Anarchism is democracy taken seriously.

[HVACTech]

So you are an anarchist, then.

In that case, what are you arguing against here?

(psst. dude. I am the OP)
@HVACTech. "that the "state" is evil is not a point of contention. what to DO about it is."
@HVACTech. "Lacking a ruler = mob rule. Anarchism is the ULTIMATE expression of the VERY purest form of Democracy."

Democracy is a direct threat to individual Liberty. (that would be YOU sir)

[TheTexan]

Democracy is a direct threat to individual Liberty. (that would be YOU sir)

What are you suggesting, that we take away the right to vote?

[heavenlyboy34]

(psst. dude. I am the OP)
@HVACTech. "that the "state" is evil is not a point of contention. what to DO about it is."
@HVACTech. "Lacking a ruler = mob rule. Anarchism is the ULTIMATE expression of the VERY purest form of Democracy."

Democracy is a direct threat to individual Liberty. (that would be YOU sir)

No anarchist in history would agree with your definition though.



strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

[HVACTech]

No anarchist in history would agree with your definition though.



strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

it was NOT my definition sir.

Full Definition of democracy. plural de·moc·ra·cies. 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

HOW does this differ from YOUR definition of anarchy?

that you DO NOT support "majority rule" or participating in "free elections". is well known.
so, what does that leave us with?

"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly"

[ArrestPoliticians]

As Rand and Donald recently proved, yet once again. Specific loses, vague wins. Is this a great system or what?



After years of doing this I realize no one can be convinced of anything (by me at least) against their will.

How'd you reduce your view to minarchy? Same process, just more. Shoot for ZERO, be creative!

In depth study into economics, similar to what I did with anarchy.

[ArrestPoliticians]

Traditionally, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. An anarchist is a negative claimant by nature.

You can tell who has the weaker argument by who is the first to run and claim "burden of proof"

The positive claimant is the one that wants to change the status quo...

[ArrestPoliticians]

It isn't always the case that it is. It seems to me that it's only relevant when there's some question about whether or not to attain whatever it is.

But believing the state is evil doesn't mean a person will foolishly expend effort in a hopeless crusade of eliminating it.

Oh, I thought we were discussing actually attaining things. I'm not making purely philosophical arguments.

[Ronin Truth]

In depth study into economics, similar to what I did with anarchy.

Ah, dueling in depth studies.

Did your's include Rothbard?

[presence]

Full Definition of democracy. plural de·moc·ra·cies. 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

HOW does this differ from YOUR definition of anarchy?

In a direct democracy everyone within a State territory is bound to the decision made by the democracy.
In an anarchist democracy anyone who does not vote is not bound to the decision of the vote.

state democracies have SUBJECTED territories,
anarchist democracies have WILLING participants


Consider a 10% tax is put to the vote to provide an entitlement:

state democracy with 100 people in a given "territory"... vote is taken 30 appear at poll.... 2/3'rds agree.... therefore 20 people decide what 100 people get to do... everyone pays 10% tax everyone gets benefit. Don't like it and didn't show up to vote? STFU, pay your 10%, or thump on the head with a stick.

anarchist democracy with 100 people in a given "region"... vote is taken 30 appear at poll and concede to the outcome of the poll by contract, 2/3rds agree... therefore 20 people decide what 30 people get to do, the remainding 70 are unbound by the decision. 30 pay 10% tax and get benefit. 70 pay no tax, get no benefit, and no one can coerce them otherwise.

[ArrestPoliticians]

Ah, dueling in depth studies.

Did your's include Rothbard?

obviously, he's probably my favorite writer

[Ronin Truth]

obviously, he's probably my favorite writer

I really like Murray too, but LeFevre is really my strong preference.

So Rothbard couldn't manage to drag you over to the dark side, eh? Did he tell you about the cookies?

[erowe1]

(psst. dude. I am the OP)
@HVACTech. "that the "state" is evil is not a point of contention. what to DO about it is."
@HVACTech. "Lacking a ruler = mob rule. Anarchism is the ULTIMATE expression of the VERY purest form of Democracy."

Democracy is a direct threat to individual Liberty. (that would be YOU sir)

You keep changing positions. In the OP it looks like you're against anarchism. But now in two recent posts you said you believed in anarchism.

And when did I ever support democracy?

[erowe1]

Oh, I thought we were discussing actually attaining things. I'm not making purely philosophical arguments.

I thought we were discussing anarchism. That is the word used in the thread title, after all.

[ArrestPoliticians]

I thought we were discussing anarchism. That is the word used in the thread title, after all.

Lmao

[ArrestPoliticians]

I really like Murray too, but LeFevre is really my strong preference.

So Rothbard couldn't manage to drag you over to the dark side, eh? Did he tell you about the cookies?

If the cookies are haughtily thumbing our nose at statists i.e. 99.9% of the population, yes that was tempting

[Ronin Truth]

If the cookies are haughtily thumbing our nose at statists i.e. 99.9% of the population, yes that was tempting

So actually we really don't have much to argue about, on government shrinkage, until we move past your minarchy threshold and on towards mine. Right?

[ArrestPoliticians]

So actually we really don't have much to argue about, on government shrinkage, until we move past your minarchy threshold and on towards mine. Right?

yes sir

[HVACTech]

In a direct democracy everyone within a State territory is bound to the decision made by the democracy.
In an anarchist democracy anyone who does not vote is not bound to the decision of the vote.

state democracies have SUBJECTED territories,
anarchist democracies have WILLING participants
.

oh, I think I see the problem... is this better?

"the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly"

now, lets refine "exercised by them directly" to it's purist form. shall we?

"ANY powers NOT exercised by them directly, does NOT apply to them"
that gives us...

"the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly, ANY powers NOT exercised by them directly, does NOT apply to them"

is THAT a good definition of anarchy?

[erowe1]

"the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly, ANY powers NOT exercised by them directly, does NOT apply to them"

is THAT a good definition of anarchy?

No.

[HVACTech]

So actually we really don't have much to argue about, on government shrinkage, until we move past your minarchy threshold and on towards mine. Right?

it is well known that I am a MinArchist.

there is a reason that the "minarchy threshold" exists ronin. and it is human nature.
anarchism and socialism are NOT new ideas.
and I am not here for purely philosophical discussion. on either subject.

lets try to define what you and the myriad other anarchists of RPF's are champions of.
this is my best effort so far. critiques please.

"the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly, ANY powers NOT exercised by them directly, does NOT apply to them"

[HVACTech]

No.

eh? what did I miss?

source?

[erowe1]

eh? what did I miss?

source?

That's already been asked and answered a few times in this thread. I'm not sure why you're so stuck on that wrong definition.

A better definition of anarchism is the belief that the state is evil. Alternatively, it's a believe in the sovereignty of the individual.

You've already said you believe in anarchism by both of those definitions in this thread.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Anarchy is quite simple (and I said this a few pages back). It's about who OWNS you. Do you "own" yourself or does someone else own you? An "anarchist" believes (and I'm sure this is a correct position) that everyone OWNS themselves. You cannot "own" someone else. You cannot take their stuff. You cannot make them do something they don't want to do. Conversely NO ONE has the right to take MY stuff or make ME do something I don't want to do.

Now "goonerment" has no end of the things they want to "take" and the number of things they want to force others to "do". "Goonerment" functions on the idea that "goonerment" owns you (or at least a part of you)...

Is there anything ambiguous about this definition? Is there any way I can make it more clear? If there is, I want to know...

[HVACTech]

Anarchy is quite simple (and I said this a few pages back). It's about who OWNS you. Do you "own" yourself or does someone else own you? An "anarchist" believes (and I'm sure this is a correct position) that everyone OWNS themselves. You cannot "own" someone else. You cannot take their stuff. You cannot make them do something they don't want to do. Conversely NO ONE has the right to take MY stuff or make ME do something I don't want to do.

Now "goonerment" has no end of the things they want to "take" and the number of things they want to force others to "do". "Goonerment" functions on the idea that "goonerment" owns you (or at least a part of you)...

Is there anything ambiguous about this definition? Is there any way I can make it more clear? If there is, I want to know...

thank you sir.
"It's about who OWNS you." got it.

however, I am not having a trouble with understanding that aspect sir.

please. for just a moment, consider anarchy, as an engine or a motor sir.
I am trying to get it started and make it DO something...

how do we configure anarchy to protect itself? is there a way to do this?
or is my cause hopeless?

[ChristianAnarchist]

thank you sir.
"It's about who OWNS you." got it.

however, I am not having a trouble with understanding that aspect sir.

please. for just a moment, consider anarchy, as an engine or a motor sir.
I am trying to get it started and make it DO something...

how do we configure anarchy to protect itself? is there a way to do this?
or is my cause hopeless?

Your problem is with trying to animate an inanimate object. "Anarchy" is an idea or a description of a thought process. It does not exist physically, just like "goonerment" does not exist physically. The "belief" in goonerment is what is used to embolden regular flesh and blood humans to do things to their fellow man that is immoral (like stealing and killing).

It's clear that "anarchy" cannot "protect itself" since it is not in the physical realm. PEOPLE can and do protect themselves every day by whatever means they feel is correct. If everyone finally learns that they "own" themselves and no one else does they will realize that they have the right to protect themselves from anyone by any means at their disposal (even from men in nice costumes). You should be able to see how powerful an idea this is. If even 30% of the people decide that they own themselves and realize they have a right and obligation to stop others from taking their stuff and using force against them the entire "goonerment" house of cards collapses and vanishes in thin air.

You can see that it's not "anarchy" that has any need to protect "itself"... it's PEOPLE who need to and have that power (if they only would see it)...

[erowe1]

how do we configure anarchy to protect itself? is there a way to do this?
or is my cause hopeless?

It's hopeless. Anarchy cannot do anything. People can though.

Anarchism is about what people ought and ought not to do. It says that they ought not to violate others' rights.

[HVACTech]

It's hopeless. Anarchy cannot do anything. People can though.

Anarchism is about what people ought and ought not to do. It says that they ought not to violate others' rights.

@erowe1 "Anarchy cannot do anything."

that is NOT true and you know it.

all one has to do, is to don the noble Robes of pure anarchy! this allows one to gaze down upon the other mere "statists" in disdain.
from the lofty perch of RPF's. Ron Paul himself is a "statist"

doubt my words? see post #10 of this very thread for proof.
why would our two top members post such... if it were NOT true?

[erowe1]

@erowe1 "Anarchy cannot do anything."

that is NOT true and you know it.

It is true. As usual, I can't understand you.

[HVACTech]

It is true. As usual, I can't understand you.

I will try again...
@erowe1 "It's hopeless. Anarchy cannot do anything. People can though."

Lettuce determine that "We the People" decide to protect "anarchy"
"they" can do that... right?

with me so far?

[erowe1]

I will try again...
@erowe1 "It's hopeless. Anarchy cannot do anything. People can though."

Lettuce determine that "We the People" decide to protect "anarchy"
"they" can do that... right?

with me so far?

They could possibly do that. I don't really see the point of the question though, since there's no anarchy to protect, nor will we ever in our lives have it.

You seem to be interested in wild hypotheticals. I care more about how having the right or wrong view guides us now.