The State as Family

[TaftFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMOAbWcpKQ

[talkingpointes]

Are you having some existential issue taft ? This is a bit hardcore don't you think?

[TaftFan]

Are you having some existential issue taft ? This is a bit hardcore don't you think?
I suppose it has an anarchist conclusion but it is also pretty illuminating.

[talkingpointes]

I suppose it has an anarchist conclusion but it is also pretty illuminating.

Absolutely. When I first heard it I was offended. I have always been a loner or lone wolf type, depending if you want to be a dick about it. But my relationship with my parents has pretty much always been hands-off. I was the middle of two boys and they always said that I had the ability to figure it out for myself - so go do that. Deep down I yearned for codelling but it never really happened. I thank them now for it becuase I realize it made me a more solid character for win I left to live on my own, and to think on my own.

It almost makes you pity those that want government in way.

[Anti Federalist]

The State as Family

Family...you don't say?

I want a divorce.

[heavenlyboy34]

Family...you don't say?

I want a divorce.
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER! ;)

[Matthew5]

Interesting video. I got from it: "destroy the family and replace with the idol of the state."

Some quotes from Alexandra Kollontai:


Communist society has this to say to the working woman and working man: “You are young, you love each other. Everyone has the right to happiness. Therefore live your life. Do not flee happiness. Do not fear marriage, even though under capitalism marriage was truly a chain of sorrow. Do not be afraid of having children. Society needs more workers and rejoices at the birth of every child. You do not have to worry about the future of your child; your child will know neither hunger nor cold”… Communist society will take upon itself all the duties involved in the education of the child, but the joys of parenthood will not be taken away from those who are capable of appreciating them. Such are the plans of communist society and they can hardly be interpreted as the forcible destruction of the family and the forcible separation of child from mother.


The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance. What used to make the old family so strong? First, because the husband and father was the family’s breadwinner; secondly, because the family economy was necessary to all its members: and thirdly, because children were brought up by their parents. What is left of this former type of family? The husband, as we have just seen, has ceased to he the sole breadwinner. The wife who goes to work earns wages. She has learned to earn her own living, to support her children and not infrequently her husband. The family now only serves as the primary economic unit of society and the supporter and educator of young children.


Under capitalism children were frequently, too frequently, a heavy and unbearable burden on the proletarian family. Communist society will come to the aid of the parents. In Soviet Russia the Commissariats of Public Education and of Social Welfare are already doing much to assist the family. We already have homes for very small babies, creches, kindergartens, children’s colonies and homes, hospitals and health resorts for sick children. restaurants, free lunches at school and free distribution of text books, warm clothing and shoes to schoolchildren. All this goes to show that the responsibility for the child is passing from the family to the collective.


The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

I thought 60+ years of war was supposed to great rid of Communism? Seems alive and well in this nation.

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting video. I got from it: "destroy the family and replace with the idol of the state."

Some quotes from Alexandra Kollontai:










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

I thought 60+ years of war was supposed to great rid of Communism? Seems alive and well in this nation.
Although all the tennets of the Communist Manifesto have been adopted in this country, what's practiced in this country is more fascist than communist. Communists, for example, don't believe in private possession of the means of production. In the American Empire, the means of production are still more or less privately owned.

[noneedtoaggress]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB7hTuaFvpc

[Matthew5]

Although all the tennets of the Communist Manifesto have been adopted in this country, what's practiced in this country is more fascist than communist. Communists, for example, don't believe in private possession of the means of production. In the American Empire, the means of production are still more or less privately owned.

True, perhaps it's more of a Chinese form where capitalism is tolerated?

[Christian Liberty]

DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER! ;)

I'm reading through 1984 now, I struggle to understand how a man as perceptive and smart as Orwell turned out a socialist.

[A Son of Liberty]

Although all the tennets of the Communist Manifesto have been adopted in this country, what's practiced in this country is more fascist than communist. Communists, for example, don't believe in private possession of the means of production. In the American Empire, the means of production are still more or less privately owned.

"More or less" being the particularly operative words, here. I "own" a piece of land on which I may build a home, with the proper permits and inspections, subject to fees and "taxation" at the proscribed rates. That home may be "more or less" as I desire it, so long as it complies with the local, state and federal codes regarding insulation, energy usage, stair height, electrical, sprinkler, handrails, paint, etc. I may drill for water for my use, and a septic system for my waste, and lay down an asphalt driveway, so long as I do so in accordance with environmental, health and safety regulations, etc. Any out-buildings over a certain square footage (very minimal) must be approved by the local bureaucrat. Such improvements will of course be subject to a revision of the "property tax rate" (read: 'rent').

Really, why seize the means of production when you can just regulate the living hell out of it, all while the friendly neighborhood "conservative" talk radio show host extols the virtues of "the troops" who fight and die to protect our "freedom"?

http://hubinho.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/laughing.gif

Makes me wanna scream - WHAT FUCKING FREEDOM?!

[Barrex]

I'm reading through 1984 now, I struggle to understand how a man as perceptive and smart as Orwell turned out a socialist.

On paper socialism works perfectly. Got caught is paradigm of his time. Happend to Aristotel (slavery) and it is happening to us to. We just dont know it...

[A Son of Liberty]

Socialism does NOT work perfectly, because it relies on the initiation of force, which violates the sovereignty of the individual.

[heavenlyboy34]

"More or less" being the particularly operative words, here. I "own" a piece of land on which I may build a home, with the proper permits and inspections, subject to fees and "taxation" at the proscribed rates. That home may be "more or less" as I desire it, so long as it complies with the local, state and federal codes regarding insulation, energy usage, stair height, electrical, sprinkler, handrails, paint, etc. I may drill for water for my use, and a septic system for my waste, and lay down an asphalt driveway, so long as I do so in accordance with environmental, health and safety regulations, etc. Any out-buildings over a certain square footage (very minimal) must be approved by the local bureaucrat. Such improvements will of course be subject to a revision of the "property tax rate" (read: 'rent').

Really, why seize the means of production when you can just regulate the living hell out of it, all while the friendly neighborhood "conservative" talk radio show host extols the virtues of "the troops" who fight and die to protect our "freedom"?

http://hubinho.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/laughing.gif

Makes me wanna scream - WHAT FUCKING FREEDOM?!
+mega rep And that gif is aptly placed, btw. :D

[bunklocoempire]

The State as Family nails it.

Relationships with my own family or my fellow man can be icky or too hard so a third party taking my responsibility works swell

-Thanks government!

http://s6.postimg.org/o3c0z6ir5/santorum_thumbs_up.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm reading through 1984 now, I struggle to understand how a man as perceptive and smart as Orwell turned out a socialist.
From his biographical sketch, I gather that his poor understanding of "class systems" came from casual observations while stationed in Burma. When your understanding of how social strata come about is informed mostly by the Indian caste system, socialism makes more sense than looking at it from an objective POV.

[Christian Liberty]

"More or less" being the particularly operative words, here. I "own" a piece of land on which I may build a home, with the proper permits and inspections, subject to fees and "taxation" at the proscribed rates. That home may be "more or less" as I desire it, so long as it complies with the local, state and federal codes regarding insulation, energy usage, stair height, electrical, sprinkler, handrails, paint, etc. I may drill for water for my use, and a septic system for my waste, and lay down an asphalt driveway, so long as I do so in accordance with environmental, health and safety regulations, etc. Any out-buildings over a certain square footage (very minimal) must be approved by the local bureaucrat. Such improvements will of course be subject to a revision of the "property tax rate" (read: 'rent').

Really, why seize the means of production when you can just regulate the living hell out of it, all while the friendly neighborhood "conservative" talk radio show host extols the virtues of "the troops" who fight and die to protect our "freedom"?

http://hubinho.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/laughing.gif

Makes me wanna scream - WHAT FUCKING FREEDOM?!
Yesterday we had a moment of silence for "The troops", I spent the time praying that some of them would be ethical and refuse to deploy. I have a hard time looking objectively at the military becuase I know a lot of them believe they're doing the right thing and that the average veteran is MUCH Less of a warmongerer than the average chickenhawk, but still, they're killing innocent people. I make sure to read a healthy dose of Laurence Vance to counteract the propaganda of everything else.

[Matthew5]

Really, why seize the means of production when you can just regulate the living hell out of it, all while the friendly neighborhood "conservative" talk radio show host extols the virtues of "the troops" who fight and die to protect our "freedom"?

http://hubinho.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/laughing.gif

Makes me wanna scream - WHAT FUCKING FREEDOM?!

This gif sums up my reaction to all the propaganda on the radio yesterday.

[A Son of Liberty]

Yesterday we had a moment of silence for "The troops", I spent the time praying that some of them would be ethical and refuse to deploy. I have a hard time looking objectively at the military becuase I know a lot of them believe they're doing the right thing and that the average veteran is MUCH Less of a warmongerer than the average chickenhawk, but still, they're killing innocent people. I make sure to read a healthy dose of Laurence Vance to counteract the propaganda of everything else.

Well done, sir. Sounds like a "Memorial Day" well observed.

[Christian Liberty]

Well done, sir. Sounds like a "Memorial Day" well observed.

I'm still struggling with some of this stuff. I feel like I'm probably having an influence on my father. He's the pastor of my church, and while he did acknowledge the troops he never directly said anything factually inaccrate, like that the troops were "Fighting for our freedoms." Then again, although a conservative, he's not exactly a war fanatic either, he thinks Afghanistan was a good idea but how many people don't? (I don't, for the record, but I'm probably among the most anti-war people on the planet for thinking that, and even I wouldn't have had a problem with it if what Ron Paul believed he was voting for actually happened) but not Iraq... So he doesn't fit in neoconservative category.

I just know I'll never have anything to do in the military, and I'll be praying that they never try to draft me. If they do, I'll have to decide between direct civil disobedience + prison or fleeing the country. I'm screwed either way in that case...

I honestly don't care for "Memorial Day" as a holiday, since it virtually always glorifies those who died in AGGRESSIVE wars. If you want to honor those who defend our freedoms, you've got the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Southern side of the War of Northern Aggression. On a generous day I might throw WWII in there since at least we were attacked, but that was almost certainly avoidable and I don't think conquest of the United States was ever anyone's objective in that one.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm still struggling with some of this stuff. I feel like I'm probably having an influence on my father. He's the pastor of my church, and while he did acknowledge the troops he never directly said anything factually inaccrate, like that the troops were "Fighting for our freedoms." Then again, although a conservative, he's not exactly a war fanatic either, he thinks Afghanistan was a good idea but how many people don't? (I don't, for the record, but I'm probably among the most anti-war people on the planet for thinking that, and even I wouldn't have had a problem with it if what Ron Paul believed he was voting for actually happened) but not Iraq... So he doesn't fit in neoconservative category.

I'm rather proud to belong to a church that never mentions "the troops" on any of the state's mandated "holy days", or any Sunday near one, nor lowers itself to honor the "Stars and Stripes" battle flag anywhere inside the building.


I just know I'll never have anything to do in the military, and I'll be praying that they never try to draft me. If they do, I'll have to decide between direct civil disobedience + prison or fleeing the country. I'm screwed either way in that case...

Keep reading your Vance, lad. :thumbs:


I honestly don't care for "Memorial Day" as a holiday, since it virtually always glorifies those who died in AGGRESSIVE wars. If you want to honor those who defend our freedoms, you've got the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Southern side of the War of Northern Aggression. On a generous day I might throw WWII in there since at least we were attacked, but that was almost certainly avoidable and I don't think conquest of the United States was ever anyone's objective in that one.

Even as an anti-statist, I'm fairly of the same mind.

The geographical boundaries of the US do not in any way define an area within which I recognize an obligation to sacrifice my life in the defense thereof.

A thousand years from now, when the US no longer exists, would your soul continue to rest easy knowing that its corporeal existence was sacrificed for an artifact of history?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm rather proud to belong to a church that never mentions "the troops" on any of the state's mandated "holy days", or any Sunday near one, nor lowers itself to honor the "Stars and Stripes" battle flag anywhere inside the building.



You're lucky. There are definitely worse churches than mine. I still deal with the pledge in school (Sue me, its not something I feel like fighting over right now in a place where 90% of people already worship the state as God and cannot ever be convinced not to... its a losing battle there) but any time it is done in church (Usually at any time where I'm helping with the younger kids' Friday night program) I do not participate on principle. Its offensive to me to pledge any country in a church.


Keep reading your Vance, lad. :thumbs:

Will do.


The geographical boundaries of the US do not in any way define an area within which I recognize an obligation to sacrifice my life in the defense thereof.

A thousand years from now, when the US no longer exists, would your soul continue to rest easy knowing that its corporeal existence was sacrificed for an artifact of history?



I don't really know the answer to this, although it wouldn't be the first time. I'm more a minarchist than I am an ancap. I don't believe the US should be policing the world but at the same time, I would absolutely intervene to stop an assault in front of my house. Where the line is with such intervention, I don't really know. If its the states who are violating someone's liberties, I support kicking them out of the Union but do not support war against them (IIRC William Lloyd Garrison thought the North should have seceded from the South over the Fugitive Slave Acts... I completely agree with him if he did say that) but how far "Down" that goes I really don't know. I believe that knowingly killing innocent people (Such as with a drone, bomb, exc.) is morally equivalent to murder, and genuinely accidental collateral damage (As in, when I fired the gun I genuinely believed there would be no innocents, but I misfired and accidentally hit the person behind the target I was defending myself from) as equivalent to manslaughter, but at the same time, if someone really did try to conquer my country, if I was the President, and I had to wipe them out to stop them from doing that to me, I can't honestly say I wouldn't do so. I don't have a good answer for the whole "If another nation fired enough nukes at you to destroy your entire country" conundrum. Of course, I hope a noninterventionist foreign policy would persuade others to leave us alone, but... Iran tried that (rhetoric aside) and yet its not working for them. I mean, if we cut our military by 75% we'd still have the best one, but do we really want to be TOTALLY defenseless? I'm confortable with my neighbor having an automatic AK-47, but I don't want him to have an ICBM... so yeah, I don't really have all the answers in that regard. I get that its kind of a continum problem that I'd go to war to defend Maine but not Ontario, but isn't anything like this a continum problem? I get that ancaps would dissolve all borders, but even if I wanted to get that far, its not going to happen. The reality is that it just won't. Would you really support (Assuming you don't live here too) letting a foreign army take Long Island over without retaliation?

The reality is, even if we don't think of things in terms of national borders, everyone else does. Nobody is just going to declare war on Long Island, or Texas, or whatever. Barring secession (Which should absolutely be permitted, of course) anyone who declares war on Texas is going to be at war with the entire United States. Whether I like that or not, I think that's just the reality right now.

Regarding the obligation, I think the draft is immoral, and an even worse violation to our rights than taxation. I reluctantly accept taxation for a couple of things (Basically police, courts, and defense) but I would never agreee with the draft. A society nobody will fight for probably doesn't deserve to exist anyway. That said, if I were drafted to actually defend my country (Its so crazy now because basically everything is blowback now, and I'm not sure we can REALLY fight a war of self-defense anymore, so let's just pretend its 1812 again, or some such) but if I were drafted for that reason, I wouldn't refuse to fight.

As our society gets less and less free, that statement becomes less and less true. Honestly, the USA splitting into 50 parts would probably be better for everybody. Our Federal Government is simply out of control and its just never going to calm down and stop making enemies.

Even barring the fact that war does NOT save lives, even if it did, freedom is more important than life anyway. I'm so sick of the mentalty that America should police the world. At the same time, I don't have a good intellectual argument as to why I would oppose ending genocide in Germany (Assuming its still 1940, or whatever) but I would absolutely use force aganst soemone who was beating up on an innocent person in front of my house. I know taxation is theft, and conscription is slavery, but that really isn't good enough. Even if our government were completely voluntarily funded, and our army entirely voluntary (The latter actually is the case right now) I STILL wouldn't want things like Operation Iraqi Freedom going on, innocents are still dying and blowback is still beginning to brew. I usually just give the most seemingly ridiculous answer that is consistent with my values when asked baiting questions (Such as "Would you have let the Holocaust happen", I'll simply say yes rather than accept the slippery slope argument) but I lack a truly consistent argument here.

[Brian4Liberty]

It takes a village. A global, Marxist village. - Next POTUS

[A Son of Liberty]

Its offensive to me to pledge any country in a church.

:thumbs:


Will do.

:thumbs:


I don't really know the answer to this, although it wouldn't be the first time. I'm more a minarchist than I am an ancap. I don't believe the US should be policing the world but at the same time, I would absolutely intervene to stop an assault in front of my house. Where the line is with such intervention, I don't really know.

I've been hesitant to post my thoughts here at RPF lately because I see which way the wind is blowing. The Feds are watching us. They've got bloodhounds out sniffing around for subversives, and according to them, I am one, because I dare to speak against their orthodoxy. So I know that it is a mistake for me to continue to speak publicly... I hope I don't regret it.

If you choose to intervene in an assault which you are witnessing in front of your house, then you are an active participant in that dispute. You have personally witnessed it, assessed the situation, and decided - right or wrong, of your own free will - to take action. It does not follow that the same can be said when a similar situation presents itself on a macro - relatively speaking - scale. THAT is where the line is drawn.

You don't have to wonder about it.


If its the states who are violating someone's liberties, I support kicking them out of the Union but do not support war against them (IIRC William Lloyd Garrison thought the North should have seceded from the South over the Fugitive Slave Acts... I completely agree with him if he did say that) but how far "Down" that goes I really don't know.

If nations naturally have the right to secede from a global government, and provinces have the right to secede from national governments, then there is nothing logically keeping local governments from seceding from provincial governments, and by logical extension individuals seceding from local governments.

The least common denominator in any political entity is the individual, and if the individual has no right to secede, then no government may secede... just as though 2/4's may logically be reduced to 1/2, so must 4/8's be, you see?


I believe that knowingly killing innocent people (Such as with a drone, bomb, exc.) is morally equivalent to murder, and genuinely accidental collateral damage (As in, when I fired the gun I genuinely believed there would be no innocents, but I misfired and accidentally hit the person behind the target I was defending myself from) as equivalent to manslaughter, but at the same time, if someone really did try to conquer my country, if I was the President, and I had to wipe them out to stop them from doing that to me, I can't honestly say I wouldn't do so.

The actual truth is that countries don't exist anywhere but in the minds of people. You don't have a country. You don't have a state. A line drawn +/- 1 or 2 degrees latitude or longitude a couple hundred years ago cannot give birth to a reality anymore than J.R.R Tolkien's epic - and glorious - tales of Middle Earth can poof them into existence, for it is as much a creation of a man's mind as the lines on a political map, and any sane and right-thinking person can reason it, once the scales slip from his eyes.


I don't have a good answer for the whole "If another nation fired enough nukes at you to destroy your entire country" conundrum. Of course, I hope a noninterventionist foreign policy would persuade others to leave us alone, but... Iran tried that (rhetoric aside) and yet its not working for them.

In a practical sense, you're quite right and this is an astute observation. But truth is truth, and the sooner more people accept the truth, the sooner we can stop worrying about interventionism and it's consequences.


I mean, if we cut our military by 75% we'd still have the best one, but do we really want to be TOTALLY defenseless? I'm confortable with my neighbor having an automatic AK-47, but I don't want him to have an ICBM... so yeah, I don't really have all the answers in that regard.

The answer is that your neighbor already has an ICBM. And "we" have given him social sanction to use it. You are, right now, at far greater risk of seeing your "neighbor" use his ICBM than you would be if your actual, physical neighbor had one.


I get that its kind of a continum problem that I'd go to war to defend Maine but not Ontario, but isn't anything like this a continum problem? I get that ancaps would dissolve all borders, but even if I wanted to get that far, its not going to happen. The reality is that it just won't.

The reality is that it just won't because, as I mentioned, too many people continue to buy into the delusion. And so now you understand why I take the time to reply to you - to disabuse you, and those who are reading, of that illusion.


Would you really support (Assuming you don't live here too) letting a foreign army take Long Island over without retaliation?

I don't know ANYONE on Long Island. Why don't you ask me if I would support letting a foreign army take over Siberia, or Mars?


The reality is, even if we don't think of things in terms of national borders, everyone else does. Nobody is just going to declare war on Long Island, or Texas, or whatever. Barring secession (Which should absolutely be permitted, of course) anyone who declares war on Texas is going to be at war with the entire United States. Whether I like that or not, I think that's just the reality right now.

Had the founders of the US drawn the northern border of the country 10 degrees to the south, an invasion of Long Island would be considered "none of our business", geo-politically speaking of course. What I'm saying is that I consider it a far better use of my time to work to lift the scales from the eyes of other people than to participate in vainglorious, deadly physical wars over arbitrary boundaries.


Regarding the obligation, I think the draft is immoral, and an even worse violation to our rights than taxation. I reluctantly accept taxation for a couple of things (Basically police, courts, and defense) but I would never agreee with the draft. A society nobody will fight for probably doesn't deserve to exist anyway. That said, if I were drafted to actually defend my country (Its so crazy now because basically everything is blowback now, and I'm not sure we can REALLY fight a war of self-defense anymore, so let's just pretend its 1812 again, or some such) but if I were drafted for that reason, I wouldn't refuse to fight.

Then I think you have miles left to travel. My conscience wouldn't allow me to fight for anything other than the defense of my life, and the lives of my loved ones.


As our society gets less and less free, that statement becomes less and less true. Honestly, the USA splitting into 50 parts would probably be better for everybody.

Or, better yet, into 310 million parts! ;)


Our Federal Government is simply out of control and its just never going to calm down and stop making enemies.

Even barring the fact that war does NOT save lives, even if it did, freedom is more important than life anyway. I'm so sick of the mentalty that America should police the world. At the same time, I don't have a good intellectual argument as to why I would oppose ending genocide in Germany (Assuming its still 1940, or whatever) but I would absolutely use force aganst soemone who was beating up on an innocent person in front of my house.

The argument is, of course, that you are free to intervene wherever in the world you feel too great an injustice is being served. Where your freedom ends, however, is the point at which you decide to enlist me in your cause, however noble it may well be.


I know taxation is theft, and conscription is slavery, but that really isn't good enough. Even if our government were completely voluntarily funded, and our army entirely voluntary (The latter actually is the case right now) I STILL wouldn't want things like Operation Iraqi Freedom going on, innocents are still dying and blowback is still beginning to brew. I usually just give the most seemingly ridiculous answer that is consistent with my values when asked baiting questions (Such as "Would you have let the Holocaust happen", I'll simply say yes rather than accept the slippery slope argument) but I lack a truly consistent argument here.

The US military is NOT entirely voluntary. The people who serve in it are generally speaking there of their own free will; however, it is funded via a confiscatory taxation scheme which is not voluntary... a subtle yet important distinction.

[enjerth]

"More or less" being the particularly operative words, here. I "own" a piece of land on which I may build a home, with the proper permits and inspections, subject to fees and "taxation" at the proscribed rates. That home may be "more or less" as I desire it, so long as it complies with the local, state and federal codes regarding insulation, energy usage, stair height, electrical, sprinkler, handrails, paint, etc. I may drill for water for my use, and a septic system for my waste, and lay down an asphalt driveway, so long as I do so in accordance with environmental, health and safety regulations, etc. Any out-buildings over a certain square footage (very minimal) must be approved by the local bureaucrat. Such improvements will of course be subject to a revision of the "property tax rate" (read: 'rent').

Really, why seize the means of production when you can just regulate the living hell out of it, all while the friendly neighborhood "conservative" talk radio show host extols the virtues of "the troops" who fight and die to protect our "freedom"?

http://hubinho.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/laughing.gif

Makes me wanna scream - WHAT FUCKING FREEDOM?!

You don't understand. We have to notify the state of all our actions and how we live by filing the proper paperwork and paying the fees associated with running that department of state. It's an all-in society we live in these days, homogenized and pasteurized for your convenience. You should feel proud to live in this grand experiment we call Freedom(TM). Because when you believe, we can have Peace(TM).

Be all that you can be. With us. Not against us. That's what domestic terrorists do.

[chant]
With us! With us! With US! With U.S.!

[Christian Liberty]

Are they really worried about us? If that's the case we're probably doing better than I think we are. Maybe I underestimate them, but I just don't see them coming to my house and dragging me away because of speech on an internet forum. If nothing else, the outcry would be too great.



[QUOTE]If you choose to intervene in an assault which you are witnessing in front of your house, then you are an active participant in that dispute. You have personally witnessed it, assessed the situation, and decided - right or wrong, of your own free will - to take action. It does not follow that the same can be said when a similar situation presents itself on a macro - relatively speaking - scale. THAT is where the line is drawn.


OK, so if two people are fighting across the street and you get a phone call from a friend that you trust who is observing the situation tells you that he wishes he could help, but he doesn't have a gun and he's too physically frail to intervene himself, so he asks you to break up the fight, and you do so, are you morally wrong?

Would it have been morally wrong for a voluntarily funded and voluntarily joined army to fly across the ocean and topple Saddam Hussein's government twenty years ago? Was the only thing wrong with what we did the fact that compulsory taxation footed the bill?

My gut tells me that you are right to intervene in the first situation, but the army is WRONG in the second situation. But its only my gut, and the theory of blowback, that tells me that.




If nations naturally have the right to secede from a global government, and provinces have the right to secede from national governments, then there is nothing logically keeping local governments from seceding from provincial governments, and by logical extension individuals seceding from local governments.

The least common denominator in any political entity is the individual, and if the individual has no right to secede, then no government may secede... just as though 2/4's may logically be reduced to 1/2, so must 4/8's be, you see?


I get the logical point. I agree in theory but I think the results of that would likely be horrible.

I don't think it necessarily follows, however, that you have to either have 6 billion different "Countries", or one world government. If nothing else, that isn't the case right now.



The actual truth is that countries don't exist anywhere but in the minds of people. You don't have a country. You don't have a state. A line drawn +/- 1 or 2 degrees latitude or longitude a couple hundred years ago cannot give birth to a reality anymore than J.R.R Tolkien's epic - and glorious - tales of Middle Earth can poof them into existence, for it is as much a creation of a man's mind as the lines on a political map, and any sane and right-thinking person can reason it, once the scales slip from his eyes.


I get the point here but its not completely true.



In a practical sense, you're quite right and this is an astute observation. But truth is truth, and the sooner more people accept the truth, the sooner we can stop worrying about interventionism and it's consequences.



I don't ever see this happening, which is why I feel we need a minarchist government to force people to respect liberty, they won't do it on their own.


The answer is that your neighbor already has an ICBM. And "we" have given him social sanction to use it. You are, right now, at far greater risk of seeing your "neighbor" use his ICBM than you would be if your actual, physical neighbor had one.



The average neighbor, yes probably. But there's always going to be a crazy who just doesn't care how many people he kills. I realize that this is really a problem mostly because of blowback, but can you imagine what a terrorist could do with an ICBM? Do you really think the people who did 9/11 (Assuming you don't believe the Truther theory) wouldn't have used an ICBM if they have one?

Th
e reality is that it just won't because, as I mentioned, too many people continue to buy into the delusion. And so now you understand why I take the time to reply to you - to disabuse you, and those who are reading, of that illusion.


My goal is to learn, hence why I bother.


I don't know ANYONE on Long Island. Why don't you ask me if I would support letting a foreign army take over Siberia, or Mars?



Even if philosophically you are correct, the logical conclusion is that whatever empire ends up replacing the USA totally obliterates our freedom and institutes a tyranny over the geographical area.


Had the founders of the US drawn the northern border of the country 10 degrees to the south, an invasion of Long Island would be considered "none of our business", geo-politically speaking of course. What I'm saying is that I consider it a far better use of my time to work to lift the scales from the eyes of other people than to participate in vainglorious, deadly physical wars over arbitrary boundaries.

I don't disagree, but I still wouldn't want my country to be taken over by someone who is even more opposed to freedom than the US government (In 1812, that was basically anyone else, that's probably not the case in 2013 but its still the case that a country like NK is less free than we are.



Then I think you have miles left to travel.


On the one hand, very possibly this is the case. I was a neo-con all of three years ago, and was probably in line with Rand Paul politically about a year and a half ago. I've gotten steadily more libertarian over time. Even still, I'm definitely not an ancap yet.

On the other hand, Ron Paul agrees with me. Stossel once asked him if he would, as President, defend Montana if it was attacked. Why Stossel seriously asked this question, I don't know, but Ron Paul said yes.

Does Ron also have "A long way to travel"?

Just honestly curious here.



Or, better yet, into 310 million parts! ;)

Again, however theoretically justified, we're SCREWED if we do that.

I think most people would want to associate with each other in some way as well, so I don't even see an anarcho-capitalist system breaking down that far.

My conscience wouldn't allow me to fight for anything other than the defense of my life, and the lives of my loved ones.


I don't really agree with this "Every man for himself" type thinking. I don't think its wrong to fight for your country, to my knowledge Vance doesn't either.


The argument is, of course, that you are free to intervene wherever in the world you feel too great an injustice is being served. Where your freedom ends, however, is the point at which you decide to enlist me in your cause, however noble it may well be.


If nothing else, I frankly don't want the blowback that would be caused by the previously mentioned voluntary "Iraqi Freedom" army.


The US military is NOT entirely voluntary. The people who serve in it are generally speaking there of their own free will; however, it is funded via a confiscatory taxation scheme which is not voluntary... a subtle yet important distinction.

Yeah, I alluded to this distinction but didn't outright state it. But yeah, my problems with the War in Iraq are more than just the means of funding.

Not sure if I can +rep you again, if I can I will for the time.

[A Son of Liberty]

Are they really worried about us? If that's the case we're probably doing better than I think we are. Maybe I underestimate them, but I just don't see them coming to my house and dragging me away because of speech on an internet forum. If nothing else, the outcry would be too great.

Brandon Raub. Adam Kokesh, whom people outside of our community have never heard of, barring the ravings of the state-worshipping media only recently. See also the various MIAC, SPLC, DOJ reports referencing "radical constitutionalists", libertarians, Ron Paul supporters.

Yes, they very much care about you.


OK, so if two people are fighting across the street and you get a phone call from a friend that you trust who is observing the situation tells you that he wishes he could help, but he doesn't have a gun and he's too physically frail to intervene himself, so he asks you to break up the fight, and you do so, are you morally wrong?

Regardless, this theoretical situation does not correlate to anonymous, trans-geographical aggressions about which the state and its sponsor media whips up a furor.

To answer your question - likely yes, I would intervene in the defense of my neighbor.


Would it have been morally wrong for a voluntarily funded and voluntarily joined army to fly across the ocean and topple Saddam Hussein's government twenty years ago? Was the only thing wrong with what we did the fact that compulsory taxation footed the bill?

If this army were truly voluntary, I would have had nothing to do with it, and thus nothing to say about it.


My gut tells me that you are right to intervene in the first situation, but the army is WRONG in the second situation. But its only my gut, and the theory of blowback, that tells me that.

Assuming this voluntary army does not suppose to speak nor act on my behalf, then I have nothing in it. I may oppose it, as I would oppose any aggression, but the urgency would be removed, of course.


I get the logical point. I agree in theory but I think the results of that would likely be horrible.

The results of the state are horrible, and the state presumes to act on the behalf of each and every one of "us".


I don't think it necessarily follows, however, that you have to either have 6 billion different "Countries", or one world government. If nothing else, that isn't the case right now.

Where is the logical conclusion, then? How much state is "just right", such that we have one, yet the rights of no one are violated (whether they think so or not is not the standard, by the way)?


I get the point here but its not completely true.

Well, it is completely true. Every state that ever existed was arbitrarily drawn onto a map, and if it has not yet ceased to exist, it will soon enough, relatively speaking.


I don't ever see this happening, which is why I feel we need a minarchist government to force people to respect liberty, they won't do it on their own.

You do not have the right to enforce my liberty unless I grant it to you. Thus Spooner's, Constitution of No Authority. Explicit consent.


The average neighbor, yes probably. But there's always going to be a crazy who just doesn't care how many people he kills. I realize that this is really a problem mostly because of blowback, but can you imagine what a terrorist could do with an ICBM? Do you really think the people who did 9/11 (Assuming you don't believe the Truther theory) wouldn't have used an ICBM if they have one?

The crazy who doesn't care how many people he kills with a nuclear weapon is, as a matter of historical record, the US government. Again, your neighbor already has an ICBM, and has used it. Your worst-case-scenario has already been realized. The 20th Century is your worst-case-scenario realized. How many more hundreds of millions does the state have to murder before you fear your actual neighbor less than the state?


My goal is to learn, hence why I bother.

:thumbs:


Even if philosophically you are correct, the logical conclusion is that whatever empire ends up replacing the USA totally obliterates our freedom and institutes a tyranny over the geographical area.

I don't disagree, but I still wouldn't want my country to be taken over by someone who is even more opposed to freedom than the US government (In 1812, that was basically anyone else, that's probably not the case in 2013 but its still the case that a country like NK is less free than we are.

I'm sorry, are you speaking of the future, the past, or the present? Because what you describe as some feared future I recognize as my realized present. ;)


On the one hand, very possibly this is the case. I was a neo-con all of three years ago, and was probably in line with Rand Paul politically about a year and a half ago. I've gotten steadily more libertarian over time. Even still, I'm definitely not an ancap yet.

On the other hand, Ron Paul agrees with me. Stossel once asked him if he would, as President, defend Montana if it was attacked. Why Stossel seriously asked this question, I don't know, but Ron Paul said yes.

Does Ron also have "A long way to travel"?

If Ron truly does believe that, then yes. I worship no false idols.

That being said, I think there is a lot that Ron has said and written that suggests those comments were more perfunctory boilerplate than an actual reflection of his thoughts on the matter.


Again, however theoretically justified, we're SCREWED if we do that.

I think most people would want to associate with each other in some way as well, so I don't even see an anarcho-capitalist system breaking down that far.

I don't really agree with this "Every man for himself" type thinking. I don't think its wrong to fight for your country, to my knowledge Vance doesn't either.

Anti-statism is NOT "every man for himself". It is simply society organized in the absence of a monopolistic coercive/violent entity.

[Christian Liberty]

Brandon Raub. Adam Kokesh, whom people outside of our community have never heard of, barring the ravings of the state-worshipping media only recently. See also the various MIAC, SPLC, DOJ reports referencing "radical constitutionalists", libertarians, Ron Paul supporters.

I'm not sure who Raub is. What exactly was Kokesh arrested for again? And yeah, I've heard all that stuff, and you're right. Maybe I just underestimate them.


Yes, they very much care about you.



Do you think they know who I am, and what I believe?


Regardless, this theoretical situation does not correlate to anonymous, trans-geographical aggressions about which the state and its sponsor media whips up a furor.


I, of course, agree.


To answer your question - likely yes, I would intervene in the defense of my neighbor.



I agree with you that distance does matter, as far as it goes.


If this army were truly voluntary, I would have had nothing to do with it, and thus nothing to say about it.



I'd still oppose nation-building no matter who was doing it. So maybe I differ from you there.


Assuming this voluntary army does not suppose to speak nor act on my behalf, then I have nothing in it. I may oppose it, as I would oppose any aggression, but the urgency would be removed, of course.


Yes, much like the Chinese Army is much less a concern to me than our own...



The results of the state are horrible, and the state presumes to act on the behalf of each and every one of "us".



I cannot disagree, but we've never seen a minarchist state either. The AoC was probably close, were the results of that so bad?


Where is the logical conclusion, then? How much state is "just right", such that we have one, yet the rights of no one are violated (whether they think so or not is not the standard, by the way)?


Of course what they think doesn't matter. I support the state providing police, courts, and defense. That's it.


Well, it is completely true. Every state that ever existed was arbitrarily drawn onto a map, and if it has not yet ceased to exist, it will soon enough, relatively speaking.

And?



You do not have the right to enforce my liberty unless I grant it to you. Thus Spooner's, Constitution of No Authority. Explicit consent.

Not sure what you mean there, but yes, if you choose not to be free, that's your choice, of course. Its when my neighbor tries to take away my freedom that I will stop him, or use the state to do so if I have to.




The crazy who doesn't care how many people he kills with a nuclear weapon is, as a matter of historical record, the US government. Again, your neighbor already has an ICBM, and has used it. Your worst-case-scenario has already been realized. The 20th Century is your worst-case-scenario realized. How many more hundreds of millions does the state have to murder before you fear your actual neighbor less than the state?

I do fear my actual neighbor less than I do the State. The State is far more powerful. I didn't say I wanted the State to own ICBMs (Any of them.) I wish the doggone things wouldn't exist. But just because the State illegitimately has them doesn't mean I want my next door neighbor, or a sociopath, to possess one.

I'll note that pretty much all of the Rothbardian anarchists oppose the legal ownership of nukes since they consider their ownership to be a violation of the NAP by virture of threatening such a violation. THat's the same position I'd take.






:thumbs:



Thanks.

I'm sorry, are you speaking of the future, the past, or the present? Because what you describe as some feared future I recognize as my realized present. ;)

OK, neither of us has YET been dragged away for having this conversation, and its unlikely that that will change in the next week. For the record, I agree with your sentiment, I don't call America a "Free Country" but it could get worse. Right now I can legally, even in the most tyrannical state in the country (New York State) attend my church and worship God, own a shotgun, call Obama a child murdering psychopath, and other things that in some societies we simply cannot do. I'd rather live here than in Hitler's Germany, or in North Korea.



If Ron truly does believe that, then yes. I worship no false idols.


Understood, I don't worship Ron Paul either, though he is my hero. I don't always agree with Ron either.

That being said, I think there is a lot that Ron has said and written that suggests those comments were more perfunctory boilerplate than an actual reflection of his thoughts on the matter.


Examples?

I've never bought the whole "Ron Paul is an anarchist" argument, and considering how blatantly open and forthright he normally is, I think he'd probably admit to such if it were true. I actually saw one person on here claim that RAND Paul is a secret ancap, and while I do not believe that this is the case, I'd actually find it more likely that Rand is than Ron, since Rand actually does clearly play the game and does water down what he says in order to actually get somewhere politically. Ron told it straight, as it was. If Ron believed that we should have no government I believe he would have said so.



Anti-statism is NOT "every man for himself". It is simply society organized in the absence of a monopolistic coercive/violent entity.

Saying that its wrong to defend one's own country does seem to imply "Every man for himself" but maybe I don't quite understand.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not sure who Raub is. What exactly was Kokesh arrested for again? And yeah, I've heard all that stuff, and you're right. Maybe I just underestimate them.

Do you think they know who I am, and what I believe?

I don't know. The point is they are watching, and they're making no secret about it. With luck, you'll avert their gaze.

It shouldn't be left to luck.


I agree with you that distance does matter, as far as it goes.

Not just distance, but personal preference, attachment, passion... your individual decision.


I'd still oppose nation-building no matter who was doing it. So maybe I differ from you there.

I didn't say I wouldn't oppose it. I said that if it did not suppose to speak/act on my behalf, I'd have nothing in it.


Yes, much like the Chinese Army is much less a concern to me than our own...

I cannot disagree, but we've never seen a minarchist state either. The AoC was probably close, were the results of that so bad?

I'd be happy to live under the AoC. The only problem with the AoC was that it opened the door for the Constitution, which opened the door for whatever evil, metastasized mess it is that we live under now.


Of course what they think doesn't matter. I support the state providing police, courts, and defense. That's it.

And I support your right to live free of a social-sanctioned entity with a monopoly on violent/coercive force. That's it.

Which of us are respecting the individual sovereignty of the other more fully?


And?

And unlike a man, which is a creation of God, those states were nothing more than the fantasies of violent men that relatively speaking barely outlived them, in most cases. If that is the sort of thing to which someone is willing to sacrifice his life, then I truly feel sorry for him. Doesn't seem very respectful of God's creation, to me.


Not sure what you mean there, but yes, if you choose not to be free, that's your choice, of course. Its when my neighbor tries to take away my freedom that I will stop him, or use the state to do so if I have to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I


I do fear my actual neighbor less than I do the State. The State is far more powerful. I didn't say I wanted the State to own ICBMs (Any of them.) I wish the doggone things wouldn't exist. But just because the State illegitimately has them doesn't mean I want my next door neighbor, or a sociopath, to possess one.

The state is, for all intents and purposes, your neighbor. In other words, your neighbor - the state (a deranged sociopath, by the way) already owns them. It doesn't get much worse than that.

What private entity could ever wreak the havoc the state has wrought, even - especially - during the century of "democracy"?


I'll note that pretty much all of the Rothbardian anarchists oppose the legal ownership of nukes since they consider their ownership to be a violation of the NAP by virture of threatening such a violation. THat's the same position I'd take.

All I'm saying is that anything a private individual can do, the state can do far, far, FAR worse.


OK, neither of us has YET been dragged away for having this conversation, and its unlikely that that will change in the next week.

It's unlikely until it happens. Look up Brandon Raub. We're all on borrowed time.


For the record, I agree with your sentiment, I don't call America a "Free Country" but it could get worse. Right now I can legally, even in the most tyrannical state in the country (New York State) attend my church and worship God, own a shotgun, call Obama a child murdering psychopath, and other things that in some societies we simply cannot do. I'd rather live here than in Hitler's Germany, or in North Korea.

Sadly, there's a lot more now than there should be to compare between 2013 America and Hitler's Germany. This is a highly regulated, highly militaristic society that is becoming more and more oppressive of individual liberties. Yes, I would agree with you that I would prefer to live now as opposed to then... but nothing is static. It's all too apparent that the state is growing, and those at the reins have no intentions other than to hasten its growth.


Examples?

I'd rather not, in this particular subforum, out of respect for the rules of the board.


Saying that its wrong to defend one's own country does seem to imply "Every man for himself" but maybe I don't quite understand.

Please see above.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know. The point is they are watching, and they're making no secret about it. With luck, you'll avert their gaze.

It shouldn't be left to luck.

What else do you support doing?




Not just distance, but personal preference, attachment, passion... your individual decision.



Is it wrong to be attached to your own country?


I didn't say I wouldn't oppose it. I said that if it did not suppose to speak/act on my behalf, I'd have nothing in it.



Fair enough.


I'd be happy to live under the AoC. The only problem with the AoC was that it opened the door for the Constitution, which opened the door for whatever evil, metastasized mess it is that we live under now.


True. Very true. The Constitution itself wasn't all THAT bad, it was the Hamiltonian perversion of it that was the real problem, but the Articles were better.



And I support your right to live free of a social-sanctioned entity with a monopoly on violent/coercive force. That's it.

Which of us are respecting the individual sovereignty of the other more fully?



You. You're an ancap, I'm a minarchist.


And unlike a man, which is a creation of God, those states were nothing more than the fantasies of violent men that relatively speaking barely outlived them, in most cases. If that is the sort of thing to which someone is willing to sacrifice his life, then I truly feel sorry for him. Doesn't seem very respectful of God's creation, to me.


I don't think the country and the state are the same thing necessarily.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I




The state is, for all intents and purposes, your neighbor. In other words, your neighbor - the state (a deranged sociopath, by the way) already owns them. It doesn't get much worse than that.


Yes, I know.

What private entity could ever wreak the havoc the state has wrought, even - especially - during the century of "democracy"?



No one, but all together they theoretically could, especially if they rise up and become new states.


All I'm saying is that anything a private individual can do, the state can do far, far, FAR worse.


ONE private individual. Not necessarily ALL of them.



It's unlikely until it happens. Look up Brandon Raub. We're all on borrowed time.


Will do.



Sadly, there's a lot more now than there should be to compare between 2013 America and Hitler's Germany. This is a highly regulated, highly militaristic society that is becoming more and more oppressive of individual liberties. Yes, I would agree with you that I would prefer to live now as opposed to then... but nothing is static. It's all too apparent that the state is growing, and those at the reins have no intentions other than to hasten its growth.


You're correct, of course. I have no idea what will happen as time goes on. I'm not confident I'll even want to live anymore in 30 years, the way things are going.

But we're not quite there yet.



I'd rather not, in this particular subforum, out of respect for the rules of the board.



Could you PM me?

[Feeding the Abscess]

More extreme than I was expecting from a TaftFan post. Not that I'm complaining, of course.