounds great. Where's the lie?

Anarchy is not appealing to you. You only say so to lend more weight to your attacks.

If it were appealing to you you would try to find out more about it. Not spend time forming objections against it from a position of ignorance.

[sailor]

It's utopian. Who wouldn't find the concept of a society so full of honest and civilized people that no police would be necessary to enforce the rules? Of course it sounds wonderful. There's no rhyme nor reason to calling him a liar.

Why do you keep make false claims about a subject you know nothing about? It only exposes your lack of knowledge.

Who said there would be no police? There would be no monopoly police force. Instead there would a police services market. There would be more and better policing at a lower cost.

The same as for garbage collectors.

[sailor]

They chose to give Ma Bell a monopoly on phone service back in the day. It was a mistake, but the existing companies refused to run compatible equipment and connect their exchanges, so you had to have two or three phones to be able to call anyone else with a phone. This was such a pain that people actually called for an awful monopoly.

First time two of your police forces declared war on each other, the anarchy would be over.

Seriously, who writes this stuff for you? Your telephone story is utterly meaningless.

There was a government to grant the monopoly. Who is going to grant you a monopoly, when there isn`t a government to grant you one?

[Pennsylvania]

In regards to the OP: I'm not firmly convinced that the discussion is not still worth having. When you debate someone, it is true that you may never see them change their minds. Perhaps they just can't, who knows? What we need to remember is that especially on a forum such as this, although persons A and B may be hotly contesting an issue, person C may be watching coolly from the sidelines to determine who had the better, more logical arguments. When I first came here, I identified strongly as a constitutionalist. When I began to change this view, it wasn't because I was directly involved in arguments, but rather because I was able to objectively see the arguments laid out by people like Conza and TW, without being involved in the debates myself.

[yoshimaroka]

No.

Obviously you have never lived in a bad neighborhood.
It doesn't matter what the state does, those in that neighborhood will do what they want to do and rob you blind. That my friend is anarchy.

The state robs the whole neighborhood and has robbed a whole nation of a few trillion dollars.

Us talking here is anarchy.


I love having these 'go nowhere' discussions. hehe, peace out

[LibertyEagle]

TW didn't make arguments. He posted articles.

[Kraig]

TW didn't make arguments. He posted articles.

His articles made really good arguments though. I can see why he did it, it's very frustrating when you are trying to debate this and people pull out wild assumptions that have already been addressed by people smarter than myself. Problem is that if you just link the answer they probably won't read it.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think you have some huge misunderstandings about anarchy, you can still have private security forces and private court systems. The difference between that and government is that you have the choice of which security service to use, or even the choice to do it yourself. Government does not give you that choice, it is their way or the highway (on your way to jail).

Isn't that how it works today? Private security forces are big business. From unarmed Mall guards, to armed personal security, to full fledged mercenary armies. Government doesn't stop that. They generally encourage it. You also have the right to "do it yourself". In another thread, I mentioned that some relatives of a co-worker "arrested" a murder suspect on their own. They did the "detective" work themselves, and the "arrest'.

[Kraig]

Isn't that how it works today? Private security forces are big business. From unarmed Mall guards, to armed personal security, to full fledged mercenary armies. Government doesn't stop that. They generally encourage it. You also have the right to "do it yourself". In another thread, I mentioned that some relatives of a co-worker "arrested" a murder suspect on their own. They did the "detective" work themselves, and the "arrest'.

No, private security is neutered by the government. My friend's younger brother pretty much makes his living by shoplifting. You would think it would be risky but he really just walks in, takes what he wants, and walks out. If a private security guard threatens him, he threatens a lawsuit if the guard touches him, and then the guard just waits for the cops to show up. Most store explicitly do not allow their guards to touch customers because of lawsuits. His only real risk is if there is a police officer in plain clothes.

[Unspun]

They chose to give Ma Bell a monopoly on phone service back in the day. It was a mistake, but the existing companies refused to run compatible equipment and connect their exchanges, so you had to have two or three phones to be able to call anyone else with a phone. This was such a pain that people actually called for an awful monopoly.

First time two of your police forces declared war on each other, the anarchy would be over.

I'm not sure what the relevance of Ma Bell is here.

War is expensive and irrational, businesses who use smart economic calculation tend to shy away from expensive and irrational acts. The only way war is waged is through government force. I've personally never seen or heard of two company's going to war with each other without some type of government interference. So, I'm not sure your argument jives all that well, acptulsa.

And, to torchbearer's favorite argument against anarchy, the infamous"mafia" argument--for the umpteenth time: mafias don't exist tot he extent you think of them existing to without government. Mafias make a large proportion of their money in black markets, where force is used out of sight out of mind, to profit a great deal. If there is no government to make things illegal I find it hard to see how they'd retain as much power as they do in today's world, or exist at all for that matter.

[acptulsa]

I'm not sure what the relevance of Ma Bell is here.

We're no longer interested in monopolies? People give a monopoly to government to avoid wars for that power, and think (or hope) those governments remain accountable to them.


War is expensive and irrational, businesses who use smart economic calculation tend to shy away from expensive and irrational acts. The only way war is waged is through government force. I've personally never seen or heard of two company's going to war with each other without some type of government interference. So, I'm not sure your argument jives all that well, acptulsa.

http://www.royalgorgereservations.com/content/royalgorge/History.aspx

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't feel compelled to do, say, or debate anything in defense of "anarchy".
Even if I feel someone has made a fairly good utilitarian point against anarchy, I still only speak on the subject when I feel like it. Its not about winning, to me its more about being honest with myself. The moral validity of anarchy remains solid in my eyes, despite it being one of the rarest and most often rejected "political" views. Its hard enough for even minarchists to contend that government isn't inherently immoral, so with that ground conceded, all we have to discuss is the utilitarian arguments for the state, and the logistics of how a society without "government" might function. Really minarchists still have to prove and answer the same basic questions that are demanded of us. How might a government be restrained, how can we keep evil men from doing evil things, how is a minarchist society possible to maintain, etc? Anarchy certainly wouldn't be a utopia, but we would have much more simpler and plainer to see problems, we would be free from the chains of lies, and no man would wear a holy cloack claiming to have the right to rule over others.

In a couple days I'm going to type up a thread that most minarchists and anarchists can find common ground upon, regarding the secession principle.


You cannot win a debate with someone holding a gun. As long as there are people that support the state (ie support welfare and warfare) then force will always be their base. Minarchists (statists) will always support the use of force in order to make you comply with their moral code. These are going to be the religionists who view government as some divine arm of God because that is what they have always been told all the while government is a rejection of God.

Trying to educate them is not going to work. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" as the old saying goes or as Cat Steven's said, "You can lead a ho to water but you can't make her think."

True liberty is something that they will need to discover on their own... maybe after they have spent and voted themselves into political atheism. We are all here because we like Ron Paul but he ain't Jesus. He is living off money taken through theft and coercion.

Anyway, that's my .02. I just come here for news now.

[sailor]

Mafias make a large proportion of their money in black markets, where force is used out of sight out of mind, to profit a great deal. If there is no government to make things illegal I find it hard to see how they'd retain as much power as they do in today's world, or exist at all for that matter.

Additionaly mafias only survive as long by embedding themselves with the government by bribing government officials.

Without government, bribes are useless as you can never bribe all security providers.

[cheapseats]

I'm not sure what the relevance of Ma Bell is here.

Conspiracies in restraint of trade.



War is expensive and irrational, businesses who use smart economic calculation tend to shy away from expensive and irrational acts.

People, however, do not.

[cheapseats]

Unfortunately human nature dictates that there will always be men that wish to lord over others. That's at least the conclusion I've come to.


I, as well.

Moreover, as another says, some people WANT to be lorded over. Life is hard. Life is unfair. Life is uncertain-read-that-scary. It is a great comfort to some all of the time, and a great practicality to many some of the time, to have [fill in the blank] competently and reliably provided by the great magic Source not in the sky but in a country's capitol. That is, if we mean to have a sovereign nation, which I think we should be debating animatedly.

[acptulsa]

I, as well. Moreover, as another says, some WANT to be lorded over.

We are a herd of cats. Many humans aren't like cats. Many are pack animals like dogs. They want heirarchy. It makes them feel like a part of something larger than themselves, and they thrive on it. Now, being part of a company or organization might work for them. But now that they've tasted the joys of their Old Glory bumper sticker and lapel pin and of yelling 'U.S.A. f yeah!' at the top of their lungs, it may be difficult to get them to go back.

Some of them really are nice to pal around with, too. Besides, if we don't band with them someone will use them to kill us.

[sailor]

People, however, do not.

People can not externalise the material costs of their irrationality.

Thus irrational people can be dealt with easily. Irrational governments on the other hand...

[sailor]

Moreover, as another says, some people WANT to be lorded over. Life is hard. Life is unfair. Life is uncertain-read-that-scary. It is a great comfort to some all of the time, and a great practicality to many some of the time, to have [fill in the blank] competently and reliably provided by the great magic Source not in the sky but in a country's capitol.

Meaningless. Such people are free to continue to pay tribute to a state. As long as the rest are given an opt-out.

[cheapseats]

People can not externalise the material costs of their irrationality.

Thus irrational people can be dealt with easily. Irrational governments on the other hand...

Government is not irrational but that it is devised and administered AND SUFFERED by irrational people.

[cheapseats]

Meaningless. Such people are free to continue to pay tribute to a state. As long as the rest are given an opt-out.

Your point being what, other than to argue for argument's sake?

We HAVE a government. And a majority WANT a government. Government will not be eliminated in the meaningful future.

[Sandman33]

What is to stop them from robbing you? It isn't like you are going to stay awake all night guarding your stuff.

I'd rather be free to own guns and protect my stuff myself, than to face constant gun restricting legislation and pay through the NOSE to support overpaid government thugs to harass me and set up robots to watch my car at intersections and mail me tickets.

[Pericles]

War is expensive and irrational, businesses who use smart economic calculation tend to shy away from expensive and irrational acts. The only way war is waged is through government force. I've personally never seen or heard of two company's going to war with each other without some type of government interference. So, I'm not sure your argument jives all that well, acptulsa.



This is why nobody reads Dilbert - there is nothing there that people understand based on their working experience.

The best business letter ever written:

Gentlemen,

You have undertaken to cheat me. I will not take this matter to court, for the law is too slow. Instead, I'll ruin you.

Sincerely,
Cornielius Vanderbelt

[acptulsa]

I'd rather be free to own guns and protect my stuff myself, than to face constant gun restricting legislation and pay through the NOSE to support overpaid government thugs to harass me and set up robots to watch my car at intersections and mail me tickets.

Who wouldn't? I don't believe there's one person on this forum today who wouldn't prefer to take his chances with complete chaos than put up with totalitarianism.

So much of this thread is theory vs. practice. Tell me, anarchists--how the #^@% do we get there from here?!

[sailor]

Your point being what, other than to argue for argument's sake?

My point being what you wrote is of no consequence as it is not an argument for the state and is therefore superflous to the discussion.


We HAVE a government. And a majority WANT a government. Government will not be eliminated in the meaningful future.

And how is that argument against anarchy?


Government is not irrational but that it is devised and administered AND SUFFERED by irrational people.

You`re saying it takes irrational people to suffer a government? Weren`t you supposed to be arguing for the government?

[Andrew-Austin]

We are a herd of cats. Many humans aren't like cats. Many are pack animals like dogs. They want heirarchy. It makes them feel like a part of something larger than themselves, and they thrive on it. Now, being part of a company or organization might work for them. But now that they've tasted the joys of their Old Glory bumper sticker and lapel pin and of yelling 'U.S.A. f yeah!' at the top of their lungs, it may be difficult to get them to go back.

Some of them really are nice to pal around with, too. Besides, if we don't band with them someone will use them to kill us.

Hierarhcy can and does exist in the free market, that word isn't just applicable to government. The difference is, in the free market people obtain positions of status and influence based on merit and hard work, and their position can change and be questioned at any time. In government politcians achieve their position by making promises with other people's money, and no matter how incompetent and amoral they prove themselves to be, their position and word remain absolute.

[sailor]

So much of this thread is theory vs. practice. Tell me, anarchists--how the #^@% do we get there from here?!

I can`t. It would be against forum guidelines.

[Pericles]

..., how can we keep evil men from doing evil things, how is a minarchist society possible to maintain, etc?

Is this not the real problem with monarchy, minarchy, insert your choice here, and anarchy?

There is no political organization or unorganization that prevents evil men from doing evil things, directly or indirectly to you. The question might be what defensive mechanisms agains these evil men exist, i. e. a deterrent.

[sailor]

Is this not the real problem with monarchy, minarchy, insert your choice here, and anarchy?

There is no political organization or unorganization that prevents evil men from doing evil things, directly or indirectly to you. The question might be what defensive mechanisms agains these evil men exist, i. e. a deterrent.

Anarchy has the best shot at stopping them, because only in anarchy there is a level playing field.

In every other system those who lust for power start with the advantage of already being in a government and therefore have it that much easier to expand their power further.

[cheapseats]

Moreover, as another says, some people WANT to be lorded over. Life is hard. Life is unfair. Life is uncertain-read-that-scary. It is a great comfort to some all of the time, and a great practicality to many some of the time, to have [fill in the blank] competently and reliably provided by the great magic Source not in the sky but in a country's capitol. That is, if we mean to have a sovereign nation, which I think we should be debating animatedly.


Meaningless.

The number of liber-I-don't-know-what-arians, largely GUYS, who think those words are meaningless speaks directly to why y'all make so little headway, relative to your efforts.

A lotta people know that what's going on has gotta stop. More and more people are getting fired up in a way that is NOT pro-O. But there's still a LOT of resistance to Libertarians. If you don't know that you've got a street cred problem, I will again suggest that it is because y'all do so much preaching to the choir and so little listening to the congregation. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if a whole other movement-more-like-a-wave combusts into a bona fide House Cleaning that leaves y'all typing furiously that it was all your idea in the first place.

I recognize -- better than you, obviously -- that we are on the same side. Good enough. That's all we need to know, for if push comes to shove. There's no need for us to kick it any further until then.

I leave you to the last word.

Peace.

[sailor]

The number of liber-I-don't-know-what-arians, largely GUYS, who think those words are meaningless speaks directly to why y'all make so little headway, relative to your efforts.

A lotta people know that what's going on has gotta stop. More and more people are getting fired up in a way that is NOT pro-O. But there's still a LOT of resistance to Libertarians. If you don't know that you've got a street cred problem, I will again suggest that it is because y'all do so much preaching to the choir and so little listening to the congregation. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if a whole other movement-more-like-a-wave combusts into a bona fide House Cleaning that leaves y'all typing furiously that it was all your idea in the first place.

I recognize -- better than you, obviously -- that we are on the same side. Good enough. That's all we need to know, for if push comes to shove. There's no need for us to kick it any further until then.

I leave you to the last word.

Peace.

Oh no sir, I insist You have the last word.

[Pericles]

Anarchy has the best shot at stopping them, because only in anarchy there is a level playing field.



Defend this assumption. What is a level playing field? Everyone has one vote? Everyone has 40 acres and a mule? Everyone has an equal amount of money?

Those with more economic resources have more power to influence events.

[cheapseats]

I'd rather be free to own guns and protect my stuff myself, than to face constant gun restricting legislation and pay through the NOSE to support overpaid government thugs to harass me and set up robots to watch my car at intersections and mail me tickets.

What if there are six of them and one of you?

[cheapseats]

Those with more economic resources have more power to influence events.

ALWAYS.

"Money to get power, power to protect money." -- House of Medici

[acptulsa]

Anarchy has the best shot at stopping them, because only in anarchy there is a level playing field.

In every other system those who lust for power start with the advantage of already being in a government and therefore have it that much easier to expand their power further.

One, those who lust for power and get it (psychos tend to be very charismatic, so this often happens) have restraints on them in a Constitutional system. They can either do the Jimmy Hoffa thing and be forced to remain at least somewhat underground (or they wind up like Jimmy Hoffa because they become threats to the organizations they created), or they can do the John McCain thing and try to loosen the constraints their office puts on them. The Constitution was not designed to empower government, but restrain it, and it has done that. We would rather it had done more of it, but it has done it.

In anarchy there are no such constraints. When one pops up and starts mesmerizing the easy to mesmerize, you had better be armed and ready.

[sailor]

Defend this assumption. What is a level playing field? Everyone has one vote? Everyone has 40 acres and a mule? Everyone has an equal amount of money?

Everyone has equal rights. No one can legitimately use coercion against another. Nobody wields the coercive powers of the state. There is no monopoly on force.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Anarchists are so cute with their imaginary dream world where no one hurts anyone else or takes anything from anyone else

[acptulsa]

Oh no sir, I insist You have the last word.

If you really meant that, you'd have left it at 'peace'.

And in her case, that would be 'ma'am' to you*


Anarchists are so cute with their imaginary dream world where no one hurts anyone else or takes anything from anyone else

You know, a Dead concert was certainly a lovely example of anarchy working. That was a very special group, to be able to pull that off, week after week. With a crowd like that, you might even be able to pull it off on a bigger scale.

There was nothing like a Dead concert. Would be nice to think that could be re-created. But not everyone's a Deadhead. Whatever would we do with the Sinatra fans...?

*Yes, and me too.

[cheapseats]

Anarchists are so cute with their imaginary dream world where no one hurts anyone else or takes anything from anyone else

I keep saying it, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, there are some people around here who are SO principled, that they generously attribute traits to others not by virtue, but by association.

It's not Right.

[sailor]

In anarchy there are no such constraints. When one pops up and starts mesmerizing the easy to mesmerize, you had better be armed and ready.

Thats right. In an anarchy there are no false promises of checks and balances, and constitutional restraints. So the people are never lulled into a false sense of security.

[sailor]

If you really meant that, you'd have left it at 'peace'.

And here you were thinking I mean everything I say.

[cheapseats]

There is no political organization or unorganization that prevents evil men from doing evil things, directly or indirectly to you. The question might be what defensive mechanisms agains these evil men exist, i. e. a deterrent.

Power corrupts. Absolute power . . . you know the drill.

It is not "merely" a matter of thwarting Bad Guys, once they ARE evil. And I know that you know that there ARE Bad Seeds. But there is also the matter of COPPING TO REALITY. One reality is that, again and again and again, Good people go off to Washington or move up the ladder and . . . something happens.

People are corruptible. Money, power, glamour -- the high life is VERY seductive. There is NO REASON on God's green earth that POLITICIANS should live the high life, none whatever. It is an engraved invitation to mischief of every sort and at every turn.

Money, root, evil . . . you know that drill, too.

[DeadheadForPaul]

You know, a Dead concert was certainly a lovely example of anarchy working. That was a very special group, to be able to pull that off, week after week. With a crowd like that, you might even be able to pull it off on a bigger scale.

There was nothing like a Dead concert. Would be nice to think that could be re-created. But not everyone's a Deadhead. Whatever would we do with the Sinatra fans...?

*Yes, and me too.


Heh

Well, I've been to many "hippie" festivals and can tell you that there is violence and theft even at these events. We will always need some form of non-biased law enforcement to step in

[acptulsa]

Thats right. In an anarchy there are no false promises of checks and balances, and constitutional restraints. So the people are never lulled into a false sense of security.

So, your contention is we need anarchy so people don't get too fat and lazy to go down to their county Republican Party meeting?


And here you were thinking I mean everything I say.

You can't mean that!

[heavenlyboy34]

You cannot win a debate with someone holding a gun. As long as there are people that support the state (ie support welfare and warfare) then force will always be their base. Minarchists (statists) will always support the use of force in order to make you comply with their moral code. These are going to be the religionists who view government as some divine arm of God because that is what they have always been told all the while government is a rejection of God.

Trying to educate them is not going to work. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" as the old saying goes or as Cat Steven's said, "You can lead a ho to water but you can't make her think."

True liberty is something that they will need to discover on their own... maybe after they have spent and voted themselves into political atheism. We are all here because we like Ron Paul but he ain't Jesus. He is living off money taken through theft and coercion.

Anyway, that's my .02. I just come here for news now.

I agree. I won't use force against these government loving boot-lickers. I will always do my best to show them the truth before they annihilate themselves (and me). It is my hope that they learn from the horrors about to befall us and join the resistance. :cool: I will welcome them if they are willing to learn and abandon the old ways. :D:)

[sailor]

Heh
We will always need some form of non-biased law enforcement to step in

What a cuttie pie you are with your little dream world. "Non-biased law enforcement"? What is that? Something I pick up at a fairytale convention?

[Theocrat]

Everyone has equal rights. No one can legitimately use coercion against another. Nobody wields the coercive powers of the state. There is no monopoly on force.

In an anarchy, there is no concept of "equal rights". Who enforces and protects those "equal rights"? Most of all, who defines what "equal rights" are in an anarchy? I'll tell you who has "equal rights" in an anarchy. The strongest. They are equal to the rule of law because their rule is law. Who's going to stop them? You may say we have a similar problem in a republican society, but at least there is an agreed upon rule of law which is above everyone to appeal to. In an anarchy, there is no absolute, overarching law to appeal to in restraining the strongest. "Mr. Mob Boss, you can't take my house and rape my wife because that is morally wron--" *BANG* You're dead. "Who's next?" says the Mob Boss.

[sailor]

So, your contention is we need anarchy so people don't get too fat and lazy to go down to their county Republican Party meeting?

My point is it works the same way food safety works.

[acptulsa]

My point is it works the same way food safety works.

I expect it's safe to say you've never read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Either that or your version of anarchy or voluntaryism or whatever puts everyone back on the farm and gives up on cities and the whole industrial revolution nonsense.

Either way, you're way off base. I want an Underwriters' Laboratories type organization (or UL itself) to take over for the USDA and the FDA and all those other incompetent alphabet soups in the mix. Don't need anarchy for that.

[sailor]

Either way, you're way off base. I want an Underwriters' Laboratories type organization (or UL itself) to take over for the USDA and the FDA and all those other incompetent alphabet soups in the mix. Don't need anarchy for that.

I don`t know what you want but Ron Paul wants the market to take over.

[DeadheadForPaul]

What a cuttie pie you are with your little dream world. "Non-biased law enforcement"? What is that? Something I pick up at a fairytale convention?

Slightly more realistic than your imaginary hired mercenary law enforcement. I'm sure armed companies and hired thugs will be reliable and won't turn into the mafia or anything :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[sailor]

Slightly more realistic than your imaginary hired mercenary law enforcement. I'm sure armed companies and hired thugs will be reliable and won't turn into the mafia or anything :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh gosh, so many smilies. You must be upset. Did I hurt your feelings sweetie pie? Oooh, what a meany I am.

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, I'm going to say this. Listen folks, unbelievable as it is, because people in our country have become so enamored with looking to government to solve all their ills, even selling them a return to the Constitution is a tough enough sell. But, many people do remember that they were taught when they were young that the Constitution was a good thing; an American thing. Even though they've lost the reasons why. Talking to them about anarchy, and associating this movement with it, just scares the HELL out of people. That's the truth. You must know that, right? Besides for a onesy or twosey, you aren't going to be able to convince people that anarchy is the solution. And just deciding to sit on the sofa isn't going to do one thing in achieving your goal. TPTB DON'T WANT YOU TO PARTICIPATE; THEY'RE GLAD WHEN YOU STAY HOME AND DON'T VOTE!

So here's what I honestly do not understand. Once upon a time, we were able to join together to work to get our government back to a Constitutional level. If we could get that done, I think everyone will admit that we'd be tremendously better off than we are now. Why can't we still join together to do that and duke it out at that point, how much more government needs to be dismantled?

Because all I see now is us shooting each other in the foot. And while we're busy doing that, TPTB go on their merry way. Heck, they don't even need to put their plants over here, we do a fine enough job of destroying ourselves, by ourselves.

[cheapseats]

Ok, I'm going to say this. Listen folks, unbelievable as it is, because people in our country have become so enamored with looking to government to solve all their ills, even selling them a return to the Constitution is a tough enough sell. But, many people do remember that they were taught when they were young that the Constitution was a good thing; an American thing...

Yep. But those'd be Baby Boomers . . . MY people. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Yep. But those'd be Baby Boomers . . . MY people. ;)

Mine too and it's a pretty darn big voting block. They also have money to donate.

[Theocrat]

Ok, I'm going to say this. Listen folks, unbelievable as it is, because people in our country have become so enamored with looking to government to solve all their ills, even selling them a return to the Constitution is a tough enough sell. But, many people do remember that they were taught when they were young that the Constitution was a good thing; an American thing. Even though they've lost the reasons why. Talking to them about anarchy, and associating this movement with it, just scares the HELL out of people. That's the truth. You must know that, right? Besides for a onesy or twosey, you aren't going to be able to convince people that anarchy is the solution. And just deciding to sit on the sofa isn't going to do one thing in achieving your goal. TPTB DON'T WANT YOU TO PARTICIPATE; THEY'RE GLAD WHEN YOU STAY HOME AND DON'T VOTE!

So here's what I honestly do not understand. Once upon a time, we were able to join together to work to get our government back to a Constitutional level. If we could get that done, I think everyone will admit that we'd be tremendously better off than we are now. Why can't we still join together to do that and duke it out at that point, how much more government needs to be dismantled?

Because all I see now is us shooting each other in the foot. And while we're busy doing that, TPTB go on their merry way. Heck, they don't even need to put their plants over here, we do a fine enough job of destroying ourselves, by ourselves.[Emphasis mine]

LE, we're "in the classroom" right now, discussing our various views and disagreements. I'm sure most of us are doing something outside of these forums to change public attitudes about the nature of our government. However, some people are pulling left, while others are pulling right. Still, there are others trying to cut the rope altogether. We each have our own beliefs about what the ideal state of our civil government should be.

The real concern is how our methods in society will work, what will be the effect of them, and how others will react to our efforts. In the anarchist camp, I don't see how they even have a chance to make changes in public to fit their governmental ideology besides violent force. Our culture and country is simply not going to allow the eradication of our entire system of government, as the Rothbard utopians wish. It's like a group of "atheists" showing up to the Southern Baptist Convention and telling all the Christians to follow the teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. It's simply absurd.

[sailor]

So here's what I honestly do not understand. Once upon a time, we were able to join together to work to get our government back to a Constitutional level. If we could get that done, I think everyone will admit that we'd be tremendously better off than we are now. Why can't we still join together to do that and duke it out at that point, how much more government needs to be dismantled?

Well I think anarchy is a more realistic goal than a return to the constitution. I`ve seen governments fail and crash down. But I`ve never seen one trimm itself down.

So how about folks work together for a return to anarchy and when that is done, there can be duking out about wether the status quo shall be preserved or shall a new constitution be reinstated?*


*It is a philosophical reply, I think it is appropriate in this case. I am aware this is a RP board and he is for the constitution. Don`t get up in arms about it.

[cheapseats]

Mine too and it's a pretty darn big voting block.

I keep tellin' 'em . . . biggest in the country. Within that, this is where it gets hilarious, the largest bloc is Baby Boom Women . . . a truly formidable number of whom are menopausal. I've said this before, too . . . tens of millions of hot flashes will put a whole new spin on Firefight.

We're talking Force Of Nature, no lie.




They also have money to donate.

Most of 'em just saw their retirements slashed in half. I know MANY Baby Boomers who just added TEN YEARS to their Work Life. They'll warm most to the straight-shooter who doesn't ask 'em to SEND MORE MONEY. I know my peeps.

[sailor]

It's like a group of "atheists" showing up to the Southern Baptist Convention and telling all the Christians to follow the teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. It's simply absurd.

No, that is your way of doing things. Imposing yourself on others.

Anarchy is more like a bunch of people migrating to a desolate corner of Montana and seceeding. Just wanting to be left alone.

[newbitech]

Well I think anarchy is a more realistic goal than a return to the constitution. I`ve seen governments fail and crash down. But I`ve never seen one trimm itself down.

So how about folks work together for a return to anarchy and when that is done, there can be duking out about wether the status quo shall be preserved or shall a new constitution be reinstated?*


*It is a philosophical reply, I think it is appropriate in this case. I am aware this is a RP board and he is for the constitution. Don`t get up in arms about it.

a return to anarchy? are you serious? You are going to trash 4000 years of evolution for what?

I think the constitutionalists are a little bit closer to reality. We have a chance to validate a constitutional republic. this one isn't dead yet and in order for you to achieve your goals, it will have to be. So, no we won't work together for anarchy. We will keep working to validate our preferred form of government.

If we fail, you will have your chance. In the mean time you can help us, but please keep your desire to have our constitutional republic dissolve into anarchy to yourself, at least while you are in here.

No offense, but your arguments are getting tired. Our country was founded a little over 200 years ago and is a constitutional republic. We want it to stay that way. Thats why I am here. If there is something else going on in these forums, it needs to end. Otherwise, I'll find somewhere else to share my ideas about restoring liberty and freedom.

and there is nothing philosophical about switching a few words around to the point where it becomes annoying.

[sdczen]

There was no true government in the early west. I do not think people really want to live in such a world.

I would be happy to live in the old west. As of now, I live in the 'new' west and it's much less appealing.

[Theocrat]

No, that is your way of doing things. Imposing yourself on others.

Anarchy is more like a bunch of people migrating to a desolate corner of Montana and seceeding. Just wanting to be left alone.

I'm "imposing myself on others"? You think anarchists aren't doing that when they "migrate to Montana and secede"?! How does the secession start? It begins with an imposition on the state to separate from the Union! You've got to be kidding me if you think anarchists have no intentions of imposing their views on the rest of society. What happens to those citizens in Montana who disagree with secession? Why should they submit to the will of the anarchists in that state who strive for the state to secede?

Please. Anarchists have every intention of imposing their views on others, and your analogy is pristine proof of that.

[sailor]

No offense, but your arguments are getting tired. Our country was founded a little over 200 years ago and is a constitutional republic. We want it to stay that way. Thats why I am here. If there is something else going on in these forums, it needs to end. Otherwise, I'll find somewhere else to share my ideas about restoring liberty and freedom.

I didn`t tell you to enter a topic about anarchy and one with a very clear title at that. You came here of your own free will. You don`t like my arguments? Don`t read them. I sure as hell don`t need you to.

[sdczen]

So you would like to be robbed when ever your back was turned eh?

Interesting concept.

What does being robbed have anything to do with Anarchy? There are laws that supposedly 'prevent' or deter robbery and it doesn't seem to help.

The problem is when people confuse Anarchy (without a ruler/government) with violent aggression & thievery.

I'll take my chances

[LibertyEagle]

Well I think anarchy is a more realistic goal than a return to the constitution. I`ve seen governments fail and crash down. But I`ve never seen one trimm itself down.
I guess it depends upon whether you believe that what is happening in our country today is by accident, or by design. I think it is the latter and therefore, if we completely crash, I don't think TPTB are going to allow us to just pick up the pieces and organize as we see fit.


So how about folks work together for a return to anarchy and when that is done, there can be duking out about wether the status quo shall be preserved or shall a new constitution be reinstated?*
If you believe as I said above that what is happening in our country is all by design, there is zero chance for enacting anarchy.

But yes, I understand what we are up against in returning our government to a constitutional level. However, it's amazing what is being done in those areas where people are actually getting up off their asses and getting involved in the political process. I venture to say if all of us who professed they'd "take a bullet for Ron Paul", or who went to a rally or participated in a sign wave, or even bitched about the current state of affairs here on this forum, would seriously get involved with their local Republican party, we'd already own the SOB.


*It is a philosophical reply, I think it is appropriate in this case. I am aware this is a RP board and he is for the constitution. Don`t get up in arms about it.
No worries. I just wonder how many are going to progress past the philosophical stage and into action, before the jack-booted thugs are at our doors.

[sailor]

I'm "imposing myself on others"? You think anarchists aren't doing that when they "migrate to Montana and secede"?! How does the secession start? It begins with an imposition on the state to separate from the Union! You've got to be kidding me if you think anarchists have no intentions of imposing their views on the rest of society. What happens to those citizens in Montana who disagree with secession? Why should they submit to the will of the anarchists in that state who strive for the state to secede?

Anarchists respect private property. Only property directly owned by the people declaring independence can be included in such a secession.

It is not a state seceeding. But people seceeding. Induviduals. People have rights. States do not.

[sdczen]

What if there are six of them and one of you?

Right now you have a full police force (federal, state, county & city) and one of you.

[Theocrat]

Anarchists respect private property. Only property directly owned by the people declaring independence can be included in such a secession.

It is not a state seceeding. But people seceeding. Induviduals. People have rights. States do not.

Anarchists may respect private property, but their system of government does not. In an anarchy, there is no objective right to property, since there is no objective rule of law and enforcement which protects private property from the perpetrators of it. In an anarchy, private property is about as private as the person who chooses to steal it by force. What stops that thief from taking another person's property in an anarchy? The property owner's gun? What if the thief has more guns? The property owner either must die for his property (which goes to the perpetrator(s) anyway), or the owner must relinquish his property due to intimidation of those with more guns.

Geez. How hard is it for you to see how that works out? No rule of law brings about no universal protection of the rights of others.

[sdczen]

Mafia's exist because the average person doesn't dare pull the trigger to eliminate the threat.

[heavenlyboy34]

+ a zillion. Keep in mind though, that Theo is clueless about what he is talking about (and admits it). No need to get TOO riled up when he starts talking like that.

:cool:


Anarchists respect private property. Only property directly owned by the people declaring independence can be included in such a secession.

It is not a state seceeding. But people seceeding. Induviduals. People have rights. States do not.

[newbitech]

I didn`t tell you to enter a topic about anarchy and one with a very clear title at that. You came here of your own free will. You don`t like my arguments? Don`t read them. I sure as hell don`t need you to.


well would you mind taking this to hot topics then so it doesn't get into my way of seeing stuff that is important?

Your arguments are clogging up the forums and its getting old and tired. You can't have an anarchy before we have our constitutional republic. Is that clear?

[sdczen]

In an anarchy, there is no concept of "equal rights". Who enforces and protects those "equal rights"? Most of all, who defines what "equal rights" are in an anarchy? I'll tell you who has "equal rights" in an anarchy. The strongest. They are equal to the rule of law because their rule is law. Who's going to stop them? You may say we have a similar problem in a republican society, but at least there is an agreed upon rule of law which is above everyone to appeal to. In an anarchy, there is no absolute, overarching law to appeal to in restraining the strongest. "Mr. Mob Boss, you can't take my house and rape my wife because that is morally wron--" *BANG* You're dead. "Who's next?" says the Mob Boss.

And that is any different in today's world, how?

[Unspun]

We're no longer interested in monopolies? People give a monopoly to government to avoid wars for that power, and think (or hope) those governments remain accountable to them.

http://www.royalgorgereservations.com/content/royalgorge/History.aspx

Congratulations on linking me to history of two competing rail roads that didn't go to war, but hired PRIVATE police forces to protect their property, thus proving the anarchist point. Well, except there was no anarchy as there was a government continually interfering and heavily subsidizing the railroads at the time.

[sailor]

well would you mind taking this to hot topics then so it doesn't get into my way of seeing stuff that is important?

Your arguments are clogging up the forums and its getting old and tired. You can't have an anarchy before we have our constitutional republic. Is that clear?

You`re spamming the topic and contributing nothing to it. It would be for the best of for everyone involved if you took to your heels.

[Theocrat]

And that is any different in today's world, how?

It's different because at least in a republic there is an accepted or antiquated rule of law which everyone is held accountable to when civil laws are broken (such as theft of private property or killing an innocent person). Also, that universal rule of law is expected to be appealed to when violations of God-given rights are committed.

However, an anarchy does not stop nor does it minimize the threat of stronger parties from violating the rights of others. Yes, I agree our federal and state governments are doing that in some measure to their constituents today, but anarchy is not immune from that sort of phenomenon, either. For some reason, proponents of anarchy believe that will not happen because people will naturally choose to live only by a pure voluntary ethic. However, that is not a guarantee against those people who do not wish to live voluntarily. They will always exist in the world, until Jesus comes back and the Resurrection takes place.

[cheapseats]

I pray wide berth for cheesy rhyme
That seeks but to address a Time
Opposing Spirits, neither wrong
Are apt to argue overlong.

This talk of anarchy and hype of gold
Does not the Commoner lean to bold
Consensus, a hard but easy riddle
Is ever somewhere near the middle.




Lullaby-Bye

Insipids and Inciters argued well into the night

Insipids said ‘Let’s wait and see,’ Inciters said ‘Let’s fight’

Grievances Inciters held, a list too long to read

Hope was what Insipids held, at last they all agreed.



Liberty Lovers and Liars met on a summer morn

Liberty Lovers told Liars of a revolution born

Liars told Liberty Lovers of a black mark by their names

Liberty Lovers told Liars to cease their Bully games.



Politician and Proletariat assembled on the lawn

Proletariat stood firm and stared Politician down

Politician told Proletariat that his work would get the axe

Proletariat told Politician that the same would go for Tax.



Suburbanites and Senators smiled across a gleaming table

Senators told Suburbanites ‘Go home while you’re still able’

Suburbanites told Senators it was they who would go home

Suburbanites told Senators ‘This is America, not Rome.’



Deciders and Defiers met on Independence Day

Defiers said Deciders would now have to skulk away

Deciders said Defiers would each one be thrown in jail

Deniers told Deciders they’d be posting no more bail.



False Hoods and Freedom Fighters faced each other in the dark

After Falseness upon Falseness, there’d be Freedom in the park

False Hoods beckoned bodyguards conflicted by their conscience

Freedom Fighters without fanfare did put end to all the nonsense.


http://rhymeoverreason.com/

[sdczen]

It's different because at least in a republic there is an accepted or antiquated rule of law which everyone is held accountable to when civil laws are broken (such as theft of private property or killing an innocent person). Also, that universal rule of law is expected to be appealed to when violations of God-given rights are committed.

However, an anarchy does not stop nor does it minimize the threat of stronger parties from violating the rights of others. Yes, I agree our federal and state governments are doing that in some measure to their constituents today, but anarchy is not immune from that sort of phenomenon, either. For some reason, proponents of anarchy believe that will not happen because people will naturally choose to live only by a pure voluntary ethic. However, that is not a guarantee against those people who do not wish to live voluntarily. They will always exist in the world, until Jesus comes back and the Resurrection takes place.

Ye of little faith in your fellow humans. The "rules of law" are no more enforceable or preventable in a Constitutional Republic or in Anarchy. You assume that free people will not stand up for the rights of themselves, their families & neighbors. Most people go through life without the intention of harming others. However, government provides a false sense of security and the people at large generally lay down and accept forces of aggression from most parties. I contend that the absence of government would increase people's vigilance and eliminate their apathy.

There will always be stronger parties. However, in Anarchy, the individual has the right to defend his/her property from the parties involved. The stronger parties today are largely unchecked because the parties are either the government or people that have colluded with governments to maintain power. Whereas, in the latter situation, we (the individuals) have no recourse.

[South Park Fan]

Anarchists may respect private property, but their system of government does not.

How so? Our system of "government" allows those who disapprove of the state to outsouce their security services somewhere else.


In an anarchy, there is no objective right to property, since there is no objective rule of law and enforcement which protects private property from the perpetrators of it.

Actually, there is, it just isn't a monopoly, but several competing providors to choose from.


In an anarchy, private property is about as private as the person who chooses to steal it by force.

Right now, about half of our income is stolen by force, so with anarchy there's not really anything to lose.


What stops that thief from taking another person's property in an anarchy? The property owner's gun? What if the thief has more guns? The property owner either must die for his property (which goes to the perpetrator(s) anyway), or the owner must relinquish his property due to intimidation of those with more guns.

And how is that different from the state? The main difference is that the state might hold a trial to determine whether the property owner was guilty of not surrendering his property, and then subsequently place the property owner in a cage for several years.


Geez. How hard is it for you to see how that works out? No rule of law brings about no universal protection of the rights of others.

Who says there wouldn't be any rule of law? It's easy to demolish straw-men.

[Theocrat]

Ye of little faith in your fellow humans. The "rules of law" are no more enforceable or preventable in a Constitutional Republic or in Anarchy. You assume that free people will not stand up for the rights of themselves, their families & neighbors. Most people go through life without the intention of harming others. However, government provides a false sense of security and the people at large generally lay down and accept forces of aggression from most parties. I contend that the absence of government would increase people's vigilance and eliminate their apathy.

There will always be stronger parties. However, in Anarchy, the individual has the right to defend his/her property from the parties involved. The stronger parties today are largely unchecked because the parties are either the government or people that have colluded with governments to maintain power. Whereas, in the latter situation, we (the individuals) have no recourse.

You're right. I do not have faith in my fellow human beings. My trust is in God, Who never fails and is faithful in all His doings. My fellow human beings, like myself, are sinful creatures, unable to rightly live and govern themselves apart from their Creator. I do believe that free people will stand up for the rights of themselves, their families, and their neighbors. That can happen in a republic, for it has happened many times before under our very own system of government.

As I keep repeating myself, the problem or focus of content in our discussion should be on the people involved in government, not the institution of government itself. I would take the liberty of quoting some of our Founders in this instance, but I perceive that such an effort would go unnoticed anyway in our conversation.

The emphasis in our republic has always been on the character of the people who are fit to serve in political office. The rule of law necessitates that. If government leaders are unjust, it is because the people who put them there are themselves unjust. That is what our current government reflects. Our people have forgotten God, and they have elected men and women who do not fear God in their private and public lives. They may give it lip service, but their actions and words speak otherwise. We need to reconsider what the personal as well as private character is of the people we support for public office. However, we have failed to do that, and the net result is the hypocrisy and corruption of politician in our governments today.

You've said that in an anarchy, "the individual has the right to defend his/her property from the parties involved," but that misses the whole critique of what has been of anarchy. The individual's right to defend his property is only as good as the malefactor's threat to take that property. If the malefactor has more guns or more people on his side, the issue of property rights for the owner becomes a moot point. The malefactor is not interested in respecting the property rights of the owner. He just wants the property for himself (and his band). You try to say that governments today coerce individuals from their property, but anarchy is no more the wiser in preventing such an occurrence. The problem lies with the human heart. Humans must change their spiritual well-being from the bottom-up, and that only comes about from a regeneration from the Spirit of God. Giving someone a Rothbard book is not enough.

[Theocrat]

How so? Our system of "government" allows those who disapprove of the state to outsouce their security services somewhere else.



Actually, there is, it just isn't a monopoly, but several competing providors to choose from.



Right now, about half of our income is stolen by force, so with anarchy there's not really anything to lose.



And how is that different from the state? The main difference is that the state might hold a trial to determine whether the property owner was guilty of not surrendering his property, and then subsequently place the property owner in a cage for several years.



Who says there wouldn't be any rule of law? It's easy to demolish straw-men.

How can you have a universal rule of law in a system of competition for what the rule of law is? Is right and wrong chosen based on what a supply and demand curve shows (which is really just appealing to the majority or what sells in the market)?

Quite honestly, every criticism against having a civil government can be turned around and used against the anarchist/"voluntaryist." Neither system absolutely guarantees no imposition of force upon individuals. It's just that one system at least has an institutionalized or uniform law (or ethic) which seeks to make such an imposition wrong or illegal, and it's not anarchy.

[Epic]

How can you have a universal rule of law in a system of competition for what the rule of law is? Is right and wrong chosen based on what a supply and demand curve shows (which is really just appealing to the majority or what sells in the market)?

Quite honestly, every criticism against having a civil government can be turned around and used against the anarchist/"voluntaryist." Neither system absolutely guarantees no imposition of force upon individuals. It's just that one system at least has an institutionalized or uniform law (or ethic) which seeks to make such an imposition wrong or illegal, and it's not anarchy.

"Is right and wrong chosen based on what a supply and demand curve shows (which is really just appealing to the majority or what sells in the market)?"

I hope so. I think the current system of right or wrong being decided by a monopoly of bureaucrats with perverse incentives to be silly.

[Theocrat]

"Is right and wrong chosen based on what a supply and demand curve shows (which is really just appealing to the majority or what sells in the market)?"

I hope so. I think the current system of right or wrong being decided by a monopoly of bureaucrats with perverse incentives to be silly.

Bureaucrats do not decide what right and wrong are, either. They are under the law of the land, which itself is subject to the eternal Law of all mankind.

[FSP-Rebel]

I'll take my chances with anarchy or voluntary law vs. that of what this government has offered us. How can you not agree, theocrat? We could hire private protection agencies in the event of thugs trying to take over. Now, government thugs take our money at gunpoint and we can't pull guns on them nor hire private protection to hold them accountable. Why side with the government model?

BTW, I'm a minarchist. Though, I'd rather have the ability to protect myself and my neighbors against street thugs than have a government with trillions of dollars using high-tech shit on me. Which model offers the reasonable chance at self-preservation?

[RevolutionSD]

You cannot win a debate with someone holding a gun. As long as there are people that support the state (ie support welfare and warfare) then force will always be their base. Minarchists (statists) will always support the use of force in order to make you comply with their moral code. These are going to be the religionists who view government as some divine arm of God because that is what they have always been told all the while government is a rejection of God.

Trying to educate them is not going to work. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" as the old saying goes or as Cat Steven's said, "You can lead a ho to water but you can't make her think."

True liberty is something that they will need to discover on their own... maybe after they have spent and voted themselves into political atheism. We are all here because we like Ron Paul but he ain't Jesus. He is living off money taken through theft and coercion.

Anyway, that's my .02. I just come here for news now.

Well I honestly used to be a minarchist and was referred to Complete Liberty by Wes Bertrand and listened to a few Freedomain Radio podcasts and realized that if I am to live with integrity, I can't possibly keep supporting the state in any way, and that means voting and participating in politics.

A change in philosophy is what society needs, not a white knight politician to ride in and save the day.

[South Park Fan]

How can you have a universal rule of law in a system of competition for what the rule of law is? Is right and wrong chosen based on what a supply and demand curve shows (which is really just appealing to the majority or what sells in the market)?

No, it is defined as an intrusion on another's personal property. The market plays in in hiring the agency best suited to defend your property, rather than having them force themselves and their ridiculous laws upon you. You can still have your civil government, but how can you possibly justify not letting us have our own government?


Quite honestly, every criticism against having a civil government can be turned around and used against the anarchist/"voluntaryist." Neither system absolutely guarantees no imposition of force upon individuals. It's just that one system at least has an institutionalized or uniform law (or ethic) which seeks to make such an imposition wrong or illegal, and it's not anarchy.

Not really. I see anarchism as coming to the logical conclusion that, in order to have a fair contract, both sides must have equal say in "interpreting" it. Those who advocate a state would like to have one party in the contract have greater say than the other party, which of course is unsustainable in the long run. Since this institutionalized law is so effective, I take it that the feds have never violated the Constitution. :rolleyes:

Since it is clear to any human with a functioning brain that the government today doesn't abide by the Constitution, what makes you think that any other attempt at limiting government would be any more effective? One should face that the only way to enforce a contract is to allow both sides to have equal interpretation of it, whether it be civil or "social".

[South Park Fan]

Bureaucrats do not decide what right and wrong are, either. They are under the law of the land, which itself is subject to the eternal Law of all mankind.

Again, do you really think that the government today actually abides by the Constitution?

[FSP-Rebel]

Again, do you really think that the government today actually abides by the Constitution?
That's a No, obviously. They use the Constitution when it gets them off the hook for something.

[tremendoustie]

''

[Young Paleocon]

I expect it's safe to say you've never read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Either that or your version of anarchy or voluntaryism or whatever puts everyone back on the farm and gives up on cities and the whole industrial revolution nonsense.

Either way, you're way off base. I want an Underwriters' Laboratories type organization (or UL itself) to take over for the USDA and the FDA and all those other incompetent alphabet soups in the mix. Don't need anarchy for that.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229

Read that silly goose, and next time don't believe everything you hear of in public schools ;).

[newbitech]

You`re spamming the topic and contributing nothing to it. It would be for the best of for everyone involved if you took to your heels.


and you are spamming these entire forums and contributing nothing to it. It would be better for the purpose of these forums if you found your plot of land where government doesn't exist.

Oh my bad, that won't ever happen since we have 6 billion people in this world of which only mabye a 1 million think that anarchy is the solution.

Seriously man, give it up. You are all talk and no action. Unless of course it is supporting violent wars that have a temporary tearing down of government so you can have your 5 minutes of anarchy fantasy.

by the way, the topic tells you to STOP. so why don't you sitck to it. Instead of standing up for your ideas in the real world, you appeal to the forum rule of going of topic and fail at that too. Is there any success from an anarchist perspective that is not 5000 years old?

[newbitech]

Well I honestly used to be a minarchist and was referred to Complete Liberty by Wes Bertrand and listened to a few Freedomain Radio podcasts and realized that if I am to live with integrity, I can't possibly keep supporting the state in any way, and that means voting and participating in politics.

A change in philosophy is what society needs, not a white knight politician to ride in and save the day.


A member since 2007 with over 2k posts talking about not voting and participating in politics.

See why we lose? Assholes like this are front runners. He bet on RP and lost now he is going back to his roots.

What a sucker. Hiding behind anarchy to cover up failures. What bullshit have I not heard today?

what bullshit. If I'd known this movement was supported by anarchist, I'd have saved my damn money.

[FSP-Rebel]

A member since 2007 with over 2k posts talking about not voting and participating in politics.

See why we lose? Assholes like this are front runners. He bet on RP and lost now he is going back to his roots.

What a sucker. Hiding behind anarchy to cover up failures. What bullshit have I not heard today?

what bullshit. If I'd known this movement was supported by anarchist, I'd have saved my damn money.

So, you have a problem with anarchists (sometimes minarchists) giving money to the RP movement? Why do you hate people who want to advocate society with a voluntary twist? If I didn't support the gov programs that you wanted, what would you do to me to make me commit to your society? How long would you put me in jail for? Now back to my minarchism, I see where you're coming from, just giving you a hard time.

[CCTelander]

well would you mind taking this to hot topics then so it doesn't get into my way of seeing stuff that is important?

Your arguments are clogging up the forums and its getting old and tired. You can't have an anarchy before we have our constitutional republic. Is that clear?

You HAD your constitutional republic and were unable to keep it. In fact, it was already being subverted even before it was officially adopted.

Our turn.

See how easy snide, condescending, low-value comments can be?

If threads about anarchy bother you, just ignore them, just like the rest of us adults do with the threads that we don't like or aren't interested in.

Just a thought.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I don't understand why Anarchists would be so obsessed with the messageboard and campaign of a Constitutionalist.

It's about as absurd as Communists coming on here

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't understand why Anarchists would be so obsessed with the messageboard and campaign of a Constitutionalist.

It's about as absurd as Communists coming on here

No more absurd than Theo's proposing killing homosexuals, which RP does not approve of. ;)

I, as an anarcho-capitalist, come here to try to gently show you truth and reality. You don't have to accept it, of course, but you reject the truth (and accept the State) at your own peril. I also hope to make clear the illogic of your support of the State (an institution which holds a monopoly on violence in its "territory"), which you proclaim to be "logical".

It would be nice to have the Constitution reinstated, but that is only an intermediary step towards liberty (autarchy). As long as the State exists, there will always be a conflict between it and those who want to be free. This board is one of numerous tools I have at my disposal to spread the message of freedom from the State. It's pretty useful, for what it is.:cool:

Hope that clears some things up for ya. Have a nice day! :)

[newbitech]

I don't understand why Anarchists would be so obsessed with the messageboard and campaign of a Constitutionalist.

It's about as absurd as Communists coming on here


just look back at the history of anarchist after humans started building cities. The only time they ever mattered is when they latched on to someone elses cause.

Its pretty disgusting. The only success I have seen from anarchy comes when 1000's of people were dying. And I call it a success because of the final outcomes of the larger movements.

9/11 truth donated tons of money to the RP campaign. Donating money to the campaign does not give anyone or any group carte blanche to subvert the foundations of this movement, which is reigning in the federal government by using the constitution.

I can't believe people have the nerve to come in here and say that our constitutional republic has failed so now its our turn. Are you serious man? Our constitutional republic is what 230 years old? It sure didn't fail to create the most successful nation in history. Yeah our form of government is being tested. Yeah we have a big fight in front of us to vindicate our founding fathers. Yeah we might fail.

But to the anarchist who say, well its our turn, where the hell have you guys been for the last 4000 years? Anarchist only show up when things start breaking down. Anarchist only show up when society goes through evolutionary changes. Anarchy is some quirk in human thinking. Anarchy is like a tail. Many embryo's have tails in the early stages of development, but once the organism matures, it loses its tail.

If you are not interested in restoring our country back to its roots, then you are really wasting your time here. And if you donated money, well you probably wasted that too.

[Theocrat]

You HAD your constitutional republic and were unable to keep it. In fact, it was already being subverted even before it was officially adopted.

Our turn.

See how easy snide, condescending, low-value comments can be?

If threads about anarchy bother you, just ignore them, just like the rest of us adults do with the threads that we don't like or aren't interested in.

Just a thought.[Emphasis mine]

Over my dead body. I'm serious about that. You seriously need a history lesson, so let me help you out before we are forced to "cross swords" with each other:

YouTube - The Basic Forms of Government and Examples in History (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTYp9YJZqTI)

[heavenlyboy34]

But to the anarchist who say, well its our turn, where the hell have you guys been for the last 4000 years?

Waiting for the aggressors to kill themselves off so we can get something done, and slowly but steadily educating those willing to listen and reason. Unlike you, those who advocate abolition of the State do not support violence or coercion (which you implicitly do with your support of the State).

Of course, we have also been brutalized by the State like everyone else, which impedes progress.

[newbitech]

Waiting for the aggressors to kill themselves off so we can get something done, and slowly but steadily educating those willing to listen and reason. Unlike you, those who advocate abolition of the State do not support violence or coercion (which you implicitly do with your support of the State).

Of course, we have also been brutalized by the State like everyone else, which impedes progress.

well I got news for ya, playing the waiting game is not what got HR 1207 up to what 190 co-sponsors. If you want change, you have to effect change.

you are accusing me of supporting violence and coercion. clearly you have no idea who I am. why don't you give me an example in your life where "the state" have been violent towards you. You can PM it to me.

you accuse me of supporting violence and coercion implicitly by linking me with supporting "the state" because I think anarchism is a joke.

You are making tons and tons of assumptions about me that are no where close to being true. and why? because I think your ideas about society and organization of people are a complete waste of time. you will never get rid of government unless you pair the population down. You'll need to get rid of nukes, you'll need to get rid of technology, you'll need to learn how to grow a garden.

Do you even have a garden? Seriously, how are you living out your anarchist lifestyle? Do you pay taxes? Are you fighting against paying taxes? Do you own a business or do you work for someone else?

You are sitting around waiting for violence to occur so you can initiate your education regimen? How is that any different from the warlords in somalia who are taking advantage of the civil unrest and lack of government?

I am really seeing anarchist as leaches who are just waiting for bad shit to happen so they can take advantage of the situation to spread bullshit fantasy stories about life without authority and how best to survive that. What's the motivation? Why wait for anarchy and collapse of society to make things better for people?

[Theocrat]

well I got news for ya, playing the waiting game is not what got HR 1207 up to what 190 co-sponsors. If you want change, you have to effect change.

you are accusing me of supporting violence and coercion. clearly you have no idea who I am. why don't you give me an example in your life where "the state" have been violent towards you. You can PM it to me.

you accuse me of supporting violence and coercion implicitly by linking me with supporting "the state" because I think anarchism is a joke.

You are making tons and tons of assumptions about me that are no where close to being true. and why? because I think your ideas about society and organization of people are a complete waste of time. you will never get rid of government unless you pair the population down. You'll need to get rid of nukes, you'll need to get rid of technology, you'll need to learn how to grow a garden.

Do you even have a garden? Seriously, how are you living out your anarchist lifestyle? Do you pay taxes? Are you fighting against paying taxes? Do you own a business or do you work for someone else?

You are sitting around waiting for violence to occur so you can initiate your education regimen? How is that any different from the warlords in somalia who are taking advantage of the civil unrest and lack of government?

I am really seeing anarchist as leaches who are just waiting for bad shit to happen so they can take advantage of the situation to spread bullshit fantasy stories about life without authority and how best to survive that. What's the motivation? Why wait for anarchy and collapse of society to make things better for people?

Anarchists/"voluntaryists" believe that our society would be better off if we could work for transitions towards more market-oriented solutions, sort of like us Constitutionalists would argue that the government should adopt more laissez-faire, capitalist approaches to the economy. Anarchists/"voluntaryists" just take it a step further by saying all human exchanges in society should be based on market-oriented agreements, with no initiation of force by either party.

I share your beliefs, though, that such a world is improbable, if not impossible. Human nature will not allow it. Besides, market-oriented ethics is limited because not everything that is profitable or successful in the market is necessarily moral or true. As a matter of fact, morality itself determines how the market should function properly in the first place. That is why such things as justice and religion should never be decided by a purely market-oriented solution. They are in a different category of necessity for human experience and interaction in making sense of what truth is, what goodness is, and what beauty is, among other things.

[ChaosControl]

Common sense.
You want change in any form? You have to do something about it.
Those who want Anarchy, which I am a recent convert too (I consider myself an Agorist), also must work to achieve what they desire.

Unlike some in my political views, I support any and all action that will get us there. Most Agorists, and probably most An-caps as a whole, oppose political action of any kind. I disagree with this view though as I feel political action is one of many vehicles to bring about change. I would encourage all Ancaps to vote, to even run for office, to contact their representatives to support legislation that'll lessen government. Just because Anarcho-Capitalism is the goal, doesn't mean we can't work with others to lessen government. We just want to go further than they do.

So I support Ron Paul, he wants to shrink government significantly, that works to everyone, include Ancaps, advantage. So why wouldn't an anarcho-capitalist support him? Anyone who wants to lessen government is good until they no longer want to lessen it.

At the same time we can work on other things too. Encourage bartering and less use of FRNs. Discourage use of banks as much as possible as well as that is really an area of government control and it is preferable not to leave a trail of economic activity in my opinion. Engage in black market activities as much as possible, do anything and everything to avoid/minimize taxation. Anything to undermine the state basically.

If worse comes to worse, I would support a full blown revolution too, but that is a worst case scenario. I don't limit my options to just counter economics, just political activism, just revolutionary actions, I will use any tool I can to achieve what I want. I will work with anyone who wants to lessen government until we reach the point that they no longer desire such.

[ChaosControl]

As a matter of fact, morality itself determines how the market should function properly in the first place. That is why such things as justice and religion should never be decided by a purely market-oriented solution.

Morality and religion shouldn't be a part of government anyway, even in a minarchy. Religion should be decided by the people who comprise that religion, your choice of religion should be yours alone. Your morality, as long as you harm none should be yours alone.

Justice... well I don't trust our government to deliver justice anymore than I'd trust the market. So I'd rather leave it up to the latter since it means no government. Only punishment for those who violate other people's property rights, which includes their person obviously. No stupid laws like you can't gamble or have a prostitute or smoke in a building. No laws at all really, but just protection of property, in which there are private courts.

[Pericles]

But to the anarchist who say, well its our turn, where the hell have you guys been for the last 4000 years?

Waiting for Al Gore to invent the internet so they could send messages to the rest of the world to get the libertarians (who can't even get 5000 people out of 300 million for the Free State Project) convinced that this more ambitious program is really the way to go, so some other people would do the work to build it for them.

Otherwise, one might actually have to do something, such as work out a plan to build a model in maybe a low population county that would result in the elimination local and school taxes to serve as a model for the rest of the world as to the potential that exists by adapting the model.

But, being people of principle, are waiting for the rest of the world to experience an epiphany, rather than actually do something that would be the adaption of anything less than the entire program.

[RevolutionSD]

Waiting for Al Gore to invent the internet so they could send messages to the rest of the world to get the libertarians (who can't even get 5000 people out of 300 million for the Free State Project) convinced that this more ambitious program is really the way to go, so some other people would do the work to build it for them.

Otherwise, one might actually have to do something, such as work out a plan to build a model in maybe a low population county that would result in the elimination local and school taxes to serve as a model for the rest of the world as to the potential that exists by adapting the model.

But, being people of principle, are waiting for the rest of the world to experience an epiphany, rather than actually do something that would be the adaption of anything less than the entire program.

Hey Pericles, good idea with building out a plan to build a model in a low population county. A friend and I were tossing around the idea of a "free city" project here in Socal. Take a city with a population of about 20k or so and get as many freedom-loving people to move their as possible, and start exposing the hypocrisy. Get rid of all aspects of statism within that city simply by starting a free media outlet and continually pounding away at the bureaucrats and all the nonsense that goes into "runnning" a city.

No need to "run for office", although we could certainly expose all the city council critters, etc. who are really just authoritarian sociopathic bureaucrats.

Free City Project I think could work. Start in Southern CA where the weather is warm and most people are either fed up with the system or completely apathetic.

Don't you think that would be better than sitting here on a message board debating anarchism vs. minarchism, and also better than trying to raise money for the latest libertarian-leaning senatorial candidate?

[heavenlyboy34]

well I got news for ya, playing the waiting game is not what got HR 1207 up to what 190 co-sponsors. If you want change, you have to effect change.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post about how that bill was effectively neutered in the Senate. Our activism was somewhat in vain (I say "our" because I also called my congresscritter on that.).


you are accusing me of supporting violence and coercion. clearly you have no idea who I am. why don't you give me an example in your life where "the state" have been violent towards you. You can PM it to me.

The State exacts taxes from me on every purchase I make and even taxes the land I live on. If I decide not to pay rendition to the State(taxes), they will use violence against me. This is only one example.


you accuse me of supporting violence and coercion implicitly by linking me with supporting "the state" because I think anarchism is a joke.

Unless you've found a "third way" in which you enjoy the benefits of the State without being subject to its laws and such-then yes, you support violence and coercion (which the State has a monopoly on)


You are making tons and tons of assumptions about me that are no where close to being true. and why? because I think your ideas about society and organization of people are a complete waste of time. you will never get rid of government unless you pair the population down. You'll need to get rid of nukes, you'll need to get rid of technology, you'll need to learn how to grow a garden.

I have worked with the information you provided and made no other assumptions about you.


Do you even have a garden? Seriously, how are you living out your anarchist lifestyle? Do you pay taxes? Are you fighting against paying taxes? Do you own a business or do you work for someone else?

I cannot grow a garden because of the poor soil and extreme heat in AZ. I will when I move to cooler climbs. I took a business class, and plan to start a business when I build up enough capital. I promote my work on the web in the interim. As I noted in an earlier thread, I am currently unemployed because the job market is a friggin disaster here.


You are sitting around waiting for violence to occur so you can initiate your education regimen? How is that any different from the warlords in somalia who are taking advantage of the civil unrest and lack of government?

Because I will not use force to make people listen to me. They must tire of the State's monopoly over their lives before they will seek a more reasonable solution. This is how the free market of ideas works. Perhaps you've never been an author of any sort? I'm in the business of media arts, and that is how I know this works.


I am really seeing anarchist as leaches who are just waiting for bad shit to happen so they can take advantage of the situation to spread bullshit fantasy stories about life without authority and how best to survive that. What's the motivation? Why wait for anarchy and collapse of society to make things better for people?

While people are enjoying the perceived "benefits" of the State, they will not listen to reason. (sort of like how a person in a chronically abusive relationship will not listen to their families' pleas to get away from the abuser) All I can do is continue to teach to those willing and able to understand.

[heavenlyboy34]

Common sense.
You want change in any form? You have to do something about it.
Those who want Anarchy, which I am a recent convert too (I consider myself an Agorist), also must work to achieve what they desire.

Unlike some in my political views, I support any and all action that will get us there. Most Agorists, and probably most An-caps as a whole, oppose political action of any kind. I disagree with this view though as I feel political action is one of many vehicles to bring about change. I would encourage all Ancaps to vote, to even run for office, to contact their representatives to support legislation that'll lessen government. Just because Anarcho-Capitalism is the goal, doesn't mean we can't work with others to lessen government. We just want to go further than they do.

So I support Ron Paul, he wants to shrink government significantly, that works to everyone, include Ancaps, advantage. So why wouldn't an anarcho-capitalist support him? Anyone who wants to lessen government is good until they no longer want to lessen it.

At the same time we can work on other things too. Encourage bartering and less use of FRNs. Discourage use of banks as much as possible as well as that is really an area of government control and it is preferable not to leave a trail of economic activity in my opinion. Engage in black market activities as much as possible, do anything and everything to avoid/minimize taxation. Anything to undermine the state basically.

If worse comes to worse, I would support a full blown revolution too, but that is a worst case scenario. I don't limit my options to just counter economics, just political activism, just revolutionary actions, I will use any tool I can to achieve what I want. I will work with anyone who wants to lessen government until we reach the point that they no longer desire such.

You have a pretty reasonable stance, IMHO. Sort of a "middle way" approach. It's not for me, but I hope it works for you. :)

[newbitech]

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbitech http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2154709#post2154709)
well I got news for ya, playing the waiting game is not what got HR 1207 up to what 190 co-sponsors. If you want change, you have to effect change.


Perhaps you missed my earlier post about how that bill was effectively neutered in the Senate. Our activism was somewhat in vain (I say "our" because I also called my congresscritter on that.).rr

That's a big ol heap of misinformation. We haven't even begun to work on the companion bill as far as I am aware. There are many competing bills that have to do with the FED. Perhaps with you are confused by this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbitech http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2154709#post2154709)
you are accusing me of supporting violence and coercion. clearly you have no idea who I am. why don't you give me an example in your life where "the state" have been violent towards you. You can PM it to me.


The State exacts taxes from me on every purchase I make and even taxes the land I live on. If I decide not to pay rendition to the State(taxes), they will use violence against me. This is only one example.This is a pretty limp argument imo. Its the same tired example being repeated over and over by anarchist trying to convince me that they have experienced violence from the state. Have you even tried to live without buying taxable stuff? I agree, the coercion is there, but you are stretching this to mean violent. I'll give you a quick example from my life. I was assualted by the city police on my front porch because I asserted my natural rights protected by the constitution. Have you even tried to assert your natural rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbitech http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2154709#post2154709)
you accuse me of supporting violence and coercion implicitly by linking me with supporting "the state" because I think anarchism is a joke.


Unless you've found a "third way" in which you enjoy the benefits of the State without being subject to its laws and such-then yes, you support violence and coercion (which the State has a monopoly on)So you think "the state" has benefits that I enjoy? Your logic is completely misguided. I don't support violence and coercion, this is why I seek representation within the context of the law. Have you ever been to court? Have you ever stood in front of a judge and jury and been "the subject" of the law? Did you defend yourself? Did you attempt to appeal to the law? Based on your argument, anyone who owns a home supports violence and coercion. Do you own a home?

Its not hard for me to imagine that I don't support violence and coercion, because anything that I do that supports "the state" is actually something that is forced upon me by the state. So its not my fault that I support violence and coercion, its "the states" fault, right? That kind of circular logic is why anarchism fails. You can't even identify who "the state" is. Anarchy's war on "the state" is like the neo-con war on "terrorism". You can't have a war on a concept or a strategy or a perceived social construct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbitech http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2154709#post2154709)
You are making tons and tons of assumptions about me that are no where close to being true. and why? because I think your ideas about society and organization of people are a complete waste of time. you will never get rid of government unless you pair the population down. You'll need to get rid of nukes, you'll need to get rid of technology, you'll need to learn how to grow a garden.


I have worked with the information you provided and made no other assumptions about you.No I have not provided you with any information. I am telling you that anarchism is inferior to constitutional law. You might get anarchism from time to time because certain individuals abuse power, but you'll never get anarchism because people want or desire it as a solution to governments propensity towards abuse of power.


Quote:
Originally Posted by newbitech http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2154709#post2154709)
Do you even have a garden? Seriously, how are you living out your anarchist lifestyle? Do you pay taxes? Are you fighting against paying taxes? Do you own a business or do you work for someone else?

I take your non answer as no you don't have a garden, no you aren't seriously living or trying to live an anarchist lifestyle, yes you pay taxes, no you are not fighting against paying taxes, no you don't own a business, and yes you do work for someone else.

I ask you these questions because I do have a garden, I am serious about my constitutional law abiding lifestyle, I do pay taxes, I do fight against taxes which I believe to be unlawful, I do own a business at the same time I do work for someone else.

See, I have a practical lifestyle that supports my belief system. Maybe you do to. I'd like for you to tell me about your lifestyle and how it supports you belief that anarchy is the way to go.


Quote:
Originally Posted by newbitech http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2154709#post2154709)
You are sitting around waiting for violence to occur so you can initiate your education regimen? How is that any different from the warlords in somalia who are taking advantage of the civil unrest and lack of government?


Because I will not use force to make people listen to me. They must tire of the State's monopoly over their lives before they will seek a more reasonable solution. This is how the free market of ideas works. Perhaps you've never been an author of any sort? I'm in the business of media arts, and that is how I know this works.So you'll sit idly by waiting for other people to intitiate the violence and then hope people will listen? I mean if you aren't trying to stop the violence, your apathy makes you complicit. How are you trying to tell me that I support violence and coercion when you are the one sitting around waiting for it to happen? Everyday I work against violence and coercion while hoping the people seek a more reasonable solution. I guess what you fail to notice is that there is a solution that has proven to work more than once. That's what I am working on. The free market of ideas has proven that a constitutional republic is the most equitable form of government that humans have ever come up with.

You can't market ideas like you market your art. An idea is worthless unless it can manifest into tangible beneficial results. Ideas will always exist in the realm of the free market, as long as by free market you mean it doesn't cost anything to produce ideas. There is no shortage of good ideas, but the demand is pretty dried up. This means people are pretty much satisfied with the ideas they already have. If you want to convince people to buy your idea, you can't market it by saying, "Well this idea won't work until everyone buys it." That's instant fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbitech http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2154709#post2154709)
I am really seeing anarchist as leaches who are just waiting for bad shit to happen so they can take advantage of the situation to spread bullshit fantasy stories about life without authority and how best to survive that. What's the motivation? Why wait for anarchy and collapse of society to make things better for people?


While people are enjoying the perceived "benefits" of the State, they will not listen to reason. (sort of like how a person in a chronically abusive relationship will not listen to their families' pleas to get away from the abuser) All I can do is continue to teach to those willing and able to understand.I think you are completely out of touch with reality. I look around me and I don't see anyone enjoying any benefits from "the state". I see people being pissed off because they are losing jobs, losing money, losing relationships. And why? Not because of "the state". People are pissed because the people we are electing to represent us are not being held accountable. PERIOD. We have a law in this country, and its not being followed. Once we get back to holding everyone accountable under the rule of law, we will have proven once again that a constitutional republic can deliver prosperity, happiness, and safety for each member of that society that is responsible enough to follow the damn rules.

I don't think going on and on about an aboriginal lifestyle while at the same time doing nothing to change your own lifestyle to be in line with your beliefs is going to convince anyone that we need to hold our elected officials accountable.

Lest you forget where you are, this is the general politics section of the grassroots forum for an elected official. The idea here is to hold elected officials accountable to the constitution and to show them how they should act by looking at the examples laid out by Ron Paul.

I understand that your desire for anarchy shares goals with that of limited government. But I think what you are failing to realize, at least by your comments, is that anarchy is the absence of that which the creators and participants of this forum have set out to obtain.

So, really give it a rest. Work with us to achieve our goals. Otherwise, why are you here? This is not an anarchist training ground. Take your ideas about what our country and what we need as individuals somewhere that won't be distracting to the folks who we are focusing on.

Give the anarchy babble a rest because its exercise in futility. I appreciate the political banter and the competing ideas, but I am pretty sure the direction the movement is going to take is towards reestablishing accountability in government under a constitutional republic.

We might get a few months of anarchy in that process, but I sure hope not. If we do, I am sure you and I won't be chatting it up in this forum. Do you want that to happen?

[acptulsa]

Common sense...

Very much so and thank you for it. Seems to be in the wrong thread, though...

[LibertyEagle]

Perhaps you missed my earlier post about how that bill was effectively neutered in the Senate. Our activism was somewhat in vain (I say "our" because I also called my congresscritter on that.).


Untrue. And you were corrected back in the thread in which you made this claim. Ron's bill does not have a Senate companion yet.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

[heavenlyboy34]

Quote:

We might get a few months of anarchy in that process, but I sure hope not. If we do, I am sure you and I won't be chatting it up in this forum. Do you want that to happen?

Under your definition of "anarchy", no. Under mine, yes. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Untrue. And you were corrected back in the thread in which you made this claim. Ron's bill does not have a Senate companion yet.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Well, I am not trying to spread misinfo. I was misinformed myself, and I appreciate those who politely corrected me. :) See here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-604 to find the Senate companion bill (as I was informed by a party not on this site).

[acptulsa]

Well, I am not trying to spread misinfo. I was misinformed myself, and I appreciate those who politely corrected me. :)

Then you had better pay heed, because around here the third time lacks charm.

[newbitech]

Under your definition of "anarchy", no. Under mine, yes. :cool:

Really that is your response?

Here is my definition of anarchism.



Anarchism clearly means a particular thing. For example, it is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:
1. The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable, and should be abolished; 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists; 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.


Did you have something different in mind?