Hating the state vs. loving America

[HigherVision]

Does anyone who leans towards full voluntaryism (anarchism) ever feel conflicted about about this? Like I fully understand the argument for all government being illegitimate initiation of force, including limited government, but at the same time don't we owe the liberty that we do still have to the founders of the American republic?

[noneedtoaggress]

You don't "owe" them anything, my friend. You were born free.

(which doesn't mean you can't respect what they've done historically to bring about more liberty either.)

[HigherVision]

I don't mean that I owe them anything per se, but that they were the ones who took up arms and fought a revolutionary war in order to secure the remnant of freedom which I guess we still have to some extent(?) Whereas we just talk about our ideas and promote liberty, which is an important part of the process, but I don't plan on taking up arms against the government like they did any time soon. I value my life too much. Anyway I think that limited government is probably at least a necessary stepping stone on the way to full anarchy. Because if we were to restore the constitution and privatize most of the functions that the government currently does we could then credibly point to that and say look, why don't we take this all the way now that we see how much better all of us are without the government doing all the rest of what they've been doing.

[noneedtoaggress]

So you're essentially saying that you feel the people who fought and put their lives on the line or died for the human movement torward liberty deserve respect. I agree.

And imo, "taking up arms" can't establish a voluntary society, civil disobedience, which can be quite dangerous itself, and withdrawing consent is what will lead to a voluntary society.

[HigherVision]

I don't know, I guess that's the problem with political campaigns for the voluntaryist movement is that even if it's for good aims, like pushing back on the government's power, it still tends to whip up patriotic fervor in a way. So maybe I'm getting too involved in that and not philosophizing enough about freedom. But yeah, the thing about civil disobedience is that you're then going to likely be attacked and the choice is either take it or fight back and likely lose. So I disagree that taking up arms can't establish a voluntary society because if one were to do so against the government, it's not an initiation of force because it's certain that they're going to aggress against you if you don't do what they say.

[noneedtoaggress]

Ultimately though... When you talk about "America" what you're really referring to is a subjective concept in your head. It's not some sort of objective entity that exists out there. When I think of "America" and you think of "America" we're both holding 2 completely different concepts for what "America" is and means to us. People self-identify with this conceptual "group", which is really a method of your mind trying to create shorthand for X number of individuals in the real world and then assigns properties to it, and form emotional bonds with this concept. So you get self-identification and an emotional bond with this collectivist concept which leads to nationalism. Nationalism is a collectivist way of looking at the world and leads people to identify with the group. Nationalist culture reinforces unity and eventually promotes conformity to the ideal nationalist identity (see public schools). And when people don't understand liberty they can give their national leaders dictatorial powers and cults of identity form in national culture (see North Korea, Hitler, Stalin, etc).

So, personally, I understand that there's a lot of good in American culture and history... I imagine the parts that don't involve glorifying the state, but those that involve liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that's why I refer to the state as the US or the USG or something... it's not really "America" to me. It's just the apparatus that has long been distorting and choking the private individuals that comprise the American people.

[Xenophage]

Does anyone who leans towards full voluntaryism (anarchism) ever feel conflicted about about this? Like I fully understand the argument for all government being illegitimate initiation of force, including limited government, but at the same time don't we owe the liberty that we do still have to the founders of the American republic?

I can hate the American government and love the principles upon which it was founded. I can love my neighbors and love the spirit of my society, while disapproving of its laws.

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't know, I guess that's the problem with political campaigns for the voluntaryist movement is that even if it's for good aims, like pushing back on the government's power, it still tends to whip up patriotic fervor in a way. So maybe I'm getting too involved in that and not philosophizing enough about freedom. But yeah, the thing about civil disobedience is that you're then going to likely be attacked and the choice is either take it or fight back and likely lose. So I disagree that taking up arms can't establish a voluntary society because if one were to do so against the government, it's not an initiation of force because it's certain that they're going to aggress against you if you don't do what they say.

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/images/civil%20dis_cover.jpg
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)

^^^ You might find this an interesting read. :)

[noneedtoaggress]

I can hate the American government and love the principles upon which it was founded. I can love my neighbors and love the spirit of my society, while disapproving of its laws.

+1

[Travlyr]

Does anyone who leans towards full voluntaryism (anarchism) ever feel conflicted about about this? Like I fully understand the argument for all government being illegitimate initiation of force, including limited government, but at the same time don't we owe the liberty that we do still have to the founders of the American republic?

The way I see it is either rule by law or rule by men with weapons. If the rule of law is not strictly enforced, then people will be ruled by weapons.

The Purse & The Sword (http://www.amazon.com/Purse-Sword-Dr-Edwin-Vieira/dp/B003FSTVI6) by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.

[noneedtoaggress]

The way I see it is either rule by law or rule by men with weapons. If the rule of law is not strictly enforced, then people will be ruled by weapons.

That sounds pretty good to me. It's either rules that conform to natural law (property rights, free markets) or market-distorting arbitrary rule by men with guns (interventionism, statism).

[hazek]

OP, why couldn't one love America the people and hate America the government? You present a false choice.