TheTexan
Member

Deliberately.

It's just Tucker though. Everyone else on Fox has no problem with carrying the establishment narratives. Not everything is a hidden agenda. Perhaps Tucker is just on a long term contract and he was hired back when his views were different.

Normally I would agree, and I recalled you saying that as I was writing the post. But I do think it's worthwhile to try to find an alternative to "state" and "statism", in the context of "non aggression". Most normal people (rightfully so) equate "state" with "government", whereas the anarchist community equates "state" with "aggression", which only tends to exacerbate the public image that "anarchy" = "no government"

Random rant tangentially related to this thread: Anarchists (myself included) should really find better a better word to use than the "state" when what is really meant is "an involuntary political system". Using "the state" in this sense conflates the idea of having a central government, with involuntary membership in that government. Classically, some anarchists truly are against "the state" (having a central government of any kind) but I don't think that's what most anarchists here (and Larken) intend to mean when they use that word. Not intending to get into a semantic circle jerk, just an observation.

I don't think you're really even trying to understand any of my points. But I will proceed assuming you are at least making the effort. As with most things related to anarchist theory, these concepts tend to fall on the side of the abstract. The average farm scenario is fairly straight forward. If you want to secede, you stop paying taxes. That's what that would look like. I say "average farm scenario" because this can get complicated quickly and I'm happy to get into the edge cases with concrete examples if you prefer but that could of course be a lengthy discussion.

You're still not providing anything concrete to judge by, just a few vague, ambiguous statements about your beliefs that don't provide enough info to determine much of anything. Despite the fact that it appears to me that we might be about to start playing the definition game, let me try to help you out here. Let's say that I own and work on a farm. This farm was legitimately homesteaded by my ancestors and has been in my family for several generations. Let's also say that my farm is situated in a region in your hypothetical world that imposes taxes but does not "forcefully oppose" secession. How do I go about seceding so as to not pay the taxes? What does that look like? Another scenario: Suppose my farm is situated in a region where the people are fascist. Again, I want NOTHING to do with their fascism. How do I "opt out"?

Need more votes for Don ppl. Santis is catching up

I voted divisive Don for the delicious drama :cool:

Well then you tell me if I'm a statist. I self identify as a voluntaryist but maybe I'm in fact just a statist in denial. My views: - I don't think taxes are necessary and I would prefer to live in a region without taxes - Taxation in the current political climate is theft, but that's only because secession is forcefully opposed - Minarchism, Communism, Fascism, are all compatible with the NAP as long as the individual right of voluntary association is respected Am I statist?

Without. concrete examples of where you allege Larken to be wrong, to be engaging in an “overclassification of calling people statists,” ( not even quite sure what you exactly mean there) or exhibiting “a complete lack of understanding of legitimate nuance,” nothing you’ve said above amounts to much more than your own completely unsupported assertions. In my own experience, typically when people accuse Larken of being wrong, it’s not because he actually IS wrong, but because they actually ARE supporting or advocating for some level of statism, want to keep on doing so, and yet want also to be considered morally correct in the process. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Most of the time they simply don’t like him because he shines an uncomfortable light on their own cognative dissonance. Larken is mostly right. This stuff isn’t particularly difficult or complicated to figure out. Most people want to make it difficult or complicated in order to maintain their own pet statist ideas and policies while at the same time maintaining their own view of themselves as one of the “good guys.”

The difference here is that Matt Walsh, on the clip above, is indisputably right. Larken is very often wrong. His error is usually either an overclassification of calling people "statists", or a complete lack of understanding of legitimate nuance. What Larken refers to being "mean to statists", may sometimes be more accurately described as Larken being wrong - not mean.

And here, L. Neil Smith was saying the same kind of thing all the way back in 2000: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2000/libe68-20000331-07.html

https://apnews.com/article/svb-fed-bonds-rates-banks-inflation-a24b28b3caeede91c76cd120aa9b7966

Wouldn't that be "it comes from the of a douche"? Just sayin'.

What is Amendment XXVIII?

Hear, hear! I’ll second that.

“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth …” What a miserable fucking ingrate.

What did he have on the Clintons?

Where can I send a few Vaudevillian cliches? ETA: That’s banana peels to the uninitiated.

I like the way your mind works!

I try to be more positive but lately I’m going through some shit that has made me a bit more pessimistic than usual. On the just slightly brighter side, and correct me if my memory is faulty her, but I seem to remember that at both Waco and Ruby Ridge folks from all around the country actually DID gather with the intention of interceding. As I recall they were convinced to “stand down” at Ruby Ridge by Bo Gritz, who offered to help negotiate and personally guaranteed Randy Weaver’s safety. I don’t recall what happened at Waco to produce a similar result. Or is my memory finally going to shit?

Now you've gone and done it! ;) I'll add a few for posterity and to further demonstrate the utter, despicable evil and complete corruption we're dealing with. They lied about the necessity for the raid. They could have pick Koresk up peacefully in any number of ways but chose not to. They lied on the warrant, alleging the operation of a meth lab in the "compound" (read that "the Davidians' home and church), in order to secure National Guard involvement. They lied about the helicopters not being armed. They most certainly were, and they fired indiscriminately from them down into the buildings killing several. They lied about the Davidians possessing NFA weapons. Not a single NFA firearm or explosive device was ever found.

Among about a billion other lies, those "four young law enforcement officers" were most likely killed by friendly fire. All available evidence pointed in that direction. Even just mentioning any reasonable part of the rest of the lies surrounding Waco would take WAY longer than I have time for now. The feds murdered those peole, along with about 2 dozen children, flat out, and then immediately proceeded to destroy any evidence they could that would establish that fact (bulldozing the debris back into the fire while it was still burning, and while keeping fire and rescue personnel back away from the site while they did it). I agree. Fuck you Chuck.

Brother, I have nothing but a very high degree of respect for you, and hope I didn't insult you in any way with my comments. I apologize if anything like that is the case. I was certain that you were very well aware of the situation, but I also thought it might be a good idea to once again demonstrate how irredeemably corrupt "the system" actually is, and how utterly naive it is to think that we're somehow going to fix things by working within it. Again, sorry if anything I said or the way I said it came across as insulting or condescending. That was not my intent.

Defense distributed won a preliminary injunction against the ATF's proposed changes. Their 80% lowers are once again for sale