PDA

View Full Version : Anarchy, Free Trade and the Cheyenne




Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 02:00 PM
I've been giving a lot of thought about just how to reconcile a limited government/no government philosophy with the real world realities of globalized "free trade", economic policy, nationalism, immigration, tariffs and borders.

I've made my position clear, (and been called an idiot and a fascist for it, among other things, LoL) that we are engaged in an economic battle that will determine the future of this nation, the future well being of all our children and, quite literally, the future of freedom.

That the battle requires acting in a national interest, and that action needs to taken right now that leads to more production, more actual making and transporting of real goods. Value added manufacturing is the only path to a stable middle class and a high quality standard of living. Talk of "service economies" and "information products" are just new world order fictions.

"Heresy!!!", screams the purist, "a voluntary society is the only way, anything else is slavery". A point well taken, and when pressed as to where or when this type of society has ever existed, the standard answer is" well, it's never been tried. True anarchy will work when tried".

I submit it has been tried, and worked for many centuries.

The Plains Indians, the Blackfoot, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, among others, lived what could probably be described as being as near to perfect anarchistic existence. They lived with no responsibility of "ownership", they lived with no central government, they lived with no police, they lived with no standing armies, they lived with no formal taxation.

Certainly they had social "order" and they also had war, but not in the western sense of war, meaning total annihilation, but more in the sense of an animal "warring" with another for territory.

In many ways, while romanticized over the years, their existence could be described as idyllic.

But here is my point: when threatened from the outside by a foreign invader (us), they were completely and utterly unable to provide any form of defense, they were utterly unable to continue to live their life as they saw fit, in short, they were annihilated.

They lost the right to self determination, they lost the right choose any sort of destiny for their people, and are now a hollow shell of the once proud people they were.

And this is why I remain, for all it's warts, a nationalist.

Now, what that nation's boundaries may be, I'm not that concerned. I recall back in the 90's, Strobe Talbot, a Clinton adviser, took an awful lot of heat for writing in a book something to the effect that "national boundaries are just arbitrary lines on a map". Well he's right, although in his case, for the wrong reasons, since he was advocating more of this insanity called globalism.

Regardless of borders, a nation that acts in it's best interests, in this case, maximum freedom and opportunity for the citizens of the nation, as close to a voluntary society within, while maintaining real defense against those in the world that would take that away, either through conventional warfare or economic warfare or demographic warfare, is what I am in favor of.

Therefore, secession from the regime poses no problem for me. By all means, let the minority of us, the remnant of freedom minded folks, divorce ourselves from the insanity of the welfare/warfare state and reset the clock to zero within the boundaries of our own nation.

In fact, I view this as the only viable option left.

Travlyr
10-24-2010, 02:06 PM
Well said!

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 02:15 PM
That the battle requires acting in a national interest...

Shta, tovarich?

Da, for the common good, comrade!

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 02:18 PM
Shta, tovarich?

Da, for the common good, comrade!

Is a fire brigade communist?

;)

ETA - You give me grief over "division of labor".

I'm in favor of doing as much as possible for oneself. For having a very broad skill set.

You are in favor of highly specialized division of labor, specific, narrow tasks and specialties.

Well, that only works with central planning.

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 02:22 PM
You're asking to respond to protectionism, with protectionism. Period. On the contrary to what you believe, the *laws of economics* show that this will *not* lead to increased production, prosperity, or wealth - nor will it result in more job creation. It will further destroy the nation. Your premises is based on a fallacy, and you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the implications of what you are advocating.

I suggest you look at the Smoot-Hawley Act, and it's role in the legitimate causes of the Great Depression. You are basically asking for something along the lines of another Smoot-Hawley.

History is against you, economics is against you, and morality is against you in your stance on this issue.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 02:27 PM
You're asking to respond to protectionism, with protectionism. Period.

Someone shoots at me, I shoot back.

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 02:29 PM
Is a fire brigade communist?

;)

If he favors policy of the public the national / public / common good over the individual, like you are doing here. He is a statist. Period.


ETA - You give me grief over "division of labor".

I'm in favor of doing as much as possible for oneself. For having a very broad skill set.

You are in favor of highly specialized division of labor, specific, narrow tasks and specialties.

Well, that only works with central planning.

This is a strawman fallacy. I favor the voluntary social and commercial interactions between individuals. You are the one favoring statist intervention here. The free market is central planning??? Please don't start with the Orwellian doublethink again, AF. Please. You're better than this - and to resort to such statist propaganda is disingenuous and dishonest, and you know it.

Freedom is slavery, ey comrade?

Of course, I acknowledge that we don't really have free trade - but you are supporting further reduced free trade to combat protectionism. Any measure of increased free trade is preferable to reducing free trade, through increased restrictions on trade.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 02:43 PM
This is a strawman fallacy. I favor the voluntary social and commercial interactions between individuals. You are the one favoring statist intervention here. The free market is central planning??? Please don't start with the Orwellian doublethink again, AF. Please. You're better than this - and to resort to such statist propaganda is disingenuous and dishonest, and you know it.

I don't see that as a "strawman", to me it's a legitimate question.

So "voluntary" central planning is OK?

But isn't the end result the same?

A loss of free will?

See, to me, corporate tyranny is just as bad as government tyranny.

Do you really want to live in world that the only place you could get a job would be within the corporate megopoly? Be forced to attend church service like in Rochester back in the day? Be subjected to usury through the company store? (Wal Marx's wet dream)

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2010, 02:51 PM
One of the many things left out of your understanding of Voluntaryism, OP, is the abolishment of "public"(socialized) property. This alone will greatly reduce conflict and unrest. For example, a common complaint in most any given locality is road disrepair. Most of the time, nothing gets done, and if it does, it is often over-budget and late (as well as shoddy). Since there is noone to hold responsible for this, all people can do is gripe about it. There is a lot more to the subject than I've touched on here. I hope to write a few articles about this in the future.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2010, 02:53 PM
I don't see that as a "strawman", to me it's a legitimate question.

So "voluntary" central planning is OK?

But isn't the end result the same?

A loss of free will?

See, to me, corporate tyranny is just as bad as government tyranny.

Do you really want to live in world that the only place you could get a job would be within the corporate megopoly? Be forced to attend church service like in Rochester back in the day? Be subjected to usury through the company store? (Wal Marx's wet dream)


Briefly, the problems you mention are not inherent in corporations per se (a "corporation" can be comprised of just one person), but a sick partnership between corporations and government ("soft fascism"). ttyl, bro. Peace.:cool:

mczerone
10-24-2010, 03:37 PM
I've been giving a lot of thought about just how to reconcile a limited government/no government philosophy with the real world realities of globalized "free trade", economic policy, nationalism, immigration, tariffs and borders.

I've made my position clear, (and been called an idiot and a fascist for it, among other things, LoL) that we are engaged in an economic battle that will determine the future of this nation, the future well being of all our children and, quite literally, the future of freedom.

That the battle requires acting in a national interest, and that action needs to taken right now that leads to more production, more actual making and transporting of real goods. Value added manufacturing is the only path to a stable middle class and a high quality standard of living. Talk of "service economies" and "information products" are just new world order fictions.

"Heresy!!!", screams the purist, "a voluntary society is the only way, anything else is slavery". A point well taken, and when pressed as to where or when this type of society has ever existed, the standard answer is" well, it's never been tried. True anarchy will work when tried".

I submit it has been tried, and worked for many centuries.

The Plains Indians, the Blackfoot, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, among others, lived what could probably be described as being as near to perfect anarchistic existence. They lived with no responsibility of "ownership", they lived with no central government, they lived with no police, they lived with no standing armies, they lived with no formal taxation.

Certainly they had social "order" and they also had war, but not in the western sense of war, meaning total annihilation, but more in the sense of an animal "warring" with another for territory.

In many ways, while romanticized over the years, their existence could be described as idyllic.

But here is my point: when threatened from the outside by a foreign invader (us), they were completely and utterly unable to provide any form of defense, they were utterly unable to continue to live their life as they saw fit, in short, they were annihilated.

They lost the right to self determination, they lost the right choose any sort of destiny for their people, and are now a hollow shell of the once proud people they were.

And this is why I remain, for all it's warts, a nationalist.

Now, what that nation's boundaries may be, I'm not that concerned. I recall back in the 90's, Strobe Talbot, a Clinton adviser, took an awful lot of heat for writing in a book something to the effect that "national boundaries are just arbitrary lines on a map". Well he's right, although in his case, for the wrong reasons, since he was advocating more of this insanity called globalism.

Regardless of boarders, a nation that acts in it's best interests, in this case, maximum freedom and opportunity for the citizens of the nation, as close to a voluntary society within, while maintaining real defense against those in the world that would take that away, either through conventional warfare or economic warfare or demographic warfare, is what I am in favor of.

Therefore, secession from the regime poses no problem for me. By all means, let the minority of us, the remnant of freedom minded folks, divorce ourselves from the insanity of the welfare/warfare state and reset the clock to zero within the boundaries of our own nation.

In fact, I view this as the only viable option left.

So, to reduce but not oversimplify, you're arguing that to protect from invasion from any threat we each need to make binding alliances with as broad a group as possible, right?


If that is the argument, I don't see how having a "national defense" follows. First, to broadly classify all Americans as "a single people" whose "self determination" depends on the support of a central war machine necessarily contradicts the preservation of their "self determination". What of those people who don't agree with the central war machine? What if the military is more concerned with protecting largely symbolic targets (e.g. the White House, federal buildings) than targets that would be more devastating to the people and the economy, like malls, factories, or infrastructure? What if the military uses means you don't agree with to fight, such as nuclear weapons or civilian embargoes?

Should you still be forced, at the point of a gun, to pay a percentage of your income to this "protection" that you don't agree with, and is contrary to your self determination?

Second, no one except the gov't is preventing you from forming well armed militias which would be able to enter into "mutual defense" contracts with other militias of surrounding areas. These would truly defend your "self preservation", as if they acted contrary to what you wished, you could leave and protect yourself pro se or with the aid of another militia.

Third, why does centralized national defense present a certain benefit over loose tribal ties, as in your Cheyenne example? Could it have been that the invading Anglo hoards were just more ruthless, unscrupulous, and better armed? Could it have been the case that the native population "nationalized", and did WORSE to protect their lands than they did as unincorporated bands? Your example is not conclusive. For instance, the people of Poland had a nationalized defense - did that stop the Third Reich? Did the Inca fare better against the conquistadors than did the un-nationalized tribes in the jungle? If anything, this shows that it may be a better survival strategy to lay quiet and let the invaders focus on their biggest threat, rather than join the biggest threat and be annihilated.

Lastly, who says having China "invade" and take over the federal apparatus would in any way make the well being of the general American populace worse off? What if the current national structure is more invasive and limiting of your "self determination" than a foreign invader would be? Should forced support of "national defense" still be justified? Isn't this just the hypothetical that really illuminates what the "national defense" is truly protecting (i.e. the federal apparatus and the well being of the ruling class)?

You're a Nationalist first, and a war-machine apologist second. Please let me know when you've realized that Liberty is the answer, and that Liberty cannot be defended through coercion.

axiomata
10-24-2010, 03:44 PM
Someone shoots at me, I shoot back.
Protectionism is more like:

Someone shoots their own citizens, our government shoots ours right back!

mczerone
10-24-2010, 03:49 PM
Someone shoots at me, I shoot back.

So what if it's the taxman threatening to shoot you so that the federal military can shoot at people that haven't shot at you?

JoshLowry
10-24-2010, 04:05 PM
I've been giving a lot of thought about just how to reconcile a limited government/no government philosophy with the real world realities of globalized "free trade", economic policy, nationalism, immigration, tariffs and borders.

I've made my position clear, (and been called an idiot and a fascist for it, among other things, LoL) that we are engaged in an economic battle that will determine the future of this nation, the future well being of all our children and, quite literally, the future of freedom.

That the battle requires acting in a national interest, and that action needs to taken right now that leads to more production, more actual making and transporting of real goods. Value added manufacturing is the only path to a stable middle class and a high quality standard of living. Talk of "service economies" and "information products" are just new world order fictions.

"Heresy!!!", screams the purist, "a voluntary society is the only way, anything else is slavery". A point well taken, and when pressed as to where or when this type of society has ever existed, the standard answer is" well, it's never been tried. True anarchy will work when tried".

I submit it has been tried, and worked for many centuries.

The Plains Indians, the Blackfoot, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, among others, lived what could probably be described as being as near to perfect anarchistic existence. They lived with no responsibility of "ownership", they lived with no central government, they lived with no police, they lived with no standing armies, they lived with no formal taxation.

Certainly they had social "order" and they also had war, but not in the western sense of war, meaning total annihilation, but more in the sense of an animal "warring" with another for territory.

In many ways, while romanticized over the years, their existence could be described as idyllic.

But here is my point: when threatened from the outside by a foreign invader (us), they were completely and utterly unable to provide any form of defense, they were utterly unable to continue to live their life as they saw fit, in short, they were annihilated.

They lost the right to self determination, they lost the right choose any sort of destiny for their people, and are now a hollow shell of the once proud people they were.

And this is why I remain, for all it's warts, a nationalist.

Now, what that nation's boundaries may be, I'm not that concerned. I recall back in the 90's, Strobe Talbot, a Clinton adviser, took an awful lot of heat for writing in a book something to the effect that "national boundaries are just arbitrary lines on a map". Well he's right, although in his case, for the wrong reasons, since he was advocating more of this insanity called globalism.

Regardless of boarders, a nation that acts in it's best interests, in this case, maximum freedom and opportunity for the citizens of the nation, as close to a voluntary society within, while maintaining real defense against those in the world that would take that away, either through conventional warfare or economic warfare or demographic warfare, is what I am in favor of.

Therefore, secession from the regime poses no problem for me. By all means, let the minority of us, the remnant of freedom minded folks, divorce ourselves from the insanity of the welfare/warfare state and reset the clock to zero within the boundaries of our own nation.

In fact, I view this as the only viable option left.

Great post AF!

mczerone
10-24-2010, 04:26 PM
Great post AF!

"Great" like any misreading of a single historical anecdote as the basis for stealing from your neighbors can be great?

He doesn't prove that nationalizing the tribes would have allowed them to fend off the US invasion, or that this nationalization would have preserved their "self determination". He just gives a single example of loosely banded defense that failed, and tries to blame the fact that they failed on their being loosely banded.

It seems to directly contradict the sentiment of the revolutionary founders, that they should have liberty, or they should die trying to protect it. AF is saying, well we can give up liberty because it might be a decent strategy to stay alive, even if we have to be subservient to the national interest. And he doesn't even get anywhere near actually proving that this strategy actually will work to preserve any notion of what he claims to be valuing, namely "self determination".

I'm sorry, but please allow me liberty or else try to put me to death.

Travlyr
10-24-2010, 04:34 PM
Anarchical societies are virtually non-existent today and throughout history have always gone the way of the dodo bird.

JoshLowry
10-24-2010, 04:34 PM
Why yes, AF and I both support stealing from our neighbors.

ಠ_ಠ

AF does draw some important parallels. Is it the best post on the internet? Probably not. But I appreciate him sharing some of his well thought out ideas.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 04:47 PM
So, to reduce but not oversimplify, you're arguing that to protect from invasion from any threat we each need to make binding alliances with as broad a group as possible, right?

No, not quite, I'm making the case that there is such a thing as a national interest.

And the Mezo American cultures, or Poland, or any of the others that you may have mentioned were not brought up because they in no way represented anything close to an anarchistic society.

You don't like the Cheyenne example?

Fine, try Hong Kong, free trade paradise, that, when push came down to shove, had no choice but to be repatriated back to the Communist Chinese.


[a]nd a war-machine apologist second. Please let me know when you've realized that Liberty is the answer, and that Liberty cannot be defended through coercion.

No, I am not, and it's ridiculous to make that accusation regarding me, but, you're free to think what you want.

I'll own the "nationalist" label.

ClayTrainor
10-24-2010, 04:57 PM
Anarchical societies limited governments are virtually non-existent today and throughout history have always gone the way of the dodo bird.

;):p

Travlyr
10-24-2010, 05:26 PM
;):p
Clever. ;)

I have made no secret that I believe fiat money cabal's control and expand governments. Societies using honest monetary systems can starve and appropriately limit governments.

mczerone
10-24-2010, 05:40 PM
No, not quite, I'm making the case that there is such a thing as a national interest.

And the Mezo American cultures, or Poland, or any of the others that you may have mentioned were not brought up because they in no way represented anything close to an anarchistic society.

You don't like the Cheyenne example?

Fine, try Hong Kong, free trade paradise, that, when push came down to shove, had no choice but to be repatriated back to the Communist Chinese.



No, I am not, and it's ridiculous to make that accusation regarding me, but, you're free to think what you want.

I'll own the "nationalist" label.

I'm sorry if I was too harsh, bad day.

Anyway, I really disagree that there needs to be any "geographic monopoly" of any services, and as soon as national status is adopted, it ceases to be a free land. The entire idea of national defense for "Galt's Gulch" or any "land of the free" is contradictory on its face, and while some anarchistic societies may have found it necessary to yield to a gov't for defense purposes, it was only necessary to do so because they were collectivizing the ownership of the property.

I agree that any group of people that come together for any ideology in a single area need to defend that single area with their "national defense". But this observation that you make simply guides those interested in true Liberty to not try to incorporate a fixed landmass as a nation. There certainly can be areas that are more heavily concentrated with those that believe in Liberty, but they should always and forever resist granting any monopoly at any scale. They should each be free to support any type of defense they agree with.

Further, the goal for Liberty shouldn't be a "free nation", it should be "free individuals" wherever they reside and own property. A wide confederation of individuals believing in Liberty and living in cities amongst others who believe in statism would be impossible to defeat with the means of an "invasion". There would be nothing to invade. The answer isn't "national" defense - it's free competition in defense services, and each who believes in Liberty actually defending every other individual's right to choose their service provider.

Hong Kong failed to retain it's "free state" status because it tried to identify a culture with a landmass. If instead of choosing the island to be the defining characteristic of its adherents, it could have chosen the idea of freedom and the free association with the provision of the services provided from that landmass. Then people could have been part of the "Hong Kong" culture whether they were on that island, in mainland China, in Sri Lanka, in Tokyo, or in Boise.

The Cheyenne example is barely an "anarchistic" model. The tribal structure gave the appearance to outsiders (i.e. the US govt) that there were no "individual owners" of the land which justified their invasion, and gave the people living in the tribe little recourse to defend their own possessions their own way, they had to abide by the wishes of the chiefs. Indeed the natives were living in nations already, and consequently needed to resort to national defense.

There are struggles that need to be overcome to live freely, but because they may be difficult to solve without falling back to governmental solutions doesn't mean we should give up looking for noncoercive alternatives. And furthermore, because living freely is not the status quo, and hasn't been the dominant mode of human culture possibly ever, looking to historical examples may be discouraging or misleading, but they do not prove that freedom is impossible, only that there is room for improvement over everyone's attempts previously made.

P.S. I brought up Central/South American culture precisely because there was a situation where a single invasion force encountered Imperial defenses, loosely affiliated tribal defense, and 'anarchistic' singular tribes that had only their own resources to defend themselves. Of all these, it appears that the best mode of living were the singular tribes that were able to live in "backwaters" that neither the conquistadors nor the Imperial Inca were interested in invading, as they are the most likely to have survived to this day, and have made great cultural gains in recent times now that peaceful trade is more likely.

Dripping Rain
10-24-2010, 05:46 PM
I've been giving a lot of thought about just how to reconcile a limited government/no government philosophy with the real world realities of globalized "free trade", economic policy, nationalism, immigration, tariffs and borders.

I've made my position clear, (and been called an idiot and a fascist for it, among other things, LoL) that we are engaged in an economic battle that will determine the future of this nation, the future well being of all our children and, quite literally, the future of freedom.

That the battle requires acting in a national interest, and that action needs to taken right now that leads to more production, more actual making and transporting of real goods. Value added manufacturing is the only path to a stable middle class and a high quality standard of living. Talk of "service economies" and "information products" are just new world order fictions.

"Heresy!!!", screams the purist, "a voluntary society is the only way, anything else is slavery". A point well taken, and when pressed as to where or when this type of society has ever existed, the standard answer is" well, it's never been tried. True anarchy will work when tried".

I submit it has been tried, and worked for many centuries.

The Plains Indians, the Blackfoot, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, among others, lived what could probably be described as being as near to perfect anarchistic existence. They lived with no responsibility of "ownership", they lived with no central government, they lived with no police, they lived with no standing armies, they lived with no formal taxation.

Certainly they had social "order" and they also had war, but not in the western sense of war, meaning total annihilation, but more in the sense of an animal "warring" with another for territory.

In many ways, while romanticized over the years, their existence could be described as idyllic.

But here is my point: when threatened from the outside by a foreign invader (us), they were completely and utterly unable to provide any form of defense, they were utterly unable to continue to live their life as they saw fit, in short, they were annihilated.

They lost the right to self determination, they lost the right choose any sort of destiny for their people, and are now a hollow shell of the once proud people they were.

And this is why I remain, for all it's warts, a nationalist.

Now, what that nation's boundaries may be, I'm not that concerned. I recall back in the 90's, Strobe Talbot, a Clinton adviser, took an awful lot of heat for writing in a book something to the effect that "national boundaries are just arbitrary lines on a map". Well he's right, although in his case, for the wrong reasons, since he was advocating more of this insanity called globalism.

Regardless of boarders, a nation that acts in it's best interests, in this case, maximum freedom and opportunity for the citizens of the nation, as close to a voluntary society within, while maintaining real defense against those in the world that would take that away, either through conventional warfare or economic warfare or demographic warfare, is what I am in favor of.

Therefore, secession from the regime poses no problem for me. By all means, let the minority of us, the remnant of freedom minded folks, divorce ourselves from the insanity of the welfare/warfare state and reset the clock to zero within the boundaries of our own nation.

In fact, I view this as the only viable option left.

I fully endorse this post

mczerone
10-24-2010, 05:57 PM
Regardless of boarders, a nation that acts in it's best interests, in this case, maximum freedom and opportunity for the citizens of the nation, as close to a voluntary society within, while maintaining real defense against those in the world that would take that away, either through conventional warfare or economic warfare or demographic warfare, is what I am in favor of.

Therefore, secession from the regime poses no problem for me. By all means, let the minority of us, the remnant of freedom minded folks, divorce ourselves from the insanity of the welfare/warfare state and reset the clock to zero within the boundaries of our own nation.

In fact, I view this as the only viable option left.

Sorry to go on about this, but I thought of a yet unmentioned point: Isn't the current USA thought of by a majority of its citizens as "the least amount of govt needed to defend our freedoms, save program X or program Y"? Why do you have the "right" to internally disrupt this "national interest" in protecting our freedoms?

And further, do you accept that people living in your own hypothetical "free nation" have the right to secede from your "national interests"? After all, they are only witnessing the defense spending that you feel is necessary, but they feel is unjust, and are wanting to "reset to zero" what it takes to be a free nation.

If you accept this right of secession, you must realize that your hypothetical nation is reduced again to pure anarchy. If you deny this right to secede, or qualify it, are you not also limiting your own right to secede from the "land of the free" without some conditions set by the current national leaders?

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 06:14 PM
Sorry to go on about this, but I thought of a yet unmentioned point: Isn't the current USA thought of by a majority of its citizens as "the least amount of govt needed to defend our freedoms, save program X or program Y"? Why do you have the "right" to internally disrupt this "national interest" in protecting our freedoms?

And further, do you accept that people living in your own hypothetical "free nation" have the right to secede from your "national interests"? After all, they are only witnessing the defense spending that you feel is necessary, but they feel is unjust, and are wanting to "reset to zero" what it takes to be a free nation.

If you accept this right of secession, you must realize that your hypothetical nation is reduced again to pure anarchy. If you deny this right to secede, or qualify it, are you not also limiting your own right to secede from the "land of the free" without some conditions set by the current national leaders?

I accept the right to secede in the same way I accept the national service to be voluntary.

"What if they held a war and no one showed up" is a vote of no confidence and justification for dissolution.

Secession, in my view, equates to the same thing, a vote of no confidence on the national charter.

ETA - And no need to worry about "going on", that's the point of the thread, to discuss this, since I make no claim to have all the answers, but I have to comment on what I observe.

And what I observe is a failing middle class, falling wages and standards of living, loss of real production and growth, massive debt and insolvency.

This will trigger an economic collapse that will result in freedom being lost for everybody.

Vessol
10-24-2010, 06:22 PM
The reason why the native americans were so decimated was not because of their societies, but because of their technology, or lack there of.

Flash
10-24-2010, 06:28 PM
Native American tribes aren't an example of anarchy. They were tribalistic people that were constantly waging war on their neighbors.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 06:33 PM
Native American tribes aren't an example of anarchy. They were tribalistic people that were constantly waging war on their neighbors.

I addressed that in my OP.

Agreed, but that "war" was not war as we understand it.

And I can't think of a more anarchistic society than the Plains natives.

Can you?

Name one and let's examine it.

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-24-2010, 06:51 PM
I've been giving a lot of thought about just how to reconcile a limited government/no government philosophy with the real world realities of globalized "free trade", economic policy, nationalism, immigration, tariffs and borders.

I've made my position clear, (and been called an idiot and a fascist for it, among other things, LoL) that we are engaged in an economic battle that will determine the future of this nation, the future well being of all our children and, quite literally, the future of freedom.

That the battle requires acting in a national interest, and that action needs to taken right now that leads to more production, more actual making and transporting of real goods. Value added manufacturing is the only path to a stable middle class and a high quality standard of living. Talk of "service economies" and "information products" are just new world order fictions.

"Heresy!!!", screams the purist, "a voluntary society is the only way, anything else is slavery". A point well taken, and when pressed as to where or when this type of society has ever existed, the standard answer is" well, it's never been tried. True anarchy will work when tried".

I submit it has been tried, and worked for many centuries.

The Plains Indians, the Blackfoot, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, among others, lived what could probably be described as being as near to perfect anarchistic existence. They lived with no responsibility of "ownership", they lived with no central government, they lived with no police, they lived with no standing armies, they lived with no formal taxation.

Certainly they had social "order" and they also had war, but not in the western sense of war, meaning total annihilation, but more in the sense of an animal "warring" with another for territory.

In many ways, while romanticized over the years, their existence could be described as idyllic.

But here is my point: when threatened from the outside by a foreign invader (us), they were completely and utterly unable to provide any form of defense, they were utterly unable to continue to live their life as they saw fit, in short, they were annihilated.

They lost the right to self determination, they lost the right choose any sort of destiny for their people, and are now a hollow shell of the once proud people they were.

And this is why I remain, for all it's warts, a nationalist.

Now, what that nation's boundaries may be, I'm not that concerned. I recall back in the 90's, Strobe Talbot, a Clinton adviser, took an awful lot of heat for writing in a book something to the effect that "national boundaries are just arbitrary lines on a map". Well he's right, although in his case, for the wrong reasons, since he was advocating more of this insanity called globalism.

Regardless of borders, a nation that acts in it's best interests, in this case, maximum freedom and opportunity for the citizens of the nation, as close to a voluntary society within, while maintaining real defense against those in the world that would take that away, either through conventional warfare or economic warfare or demographic warfare, is what I am in favor of.

Therefore, secession from the regime poses no problem for me. By all means, let the minority of us, the remnant of freedom minded folks, divorce ourselves from the insanity of the welfare/warfare state and reset the clock to zero within the boundaries of our own nation.

In fact, I view this as the only viable option left.

Glad to see you in the debate AF.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 07:53 PM
Glad to see you in the debate AF.

Glad to be here.

AlexMerced
10-24-2010, 07:58 PM
a voluntary society is only brought upon by education and elightenment and will take generations to accomplish, although in the meantime we need to protect the current level decentralization and more towards more... but the enlightenment is not a policy waiting to be written, it's an idea waiting to be passed on but until then smart policy delegating control as much as possible to individuals is an important fight.

Vessol
10-24-2010, 08:01 PM
a voluntary society is only brought upon by education and elightenment and will take generations to accomplish, although in the meantime we need to protect the current level decentralization and more towards more... but the enlightenment is not a policy waiting to be written, it's an idea waiting to be passed on but until then smart policy delegating control as much as possible to individuals is an important fight.

This is why education is far more important than any political or policy decisions :D.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 08:06 PM
Hong Kong failed to retain it's "free state" status because it tried to identify a culture with a landmass. If instead of choosing the island to be the defining characteristic of its adherents, it could have chosen the idea of freedom and the free association with the provision of the services provided from that landmass. Then people could have been part of the "Hong Kong" culture whether they were on that island, in mainland China, in Sri Lanka, in Tokyo, or in Boise.

Elaborate on this, please.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the people of Hong Kong could have just walked away and resettled in Singapore, for example?

Or are you saying that they could have just said no and kept on doing what they wanted to?

In either case, when the rubber meets the road, men with guns will come along and force you to do what they want.

And it's at that point, you either comply, or have an equal or greater force of men with guns who say, "no, we won't".

Which is the whole point of this thread.

AlexMerced
10-24-2010, 08:07 PM
This is why education is far more important than any political or policy decisions :D.

I agree, the policy arena is only important to barricade an avalanche of control from coming, but people arn't free till they think free

I want to be a politicians cause of the platform to educate
I want to effect policy to buy time for people educate after I'm gone

nobody's_hero
10-24-2010, 08:31 PM
Is it an issue of "Nationalism" or is it an issue of "sovereignty"?

When I think of 'nationalism', I think of blind patriotism and the line of thinking that your country is somehow superior to other nations. This isn't you (as well as I know you, through RPF, at least).

Sovereignty is a bit different.

AlexMerced
10-24-2010, 08:34 PM
Is it an issue of "Nationalism" or is it an issue of "sovereignty"?

When I think of 'nationalism', I think of blind patriotism and the line of thinking that your country is somehow superior to other nations. This isn't you (as well as I know you, through RPF, at least).

Sovereignty is a bit different.

if you talking about me, no I'm not for nationalism, I think nationalism is very dangerous and leads to the opposite of a free world cause people get lost in protect what they think the nation is entitled too instead of their own individual rights

although sovereignty of nations is a timid but a level of decentralization in the world, and protecting it from centralization of control is worthwhile.

mczerone
10-24-2010, 08:56 PM
Elaborate on this, please.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the people of Hong Kong could have just walked away and resettled in Singapore, for example?

Or are you saying that they could have just said no and kept on doing what they wanted to?

In either case, when the rubber meets the road, men with guns will come along and force you to do what they want.

And it's at that point, you either comply, or have an equal or greater force of men with guns who say, "no, we won't".

Which is the whole point of this thread.

Not quite. I was suggesting that those people who believed in the freedom that Hong Kong represented could have lived anywhere, including Singapore, prior to and concurrent with any Chinese pressure. That those interested in defending their freedoms could have contracted with any people, in Hong Kong, China proper, Singapore, or where ever, to help defend their property from invaders.

When the Chinese came to repatriate the people living on Hong Kong, those people could have stood their ground and requested help not only from those living on the small island, but also from those affiliated with their free trade network from neighboring regions, and financial support from their affiliates around the world.

Indeed justice is often determined by who has the bigger gun. To combat aggressive states a people need not appeal to those within some geographical or political borders, but to the people around the world who agree that they have the right to live free.

To start from an initial position of having a "minimal defense state" necessarily closes the inhabitants off from the rest of the sympathetic world, and gives the aggressive opponent a singular fixed target to focus their efforts on. If instead a region were established with no government, and each person were allowed to support any defense they wished, and anyone world wide could also be free to sign up for these liberally offered services, an invading force would have no means to be intrusive but by trespassing on each individual's property, and feeling the wrath of their own defense agency, in partnership with others who wish to quell the threat before it reaches the property of their own clients.

The reality of the biggest gun winning doesn't mean that everyone should be forced behind a single opposing gun, but instead further proves that each person should be free to seek their own means of protection, so that the best options rise to the top and the inefficient fall to the wayside.

Cowlesy
10-24-2010, 08:59 PM
I used to be balls-to-the-wall for free trade, but recently I'm wondering if it is far too near-sighted a policy, much like our weak dollar policy instituted by the Federal Reserve.

It may seem great we're getting all these dirt cheap goods from China, but I fear we may someday 'wake up' and find we can't build anything ourselves anymore after the rest of the top nations in the world exercise their put option on our economy via buying our debt.

I don't expects the effects of this to be clear for at least a decade or more, so if we 'live for the now', perhaps we are doing things the right away. I prefer to look to our past to help ensure a solid future for our offspring. It's looking pretty dim right now.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 09:05 PM
It may seem great we're getting all these dirt cheap goods from China, but I fear we may someday 'wake up' and find we can't build anything ourselves anymore after the rest of the top nations in the world exercise their put option on our economy via buying our debt.

I don't expects the effects of this to be clear for at least a decade or more, so if we 'live for the now', perhaps we are doing things the right away. I prefer to look to our past to help ensure a solid future for our offspring. It's looking pretty dim right now.

That is exactly my point.

A nation or economy that can do nothing for itself, that adds nothing of value, is based on nothing but debt, cannot survive.

And someday, in the not too distant future, somebody is going to put our lights out, either by "pre empting" US for a change, or by doing the same thing economically by "calling in the note" on the debt that can never be paid.

nobody's_hero
10-24-2010, 09:14 PM
if you talking about me, no I'm not for nationalism, I think nationalism is very dangerous and leads to the opposite of a free world cause people get lost in protect what they think the nation is entitled too instead of their own individual rights

although sovereignty of nations is a timid but a level of decentralization in the world, and protecting it from centralization of control is worthwhile.

Actually, I was replying to Anti-Fed. But, your response was what I was getting at. I'm glad you replied.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 09:19 PM
Is it an issue of "Nationalism" or is it an issue of "sovereignty"?

When I think of 'nationalism', I think of blind patriotism and the line of thinking that your country is somehow superior to other nations. This isn't you (as well as I know you, through RPF, at least).

Sovereignty is a bit different.

Yeah, meant to address this.

Sovereignty is what I mean, of course, not a blind, goose stepping allegiance to "nation".

The right of nation of people to set their own course and determine for themselves what is in their best interests.

However the terms of the debate are sort of out of my hands.

So I'll live with "nationalist" if that's what takes to prevent being called a fascist.

;)

ClayTrainor
10-24-2010, 09:28 PM
The right of nation of people of the individual to set their own course and determine for themselves what is in their best interests.

Ahhh... that's better. :)

Cowlesy
10-24-2010, 09:46 PM
The malcontent can be spotted in his little habits of speech: He calls language and nationality "barriers" when the conservative, more appreciatively, recognizes them as cohesives that make social life possible. He damns as "apathy" an ordinary indifference to politics that may really be a healthy contentment. He praises as "compassion" what the conservative earthily sees as a program of collectivization. He may even assert as "rights" what tradition has regarded as wrongs. -- Joe Sobran

;)

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Yeah, meant to address this.

Sovereignty is what I mean, of course, not a blind, goose stepping allegiance to "nation".

The right of nation of people to set their own course and determine for themselves what is in their best interests.

However the terms of the debate are sort of out of my hands.

So I'll live with "nationalist" if that's what takes to prevent being called a fascist.

;)

The only true 'sovereign' is the *individual*. 'Sovereign nations' merely violate the sovereignty of the individual.

By simply the concept of holding the 'sovereign nation' above the 'sovereign individual' you are advocating destroying the individual for the benefit of the 'common good'.

On top of that - wrongly so, because not only is what your advocating damaging to the individual in morality and economic prosperity, it is damaging to the nation as a whole as well - for the benefit of a much, much smaller group (the government, and small to large companies).

The goal is to increase liberty and economic prosperity for all. Maximizing free trade and the free market as much as possible does this. What you're advocating, does not - and actually decreases both as well as violate the individual.

You don't seem to want to address this and keep avoiding it.

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 10:50 PM
I used to be balls-to-the-wall for free trade, but recently I'm wondering if it is far too near-sighted a policy, much like our weak dollar policy instituted by the Federal Reserve.

It may seem great we're getting all these dirt cheap goods from China, but I fear we may someday 'wake up' and find we can't build anything ourselves anymore after the rest of the top nations in the world exercise their put option on our economy via buying our debt.

I don't expects the effects of this to be clear for at least a decade or more, so if we 'live for the now', perhaps we are doing things the right away. I prefer to look to our past to help ensure a solid future for our offspring. It's looking pretty dim right now.

What you're talking about is a true and very serious concern, but increased free trade has nothing to do with it. We are on this road to destruction simply because of our government's policies of taxation, regulation and debt and federal reserve monetary policies - it has nothing to do with the policies of the nations we trade with. These nations (China, etc), for the meantime, are propping our nation up - when on it's own *it would fall*. We can't blame them for deciding not to buy our debt anymore - it would be our own government's fault.

Remember - deficits =/= debts. A 'Trade Deficit' *in and of itself* doesn't matter. The debt is the problem, and the taxation and regulation is the problem.

BenIsForRon
10-24-2010, 10:57 PM
The way I see it, Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy. A really smart guy. If a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist society was feasible, he would have advocated for it. Instead, he advocated for Republican government. I think I trust TJ's judgment more than Lew Rockwell.

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 11:13 PM
The way I see it, Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy. A really smart guy. If a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist society was feasible, he would have advocated for it. Instead, he advocated for Republican government. I think I trust TJ's judgment more than Lew Rockwell.

TJ was smart, and one of my favorites.

But Bastiat and Von Mises were smarter, and advocated free trade.

And they were a hell of a lot more consistent in their beliefs... TJ was kind of a hypocrite on a number of issues.

AlexMerced
10-25-2010, 05:24 AM
The way I see it, Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy. A really smart guy. If a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist society was feasible, he would have advocated for it. Instead, he advocated for Republican government. I think I trust TJ's judgment more than Lew Rockwell.

He was smart guy, but I do think technology like the internet and other innovations do change the level of possibility of anarchism.

nobody's_hero
10-25-2010, 05:57 AM
He was smart guy, but I do think technology like the internet and other innovations do change the level of possibility of anarchism.

For better or worse?

The internet and other innovations have, in some ways, made us dumber than people were in Jefferson's time (when it comes to propaganda sifting and trust in freedom). I believe Jefferson may have envisioned us growing to be more and more libertarian/anarchist as time progressed, but he'd be apalled to see how far backwards we've gone.

nandnor
10-25-2010, 10:52 AM
I don't see that as a "strawman", to me it's a legitimate question.

So "voluntary" central planning is OK?

But isn't the end result the same?

A loss of free will?

See, to me, corporate tyranny is just as bad as government tyranny.

Do you really want to live in world that the only place you could get a job would be within the corporate megopoly? Be forced to attend church service like in Rochester back in the day? Be subjected to usury through the company store? (Wal Marx's wet dream)what youre advocating is the use of violence on a completely peaceful person trading(a completely peaceful action) with another completely peaceful person. You are the romaticiser here, for nationalism, the only argument for your actions, is exactly that.

AlexMerced
10-25-2010, 12:59 PM
For better or worse?

The internet and other innovations have, in some ways, made us dumber than people were in Jefferson's time (when it comes to propaganda sifting and trust in freedom). I believe Jefferson may have envisioned us growing to be more and more libertarian/anarchist as time progressed, but he'd be apalled to see how far backwards we've gone.

While jefferson was smart, I would argue the average person today is much smarter that then the average person back then, most of us on this board are much farther ahead of where Jefferson was intellectually cause of him, mises, rothbard and the people who came before us.

In the same way people accumulate wealth, we accumulate knowledge, and we are farther along in that process than anyone prior and the next generation will be father along than we are.

Although, we idolize the founding fathers, but they had the power they had cause they were exceptional, not cause they were typical. Most people were illeterate and uneducated but it didn't matter cause the demand for unskilled labor was so high there was no surplus labor to bother getting further skills.

as the division of labor has advanced, now people have the leisure to pursue other skills whether needed or not cause we can at least provide what we NEED with a much smaller fraction of the population.

The problem we have now is can the surplus labor produce enough of what people want to provide for themsevles what they need.

Anti Federalist
10-25-2010, 02:41 PM
While jefferson was smart, I would argue the average person today is much smarter that then the average person back then, most of us on this board are much farther ahead of where Jefferson was intellectually cause of him, mises, rothbard and the people who came before us.

I disagree.

Jefferson, along with many men of that era, were incredibly talented polymaths, multi lingual and had deep understanding across many complex fields of knowledge.

Even amongst "common folks" the level of intelligence and general knowledge was much higher than it is now.

Don't believe me?

Read a newspaper story from 1850.

Your average public schooled chowderhead more than likely would know the meaning and usage of every other word nowadays.

I deal with four year college degree holding kids on a fairly regular basis, their lack of general knowledge is stunning, shocking, they are brilliant at the narrow specialty that their glorified vo-tech schools taught them and painfully ignorant of anything else in the world.

But that's the new world that the "free traders" have built, this is the model we all must comply with now, in the brave new world of globalized "free trade" and bugger you backward Luddites who don't want to go along.

Well, enjoy...

Just don't come crying to me when these same no-nothing idiots vote your rights away and the only job you can find is flipping burgers or working for the gooberment.

You have been warned.