15 Ways you are probably wrong about anarchists, agorists, and voluntaryists

[HVACTech]

People can organize any way they want, as long as it's VOLUNTARY.
It's axiomatic. Either one is free, or one is not. Forget the labels.

statists gonna state. you cannot be free unless you can keep them under control.

this was the intent of the founders. and it is my intent also.

[HVACTech]

The constitution established a State--the same State that we all know and love today. Now, you can argue about constitutional interpretations, or how the State does or does not respect the constitution, or whatever else, but that's all ultimately irrelevant to the simple fact that despite what excuses one may conjure to defend the constitution, it still established a State and facilitated that State's evolution into what it has become today. So, with that being said, if you are a supporter of this document then, practically speaking, if not also theoretically speaking, you a supporter of a State, ergo statism. As mentioned before, there are various degrees of statism, but from an anarchist perspective, trying to distinguish between those is just splitting hairs.

As for the founders, minarchists and constitutionalists often like to refer to them as if they were all of a like mind, when this was clearly not the case. Several of them had very different ideals about governance, and even what should or shouldn't be included in the constitution, and how the government should operate and evolve. There was, in fact, a very early divide in ideology, hence the federalists vs. anti-federalists. And all that being said, these were just mortal men like everyone else. They lived in a different time, under a different set of circumstances, occupied by a different sort of people who made up quite a different society. Times have changed, people have changed, technology has changed, and we have more knowledge now than they did then. What they may have wanted or perceived as ideal doesn't really matter. We live in the here and now, and we have hundreds of years since to look back on and evaluate, and the only reasonable conclusion to reach as quite clearly demonstrated by the wealth of historical evidence available to us is that this grand experiment hasn't exactly worked out too well. Instead it has ultimately brought about one of the largest, most powerful (if not the largest, most powerful) State's to ever grace the face of the earth. For hundreds of years nothing has really been able to halt the growth of this same State, let alone reverse it. So, personally, I don't find appeals to constitutionalism all that reasonable or compelling.

Anarchism isn't anti-organization, it's simply anti-aggression; and actually, mutual cooperation is very much a cornerstone of anarchistic philosophy in general.

how the State does or does not respect the constitution

OUR Constitution. ONLY applies to the state. is this in fact true? or does that fact surprise you?

Anarchism isn't anti-organization, it's simply anti-aggression

I am also anti-aggression. why are the statists not seen as the aggressors instead of me?
in a world that is literally full of them... how is it not seen that THEY need to be controlled?
and that makes ME the aggressor?

fancy that.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I am also anti-aggression. why are the statists not seen as the aggressors instead of me?
in a world that is literally full of them... how is it not seen that THEY need to be controlled?
and that makes ME the aggressor?

fancy that.

Do you or do you not want individual citizens to comply with your constitutional system? If so, do you support using force in order to compel them?

[HVACTech]

Do you or do you not want individual citizens to comply with your constitutional system? If so, do you support using force in order to compel them?

your constitutional system?

whut? are you asking what a Republic is?

riddle me this. how does "OUR" Constitution apply to you or I?

please show me where it demands ANYTHING of you or I. (the people)

hint, it does not. in fact, it reserves things for US. it's design was to protect us from the statists.

peace.

[HVACTech]

pure , hard core Anarchists piss me off.

go ahead $#@!tards. (give as good as I get) please show me. how.

OUR version of the rule of law in a Republic is NOT anti-statist.

I am your brother, and YOU have forsaken me. any frickin arguments?

[HVACTech]

all three of our founding documents are anti-statist.

anyone care to argue this point?

(sound of crickets chirping)

go ahead $#@! with me on this matter. $#@!tards.

[heavenlyboy34]

Government is the organization of people to enact legislation affecting all simultaneously subjecting a minority, or even a majority, to the petty, authoritarian decrees of the uneducated, propagandized, and/or villainous. It is not "how we organize ourselves socially." It is a system masquerading as law, robbing people, bastardizing contracts, and in general, distorting the cues entrepreneurs and consumers alike would be looking at to determine whether to buy or sell and at how much.


Religion is the study or rather belief in a particular deity or unworldly explanation/occurrence for why things are the way that they are, how we got here, or what happens after we die.

It is not the explanation of their beliefs, it is the belief itself-- collectivized. (if you will, but far different than "collectivism" or how I've been using the term and how I almost strictly use the term.. That is, the belief that majorities have the right to rule over the minority.. that right's are subject to popular opinion or 'democratic function.' They do this through legal positivism, a social contract theory, etc. You actually espouse views that evidently are collectivist in nature.)


They are. Your prejudices are clear. I mean, why would anarchists be against social organization? I'm not sure what exactly you meant but clearly that would not be the case. It would certainly be a daunting endeavor even with a full fledged authoritarian dictatorship to erase social organization, though besides, why would you possibly think that anarchists would be for that? Any logical or thinking person would see that obviously social organization is beneficial to humanity and so long as no one else's rights were being infringed upon, or provably violated, it is no one's business who does what with who. It is your Constitution/those who claim to follow it (though they never do except when it is politically convenient.. and they piss on it any other time and usually during) which is/are against many civil manners of social organization. That is/are against a truly free market.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs6465 again.

Someone plz +rep my bud kcchiefs here^^ Thoughtful post.

[Cabal]

please show me. how.

OUR version of the rule of law in a Republic is NOT anti-statist.

A republic is a State. Kind of difficult for a State to be anti-statist.

Also, minarchist interpretation of the rule of law is a myth.

I am your brother, and YOU have forsaken me.

[HVACTech]

A republic is a State. Kind of difficult for a State to be anti-statist.

Also, minarchist interpretation of the rule of law is a myth.

is "matter" a "state" or, is that too complicated?

I agree, it is in fact, very difficult for a "state" to be anti-statist.

how funny is that!

[Cabal]

[A Son of Liberty]

lol!

I was thinking of going with:



I'm not sure if it's cognitive dissonance or... alcohol maybe?

[PierzStyx]

You know that anarchy is not possible, so what is the point of arguing about it?

You're making a claim not based on reality. Anarchy is the proposition that violence is not needed to force people to do something, that if something is mutually beneficial people will voluntarily engage in it, but if not you still have no right to make them do so. This theory is quite possible, and in fact works ever day. The idea that a nation must be based on violence, on murder and death, is one of the most evil lies I've ever heard promulgated. If this is your proposition, then you are not a minarchist, you are a tyrant. Any small government based on overwhelming violence will inevitably give way to tyranny, because tyranny is the using of force against people who refuse to obey. If you are against using violence to force people to obey you, but truly believe that government is based on consent, meaning that consent can be both given and revoked without threat of reprisal, then your disagreements with anarchy are minimal at best.

[PierzStyx]

all three of our founding documents are anti-statist.

anyone care to argue this point?

(sound of crickets chirping)

go ahead $#@! with me on this matter. $#@!tards.

All three? Do you mean the Articles of Confederation too? Assuming so.....

First, state should be defined according to Max Weber's popular definition: That the state isthe body which hold the monopoly on legitimate force in a given geographic area.

1. The Declaration is fairly anti-statist, especially in its originally submitted draft.

2. The Articles are neither statist or anti-statist. They're merely an international set of rules the thirteen independent nation states agreed to after the revolution. The Articles were explicitly not a national government.

3. The Constitution is clearly a statist document. If you have doubts I suggest you read "The Anti-Federalist Papers" which are a collection of writings by those who opposed the Constitution specifically because they foresaw that by merely creating a powerful centralized state that power creep would eventually corrupt it into something as bad as the British Monarchy they had just revolted against.

Also, the Romans did not invent republican government. Further, a republican government merely means you elect some of your leaders. If you elect a new tyrant every four years with a republican government you've still elected a tyrant.

[idiom]

In a word, the State, or if you prefer, the institutionalized monopoly of the legitimate use of force/violence over a geographical region.

See, this is the thing about an-cap theory. It likes governments, just doesn't want them tied to geographic boundaries or supported by taxation.

They won't admit to that though.

[idiom]

You're making a claim not based on reality. Anarchy is the proposition that violence is not needed to force people to do something, that if something is mutually beneficial people will voluntarily engage in it, but if not you still have no right to make them do so. This theory is quite possible, and in fact works ever day. The idea that a nation must be based on violence, on murder and death, is one of the most evil lies I've ever heard promulgated. If this is your proposition, then you are not a minarchist, you are a tyrant. Any small government based on overwhelming violence will inevitably give way to tyranny, because tyranny is the using of force against people who refuse to obey. If you are against using violence to force people to obey you, but truly believe that government is based on consent, meaning that consent can be both given and revoked without threat of reprisal, then your disagreements with anarchy are minimal at best.

Pacifism is the proposition that you don't need force.

Anarchism is the proposition that you can define force in such a way that you can convince yourself you are not using it.

What are you going to do when someone who doesn't believe in property quite the narrow way you defined it violates your 'rights'? Oh yeah, force. But its okay because they started it with all their violations of your decrees.

And god-forbid they take offence at something your definitions don't allow for.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

whut? are you asking what a Republic is?

riddle me this. how does "OUR" Constitution apply to you or I?

please show me where it demands ANYTHING of you or I. (the people)

hint, it does not. in fact, it reserves things for US. it's design was to protect us from the statists.

peace.

If individual citizens currently living in this country were to form their own voluntaryst/anarchist society, I'm pretty sure your constitutional republic would respond with force. Again, the American State is a creation of the Constitution.

[helmuth_hubener]

HVACTech, you seem like you are just itching for a fight and somehow imagine yourself to be a victim. You came into this thread and from the start have repeatedly been acting like people are attacking and hating on you. They aren't! I don't see it, anyway.

Do you really want to be allies and brothers, or do you just want a fight?

Look, watch my video, laugh, and CALM DOWN!

Renting the Super Bowl

(I wish I could embed the thing. Somebody who uses Youtube, upload it, could you?)

[HVACTech]

HVACTech, you seem like you are just itching for a fight and somehow imagine yourself to be a victim. You came into this thread and from the start have repeatedly been acting like people are attacking and hating on you. They aren't! I don't see it, anyway.

Do you really want to be allies and brothers, or do you just want a fight?

Look, watch my video, laugh, and CALM DOWN!

Renting the Super Bowl

(I wish I could embed the thing. Somebody who uses Youtube, upload it, could you?)

Hello Friend.
I have been speaking in defense of the principles and concepts that my country was founded on.

if you are in my country, and you do not support or even understand these principles, who invaded who?

and by the way, thanks for the neg reps everybody. very classy.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hello Friend.
I have been speaking in defense of the principles and concepts that my country was founded on.

if you are in my country, and you do not support or even understand these principles, who invaded who?

and by the way, thanks for the neg reps everybody. very classy.

Almost as classy as the petty insults you hand out regularly to people who disagree with you, I hope.

[helmuth_hubener]

Hello Friend.
I have been speaking in defense of the principles and concepts that my country was founded on.

Thank you for the kind word, and yes, I understand that you're just defending the core Founding values of America. And, as for myself, I can support that and I have no quarrel with you.

I do love talking about ideas and freedom, and I'm sure you're not going to agree with all my ideas, but I wouldn't want you to! We are both on the side of freedom.

if you are in my country, and you do not support or even understand these principles, who invaded who?

I think you might be surprised at how much some of the people you are conversing with in this thread know about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers for that matter, etc. Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean you have to get defensive or combative. Everybody's just presenting their point of view.

Did you watch the video clip, HVACTech? It's just a few minutes!

[Cabal]

See, this is the thing about an-cap theory. It likes governments, just doesn't want them tied to geographic boundaries or supported by taxation.

They won't admit to that though.

Anarchist theory neither likes nor dislikes the idea of government, on its own, in general; it's about the State, and as PierzStyx mentioned, the use of force that defines the State, not necessarily about government.

This is what minarchists don't seem to grasp, more often than not. A government is not necessarily a State, but a State is always a government. Anarchists in general would take no issue with, for instance, the establishment of a voluntary government of a community, or even a large area if possible.

Taxation is just one of the ways the State exercises its use of force, and a major factor in how it manages to sustain itself. It's hardly the only thing anarchists are concerned with where the State is involved.

[heavenlyboy34]

Anarchist theory neither likes nor dislikes the idea of government, on its own, in general; it's about the State, and as PierzStyx mentioned, the use of force that defines the State, not necessarily about government.

This is what minarchists don't seem to grasp, more often than not. A government is not necessarily a State, but a State is always a government. Anarchists in general would take no issue with, for instance, the establishment of a voluntary government of a community, or even a large area if possible.

Taxation is just one of the ways the State exercises its use of force, and a major factor in how it manages to sustain itself. It's hardly the only thing anarchists are concerned with where the State is involved.

Yup, Rothbard and Oppenheimer make the State/government distinction clear.

[idiom]

Anarchist theory neither likes nor dislikes the idea of government, on its own, in general; it's about the State, and as PierzStyx mentioned, the use of force that defines the State, not necessarily about government.

This is what minarchists don't seem to grasp, more often than not. A government is not necessarily a State, but a State is always a government. Anarchists in general would take no issue with, for instance, the establishment of a voluntary government of a community, or even a large area if possible.

Taxation is just one of the ways the State exercises its use of force, and a major factor in how it manages to sustain itself. It's hardly the only thing anarchists are concerned with where the State is involved.

And when two voluntary governments disagree on the ever so subtle definition of aggression?

Force to get their way.

As I said, its still pure force, just in a sort of de-regulated open market wrapping, where each vehicle for dominance has to win popularity and profitability contests in the market place, without the powers of taxation of a geographic region.

[kcchiefs6465]

whut? are you asking what a Republic is?

riddle me this. how does "OUR" Constitution apply to you or I?

please show me where it demands ANYTHING of you or I. (the people)

hint, it does not. in fact, it reserves things for US. it's design was to protect us from the statists.

peace.

Riddle me this:

Who's to pay the taxes which this revered piece of paper supposedly authorized a group to collect?

pure , hard core Anarchists piss me off.

go ahead $#@!tards. (give as good as I get) please show me. how.

OUR version of the rule of law in a Republic is NOT anti-statist.

I am your brother, and YOU have forsaken me. any frickin arguments?

The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the 3/5ths compromise, the Fugitive Slave Clause, the Spending Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Supremacy Clause, Eminent Domain, the Sixteenth, Seventeenth and [previously] Eighteenth Amendment... I mean, do I really need to go on?

People might be more open to offer you a rebuttal if you took the time to respond to anything they've written on the matter.

What's incredible is that the people who agree with me on this issue could formulate an argument postulating that most of what I've mentioned has simply been bastardized after the fact. I know for certain that a few here who have been taking the time to respond to you are very well-versed with the history, definition, etc. on each of those clauses. It never truly surprises me that often the people who regard the Constitution as it should be regarded (that is, non-binding of any one) are the most versed on the subject.

all three of our founding documents are anti-statist.

anyone care to argue this point?

(sound of crickets chirping)

go ahead $#@! with me on this matter. $#@!tards.

It is ironic that you would post this when all I get is how we apparently are in agreement (though we quite obviously are not). You have not formed a single cohesive argument as to why I am wrong-- logically, empirically, or in any other such case.

When you respond to people how you do, people who are otherwise respectful and knowledgeable become annoyed. You aren't doing yourself any favors.

Have you listened to No Treason by Lysander Spooner?

Have you read, A Letter to Grover Cleveland by Lysander Spooner?

[heavenlyboy34]

And when two voluntary governments disagree on the ever so subtle definition of aggression?

Force to get their way.

As I said, its still pure force, just in a sort of de-regulated open market wrapping, where each vehicle for dominance has to win popularity and profitability contests in the market place, without the powers of taxation of a geographic region.

If you want to tease the words in that manner, you could say current state, city, and regional governments as we know them use force against each other. Except regular people are caught in the crossfire.

[kcchiefs6465]

See, this is the thing about an-cap theory. It likes governments, just doesn't want them tied to geographic boundaries or supported by taxation.

They won't admit to that though.

If people (that is, the individuals, themselves) own the land they are to live on, they can establish whatever 'government' they wish to.

They cannot, however, (or at the least, cannot legitimately) establish their government over unswayed or unwilling individuals. Therein lies your sophism.

[Cabal]

And when two voluntary governments disagree on the ever so subtle definition of aggression?

Force to get their way.

Most people can disagree without becoming violent or aggressive. Many also have the capacity to settle differences reasonably.

Force is only one way of responding to a dispute. It isn't the only way--not in theory, not in practice--and often, it's not even an efficient way of responding to disputes.

But I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, honestly. If your central concern is with the use of force, particularly when it comes to settling things, that should automatically rule out statism.

[Christian Liberty]

Yup, Rothbard and Oppenheimer make the State/government distinction clear.

There may well be a clear distinction between, say, the United States of America and Rothbard's ideal. But, I think I could invent some gray areas that stretch the definitions, and I think whatever you'd get were you to even try to create a minarchist or ancap society would likely be a gray area of some kind.

[fisharmor]

It says things like "there are historical precedents" and doesn't give any.

I've gone blue in the face recounting over and over again what some of the historical precedents are. I'm rather tired of it.

Since nobody is going to remember if I do it yet again, I'll just turn it right back around on you.

What is your historical precedent for minarchism?
What can you point to in history and say "that is at least close to what I'm talking about"?

You are actually more bereft of historical precedent than we are. You might be able to point to 10-20 years of something: I can point to over 1200 years in at least one case.

[fisharmor]

the problem is, that if we remain unorganized, a larger ORGANIZED group of STATISTS will conquer us. just as it has happened SO many times in the past.

The 1200 year+ example I mentioned above only ended when a larger organized group of statists systematically caused the death of at least 20% and possibly more than 80% of the population.
It had withstood multiple invasions prior.
You don't know any of this specifically because it does not support the statist narrative which is taught in our state-run schools.

There is no state that can withstand that level of onslaught, either. So it's a non sequitur to use that as a prop for minarchism.