Yes, I know. But what makes your state any different? In neither state is the scenario precluded from happening. This was my point.Originally Posted by undergroundrr
Alright, undergroundrr. I'm out. I owe ya a rep.
If I had a nickle for every time I've read that I could take the ol' lady on a trip to Ancapistan.
"The Patriarch"
The chess board is very alluring to the pigeon who thinks he's winning.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Indeed.The chess board is very alluring to the pigeon who thinks he's winning.
"The Patriarch"
I've been a member on this forum for over 7 YEARS. There have been COUNTLESS threads laying out the anti-statist philosophy. Furthermore, it ain't like a couple of us here just made it up over beers one night. Anti-statism is a very well established and long-standing philosophy. There are many writers with far greater reputations than anyone, myself included to be sure, posting in this thread.
So it's not as if people here don't know what libertarian anti-statists are, or what they believe in. It's not as if the term anarcho-capitalism is just an internet phenomenon, with no scholarly legwork behind it. ESPECIALLY here @ RPF's, pretending that we need to have this debate about what anti-statism is (call it what you will) is a farce. It's a joke, and those of us who've been around for even the briefest period of time can agree on that, if we're going to being honest. Which seems to be a problem for you. Which is why we're still having this "discussion".
And Ron Paul himself is to "blame" for this circumstance, by the way - he actively and vigorously associated himself with modern luminaries of the anti-statist philosophical/academic movement. You know their names, of course. I am an anti-statist BECAUSE RON PAUL LED ME TO THOSE WRITERS AND ACADEMICS. And that was no coincidence, of course. I came here as a muddled, some-what lost political moderate, and after a very short amount of time reading the very names Dr. Paul directed me to, I became an anti-statist.
So let's not pretend that you've managed to punch a hole in an entire school of thought, or that you can debate the meaning of particular words and that have a meaningful impact on a very sound, logically consistent political (if you will) philosophy. You have an axe to grind, and you're grinding it. Good for you. I get it. Quit acting like you've discovered something. You haven't.
Last edited by A Son of Liberty; 10-23-2017 at 08:41 AM.
Jeezus... is this your "big objection" to anti-statism? Well noshitsherlock... Guess what? THAT'S EVERYONE'S BIGGEST PROBLEM!
Someday, someone might come along and kill you. Aw gee, welcome to life on planet Earth.
One can live in fear of that moment and seek to protect himself from it at ALL COSTS (literally), and still end up dead in the end, by the way.
Oh good... kill yourself before someone else can do it for you. BRILLIANT....choose to support electoral politics and the constitution.
Guess what? Electoral politics and the constitution are no protection from some big bully coming along some day and killing you.
Or maybe it is... I mean, I suppose you can corrupt the currency enough, and tax the people enough, while undermining the economies of every other country on the planet until you secure the biggest, baddest military the world has ever seen... THEN you'll be safe, right!?
Because safety is what you want, NC. Not freedom.
Freedom means you might die some day.
That's kind of a feature of being alive, though, isn't it?
But by all means, erect a State which will rob not only your freedom, but your life, liberty and property... just so no one comes along and kills you some day. :lol: Just make sure that you erect a State so big and powerful that no one (besides your State, of course) can come along and kill you.
Because that's why we can't be free in your mind, right? We can't be free because someday, a State that a bunch of people erected will come along and kill us.
Amazing... You're a heck of a progressive, NC. Did you know that? If not, you should look into a bunch of other programs they have, besides the big military thing... they've got healthcare for everyone, to keep them from dying. They've got welfare for everyone, to keep them from being poor. They've got unemployment insurance, to keep them from being poor for a little while. They've got social security, to keep them from being poor when they're old. It's great over there! You'll love it! :lol:
What an idiot!
Letting you in on a little historical lesson, here: ya can't. "You" (and by "you" I mean a bunch of people unassociated with you who happened to live in roughly the same physical area as you some years ago) have proven that you cannot keep it. "You" (please see previous definition, above) managed to squander the smallest government ever, with the authority given to the broadest subset of humanity, ever. How it worked out is the biggest, most obtrusive State mankind has ever conceived, and a current population who wants NOTHING MORE than to use the power of that State to take more and more stuff from some folks until they're fat'n'happy, and their hosts are utterly drained. And it's on a course to be far worse than even the most corrupt communist states, because people in this country believe that they're a government of the people, by the people and for the people... :LOLOLOLOLOL:I choose a Republic if I can keep it.
And really, at the end of the day, they're right. And they'll cannibalize every last strand of meat from the bone until there's nothing left, and then we'll see just where we end up.
Grow up. There are far worse things to worry about than you falling off a building and grasping to a flag pole, then some libertarian knocking you off without repercussion. What a stupid concern. What a stupid reason to support the State.That way someone is actually held accountable for knocking me off a pole and killing me just because they have the idea that they possess the right of ownership of my God-given rights to life and liberty.
I'll tell you what, if we ever live in a world without a State, and you happen to find yourself in a situation where you're about to fall out a window yet be lucky enough to grab a hold of a flag pole as you're descending, give me a quick call - I PROMISE I'll deal with the imaginary $#@! who's going to unpluck your fingers from his pole because it's his property.
Seriously, the crap we have to answer around here. :lol:
Last edited by A Son of Liberty; 10-23-2017 at 08:52 AM.
Outta rep for you too.
Anyhow, sorry, but a guy murdering another guy is not a state. It's a nice metaphor for the state though.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
The anarchists post so much stupid stuff like this, that I sometimes I think they're just messing with us.
I don't think an anarchist posted this article originally... but who knows, and who cares... I'm sure the likes of you, with all your logical consistency wouldn't miss such a detail. :lol:
Heavenlyboy34 posted it and you agreed with it. You have a short memory.
Here's the posts:
So let's review.
I posted that I doubt anarchists in reality would even want to eliminate the police and courts.
Heavenlyboy34, an anarchist, replied that I don't know what I'm talking about and posted a link to an article to a small town that replaced a few local police with county police, which obviously does not refute my statement. And it makes him look pretty silly.
Then you agreed with him and called me foolish.
And now instead of apologizing you're doubling down on your own mistakes and insults.
I've also noticed that Burning Man is used as an example of successful anarchy. I'm beginning to think that our "anarchists" smoked a little too much Wacky tobacky in their lifetime.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Only thing dumber than anarchists are people that believe they'll reduce the scope and size of government by voting...
Hrmmmm, like 50% of the citizens in the US either work for government or receive welfare from the government or the company they work for has contracts with the goobermint. Please explain how again one will convince people that have no problem receiving stolen money right now, to go out and vote themselves a pay cut. We aren't talking about people with ambition or drive here, we are talking about people that live off goobermint.
Please explain...
Fact is, IMO, this "Voting" game ended when the instituted social security there was no way back after that, well, not until the system collapses anyway, which has nothing to do with voting. Once the welfare state is embedded, voting for smaller goobermint became equated with starving granny. End of opportunity for small government.
Last edited by RonPaulIsGreat; 10-23-2017 at 12:56 PM.
QFT
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
Not that there's anything wrong with thatI've also noticed that Burning Man is used as an example of successful anarchy. I'm beginning to think that our "anarchists" smoked a little too much Wacky tobacky in their lifetime.
No that's factually wrong. Reducing government is extremely difficult, but it happens all the time. If governments only got bigger the entire planet would be communist by now. On the other hand creating an anarchy is impossible.
I agree. I fact I think that's far and away the biggest problem with any country that has voting. I think the solution is to only allow net taxpayers to vote or some sort of limited voting pool.
Total government doesn't have to be redistribution of everybody's wealth commie-style. The governing body just has to have the ability to oversee and control everything you do, control your mobility, and control your ownership and use of your justly acquired resources. The state by its nature will suck every last drop out of your child's soup bowl before it gives up one ounce of itself.
Anti-globalists rail on around here, but in effect we already have a one-world state in which almost nobody anywhere is free. While depressed onlookers wait for that one dictator to take the whole thing over, the cartel of nation-states is stamping out liberty much more efficiently than a cartoon one-world bureaucracy ever could. News stories of imminent international catastrophe proliferate, and the people hug more tightly to their nation-states, pleading for security. International "strife" benefits all the actors.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
YUP.
The international bankster cartel runs everything. Dissenting members are eliminated. Usually by the United Bagmen of America. Because petro-dollar.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I've also noticed that Burning Man is used as an example of successful anarchy. I'm beginning to think that our "anarchists" smoked a little too much Wacky tobacky in their lifetime.
Hi there! Just checking - are you actually reading this thread?
Meanwhile, long, thoughtful posts go unresponded to...Not that there's anything wrong with that
:shrug:
Ancap For Squares
Yup. Governments suck but we're stuck with them until the physics of the universe change and force no longer exists.
Which one did I not respond to?
I'm still waiting for your response about the town that supposedly eliminated its police department.
Well, as I said... WHO CARES?
Yeah, I gave up on voting after I saw what they did to Ron Paul. And I really hate to say this, but I've pretty much given up on the whole shebang. I think we're past the point of no return.
Yes, I have been. You seem to pop in only every once in a while. In fact, maybe you just didn't see it, but I replied to one of your long posts, point by point, way back on page 10, but you never replied. Here it is: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6539312
I think there might've been a different post of yours to me that I didn't reply to… I have to go back and look. But your basic point was that a state is not needed for people to do commerce. That is kind of a strawman, because the thing that you're not getting (or maybe just ignoring) is that state or no state, you're going to end up having some sort of authority or coercive element, because it is completely unrealistic to think that everyone is going to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. So if you're going to have some form of government, it just comes down to what is better… one that is limited and based on a true foundation and has a system of checks and balances… Or a poorly thought out system that will inevitably boil down to might makes right?
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
This is only true if everyone thinks that the state is unavoidable for people to conduct their daily lives. This is simply not true. Yes, conflict happens but usually it's instigated by a "state" or someone trying to become one. Nobody has said anything about holding hands and singing kumbaya. I manage to live my life outside of the state except for what I can't possibly avoid, such as car tabs and seat belts. That doesn't mean the people I do business with think there is some kind of utopia that can be achieved, it just means they don't need the government involved any more than they absolutely have to to avoid violence from the state.
"The Patriarch"
Yeah, I didn't see that. I'll go back and look. I don't have a ton of free time (I've been off the past couple days, so I've popped in to play), so you're correct I don't stick around too much...
Real quick before I go to bed - this thing you guys keep bringing up, that contracts are gonna be enforced and therefore that's a State... it really belies a very sophomoric understanding of what the State is... sorry to say.
Anti-statists oppose the unprovoked initiation of force. I mean, we can get into a lot more detail there, but at the end of the day, that's basically what it boils down to. I don't think any of us have time - nor hopefully the need - to get further into it than that, but maybe we do. Either way, not my problem - go ahead and read about what anti-statism is as far as libertarians are concerned. There's plenty of material out there - start with Tom Woods.
This idea that we anti-statists think that in a world without a State, people are all just going to magically get along, and no one is going to welch on agreements and contracts... it's nonsense. No one in our tradition has ever suggested that would be the reality. We merely oppose the pre-emptive, unprovoked coercive and/or physical violence which the State represents. In more succinct terms, you (generally speaking, you "Statists") are afraid someone isn't going to live up to a contract (i.e., do violence, essentially), so you pre-empt said violent act by inaugurating the State, an institution which is BY DEFINITION an act of violence.
Now, it's always at this point that Statists want answers... "well, then how are you going to enforce contracts", or, "how are you going to provide defense", or, "how are you going to do..." this or that. That's NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS, you're point of view is wrong. It's immoral, because you're initiating violence where there has been no offense. That is the point upon which the pendulum of the argument tips. By the way - there are answers to those questions... but they don't really matter, because in a truly free market, there are literally 7 billion people with numerous ideas as to how those questions may be answered... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FREE MARKET IS. As a so-called conservative, or libertarian, or whatever you call yourself, THAT SHOULD BE SELF-EVIDENT TO YOU.
ANYWAY... advocates of statelessness (anarchists, if you insist) DO NOT OPPOSE VIOLENCE. WE OPPOSE THE INITIATION OF UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE. Thus, if you break a contract in a stateless world, you will be dealt with. You can be cutesy and suggest that we're trying to impose Somalia on the planet, but that's stupid, and you guys probably know it. AND it's the same argument that leftists use when YOU try to convince them of free market economics. (Seriously, I can't believe you guys can't see that you use the same arguments they use...).
How will contracts be enforced? I don't know. Someone would come up with a solution to that problem... just like someone came up with a solution to the lighting problem (Edison), or someone came up with the transportation problem (Ford), or someone came up with a solution to the communication problem (Marconi), etc., etc. Come ON... We're all SUPPOSED TO BE ADVOCATES OF THE FREE MARKET. WHY DO YOU INSIST THAT THERE ARE SOME GOODS/SERVICES WHICH CANNOT BE PROVIDED BY IT? Next you will be arguing that the State needs to provide food, shelter, and healthcare! GASP! YOU DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF OBAMACARE? WELL, YOU ARE. YOU JUST HAVEN'T FOLLOWED YOUR ARGUMENTS TO THEIR LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS. Try being consistent. Try thinking through your arguments.
You advocate for a "government" (A State, in fact), but just a lil' one. Well that's cute. Guess what? They NEVER stay small. Oh, you may convince a few people to vote for someone who talks about limiting "the budget" for a while... it doesn't matter. Ultimately, what you've done, is you've unleashed on human society an entity with effectively unlimited power... whether you say as much when you inaugurate it or not, it WILL HAVE UNLIMITED POWER. Because that is what PEOPLE WANT IT TO HAVE. You can't just cut that loose on the world and imagine that no one is going to seize control of it and use if for their own means! Talk about MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! THAT'S YOUR WHOLE POINT OF VIEW!
What must happen is people must come to see the State as the evil institution that it is. And we can debate whether that will ever happen, and frankly you won't get much argument from me, because the State is so tempting... but we do have a relatively recent and decent analog - the institution of Slavery was widely accepted and practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years, yet it has by and large been upended through people rejecting it as a legitimate concept. That is what it will take to overthrow the State. I DO NOT ADVOCATE for any other manner of anti-statism than that, because - to a significant degree - if people have not rejected the concept, then they will simply seek to seize control of it and put it to their own ends (and that is why it is such a disaster of an institution in the first place).
You can say that it will never happen. Okay. Maybe it won't. But in 1820, you could have said that Slavery would never be upended as an institution. You would have looked pretty reasonable at that time, but look what happened. So don't just say we will always have a State. And don't for a SECOND misunderstand what exactly the State is, nor confuse it for something which could be put to good use. It CANNOT. It is by definition unprovoked violence, as it must be. Period.
There you go. (The part I bolded). And that's just part of it. Regardless of what you call it, you're going to end up with some sort of authority/coercion Why, because there are always going to be people who want to take advantage of others, harm others, or rule over others.
I think that the type of anarchy you guys want will only work on a very small scale. But if you can find a group of people with good intentions, who are all basically on the same page, then it could work out wonderfully. I say go for it. But it's not going to work on a large scale… it just isn't. And as I said earlier on the thread, it's not going to happen anyway. Unfortunately, the world is heading in the opposite direction. We can fight against it, but I believe that it's probably not going to be overthrown by us. I believe it will be eventually though, by the true power of this world. But that's a topic for a whole other thread.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
I would disagree. All our attempts at empire since the end of WW11 have ended in failure. The world is changing, it's getting smaller and information is no longer controlled by the few. I think a evolution is on the way.
"The Patriarch"
*Sigh* This post is chock full of strawmen. I'm not even sure I want to go through it point by point, at least not right now.
The world may be changing, but human nature has not changed. There are still a number of powerful people who have an agenda, and that agenda is a nightmare. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what's going to happen in the future. As I said, that's getting into a whole other topic...that should probably go on its own thread.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Well no, it's not a whole other topic. Respectfully, not at all. What is the state, in any conceivable configuration, going to do about these powerful people with a agenda?
"The Patriarch"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us