Anarchism is democracy taken seriously.

[hankrichter12]

So because other people are doing it you want to do it too?

Yeah, that's what I said. (sarc) Goodness, come back when you actually want to have a conversation.

The difference here is that even if we are supporting a fantasy la-la-land ideal, it's one that you refuse to admit has even been tried.
I would rather support an idea that supposedly hasn't been tried, than support an idea that has been tried and landed us exactly where we are right now.

So why hasn't it been tried? If people could act in the manner you say, they would, that's all there is to it, they can't.

The first road system that connected the whole continent was private. It took people and goods farther and faster than was ever possible prior. It did it safely and without anywhere near as much disruption to the landscape as current state-owned roads make. It encouraged centralized industry and residence as opposed to suburban sprawl. There were sometimes 50 people in a single car yet all of them were comfortable - in fact they could get a meal while they were in transit, or even sleep in their own beds. And during all this they never got stuck in a traffic jam.
Of course there was only one driver for hundreds of people but there didn't need to be more than that. And he was an employee of the road owners.

The market already figured out private roads, and in case you haven't yet, almost 200 years later, they used rails. They worked better than what we have now, up until the point where they were nationalized, de-nationalized, then heavily taxed during the exact time the federal government was setting up the interstate system. And by the way, the US interstate system was put in place after Eisenhower saw how easy it was to conquer Germany and wanted a similar road system at home, and nobody has ever really thought that through in the last 70 years, have they?

Everyone who has bought into this anarchy thing has at some point accepted the fact that in a stateless system, things aren't going to be exactly the way they are right now. And we all have a hard time understanding why none of you seem to understand that this is the point.

I guess you are ignorant of all the corruption with the govt and railroads, how the govt subsidized them and many tracks were given curves they didn't need to lengthen them since the govt paid by the mile of track you lay down? Not to mention all the abuse of the workers shipped in from China?

Also, this is so silly, if you want to go somewhere on a train, you have to do so on their time, you can't just hop in a train and run to the store or drive home to your house.

I envision primarily common not private roads in a stateless society. As the river is common so too is the path.

A armed society is a polite society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Really, lot's of guns in Yemen, Syria, Nigeria, not a whole lot of politeness. Very few guns in Japan and they are pretty polite. Culture is what makes a society peaceful or not.

I never said they didn't.

Do you understand my point yet?

No, what is your point? If you feel those places are more free you would not be here, that is how it works. You do a pro/con determination in every decision you make, so the fact that you still are residing in America would prove you agree with me or you would leave.

I can complain about my job but fact is if I had something better to go to I would, therefore despite my complaints I have weighed all the pros/cons and decided my job is my best option, for now at least.

[osan]

That's fine as a moral principle.

It's fine to say that's how things should be.

...and I agree; in a perfect world, that's how things would be.

But the fact is that they can't be that way in the real world.

That is not at all true. It cannot be that way in Empire. Why? Because Empire is based on expropriation by violence and the threat thereof, as well as the (at least) tacit notion that someone holds a greater claim to YOUR life than do you. Anarchy, which is the ultimate political manifestation of human freedom in the context of men living among their fellows, is antithetical to Empire. They are not only polar opposites, but non-complementary ones as well. They exist only in a state of necessarily violent opposition to one another.

There is this entity which engages in institutionalized aggression, primarily extortion, which we call the state.

If it were somehow abolished, the fact is that another such organization would quickly reappear.

All else equal, I might agree. Change a few of the radical elements in the broader context and you might be surprised at what develops.

Remove Empire, which means removing the Empire-mind, and people would walk away from that mode of behavior. No mean feat, that.

[erowe1]

so, the other day, I was informed by our very own top member. that.. drum roll please.

Ron Paul is a "Statist"! srsly, you can't make that up!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...E-PLEASE/page4

I can't find where anybody called Ron Paul a statist. In my opinion he's probably an anarchist.

You, however, are an unabashed statist. Are you not?

And as such, why would you have a problem with Ron Paul being called one if he was?

later, in this very same thread.. I was informed of the PROPER definition for Anarchy.
by this very same member no less..

"while anarchy simply means "lacking a ruler"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...E-PLEASE/page6

Lacking a ruler = mob rule. Anarchism is the ULTIMATE expression of the VERY purest form of Democracy.

what else CAN that mean?

That makes no sense. Obviously, lacking a ruler can't mean the mob is a ruler. It means nobody is.

[presence]

Really, lot's of guns in Yemen, Syria, Nigeria, not a whole lot of politeness.

Very few guns in syria and nigeria actually; per capita they're very low relative to other countries and they have intense gun control laws.

Yemen, highly armed, grossly illiterate, had 1000 years of theocracy followed by decades of corrupt autocracy... now their being bombed by outsiders, namely saudis and the US; so you have a conflict situation with many international state actors fomenting unrest in conflict with religious fundamentalism; hardly a good baseline for an armed stateless society, the situation is too complex for this thread, the lack of politeness has deep roots.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/w...rt-322149.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-yemen/392795/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...ans-game-yemen
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

[hankrichter12]

Very few guns in syria and nigeria actually; per capita they're very low relative to other countries and they have intense gun control laws.

Yemen, highly armed, grossly illiterate, had 1000 years of theocracy followed by decades of corrupt autocracy... now their being bombed by outsiders, namely saudis and the US; so you have a conflict situation with many international state actors fomenting unrest in conflict with religious fundamentalism; hardly a good baseline for an armed stateless society, the situation is too complex for this thread, the lack of politeness has deep roots.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/w...rt-322149.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-yemen/392795/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...ans-game-yemen
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

Everything you just said confirms what I said, it is the culture, not guns that make a society peaceful or violent.

[presence]

Everything you just said confirms what I said, it is the culture, not guns that make a society peaceful or violent.

I don't entirely disagree, culture is a prerequisite to peace and liberty.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Really?

The Philosophy of Liberty (video)

Of course. What is private property if not a system of order? Order without liberty is tyranny, liberty without order is incoherent. What would that even look like. At best that would be a Mad Max-style dystopia, if it would even be that.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I'll talk to you, though. I don't think anyone here has ever used "statist" as a perjorative. I've used it often as a statement of fact: You, as a statist, support a system wherein dissenters are treated worse than we treat cattle.
Yes, you support a system wherein those who meaningfully dissent are punished by being tortured, shot on the road side, put in cages, put on lists that prevent them from holding employment, and all sorts of stuff in between. You support a system wherein victims of actual crimes are held up as a spectacle for no other reason than to put punish people in the ways described above, and then discarded. You don't get to disagree with any of that, because it's a fact.

If you think that's a perjorative, then that's on you. I'm merely reporting facts.

You are such a $#@!ing hysteric. Of course, I support none of that. I support a system where privately owned cities compete to provide the best service of law to their "citizen customers", and the social contract is replaced by a business contract, negotiated and signed by both the sovereign corporation and the customer. The customers have no say in how the business is run, except insofar as they can take their business elsewhere. No voice, free exit.

[HVACTech]

Anarchy is having to do a good enough job where people will voluntarily pay you. So demanding of them!

by that definition. I would be an Anarchist.

[Ronin Truth]

Of course. What is private property if not a system of order? Order without liberty is tyranny, liberty without order is incoherent. What would that even look like. At best that would be a Mad Max-style dystopia, if it would even be that.

Who owns you? Liberty is getting permission. Try freedom instead.

[HVACTech]

I can't find where anybody called Ron Paul a statist. In my opinion he's probably an anarchist.

You, however, are an unabashed statist. Are you not?

And as such, why would you have a problem with Ron Paul being called one if he was?



That makes no sense. Obviously, lacking a ruler can't mean the mob is a ruler. It means nobody is.

I have it on sound AUTHORITY sir. that..
@fisharmor " I don't think anyone here has ever used "statist" as a perjorative. I've used it often as a statement of fact: You, as a statist, support a system wherein dissenters are treated worse than we treat cattle."
@Ronin Truth "No argument, just an accurate label. And yes, 'statist' is a pejorative."

so far, it seems to me that the resident Anarchists of RPF's really don't agree on very much...
@Me. "Anarchism is the ULTIMATE expression of the VERY purest form of Democracy."
^^^^ why is this wrong? ^^^^

[HVACTech]

When it comes to poli-sci and philosophy, I've found that HVAC doesn't know what he's asking either.

it is starting to look like I am playing chess with pigeons again sir....

mebbe YOU could help me?

[Anti Federalist]

"Anarchism is the ULTIMATE expression of the VERY purest form of Democracy."

^^^^ why is this wrong? ^^^^

Democracy: "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,".

Democracy is your neighbors getting together and deciding who will rule you, with or without your approval.

That would not be part of voluntarist system.

[erowe1]

I have it on sound AUTHORITY sir. that..
@fisharmor " I don't think anyone here has ever used "statist" as a perjorative. I've used it often as a statement of fact: You, as a statist, support a system wherein dissenters are treated worse than we treat cattle."
@Ronin Truth "No argument, just an accurate label. And yes, 'statist' is a pejorative."

Again, where does anybody call Ron Paul a statist? And again, since it's not a pejorative, and since you are one, why would you have a problem with him being called one?

Notice how you didn't answer any of my questions.

@Me. "Anarchism is the ULTIMATE expression of the VERY purest form of Democracy."
^^^^ why is this wrong? ^^^^

I just said why. And so did you. Democracy is rule by the majority. Therefore, it can't be rule by nobody.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL - I didn't realize until I scrolled back the very first post, that this was yet another "call out" by HVACTech and his rep envy, or something.

I figured the "playing chess with a pigeon" analogy meant you could not play the game, due the pieces being pushed around by Mr. Pigeon in no coherent, rational or logical manner.

[erowe1]

it is starting to look like I am playing chess with pigeons again sir

That makes it all the more humiliating, since you're losing.

[fisharmor]

So why hasn't it been tried? If people could act in the manner you say, they would, that's all there is to it, they can't.

And what about the point I was making? You want to focus on what's possible? Fine, show me how it's possible for constitutionalism to end up with something other than what we have.
Pick a time period, any time period, of US history and I'll be back with a way the text of the US constitution was subverted, ignored, or outright scorned. Even the guys who wrote the damned thing developed reading comprehension problems once they got a grip on the power.

I guess you are ignorant of all the corruption with the govt and railroads, how the govt subsidized them and many tracks were given curves they didn't need to lengthen them since the govt paid by the mile of track you lay down? Not to mention all the abuse of the workers shipped in from China?

I gave you an example of a private road. I asserted that it had lots of benefits. You countered by telling me the state corrupted it.
I'm honestly glad that at this stage in the game, after the revolution's total disintegration, there are still people who think the government $#@!s stuff up.
But I'm also genuinely surprised that someone here would seriously imply that because the government $#@!ed up something private, it means that the thing shouldn't be private.

In short, sir, what point are you trying to make with your above quoted statement? The only point I got out of that is that you love the interstate system and think private railroads were a bad idea.

Also, this is so silly, if you want to go somewhere on a train, you have to do so on their time, you can't just hop in a train and run to the store or drive home to your house.

And it's equally silly that you either missed or didn't read that I already pointed out that rail encourages dense population centers where people are able to walk to amenities.
It's almost as silly that you would trade the ability to get somewhere on a fixed schedule for the ability to sit in traffic.

[Ronin Truth]

"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting." -- Charles Bukowski

"Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." -- Vladimir Lenin

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

Only a Democrat would understand the Hillary Clinton logic that allowing murderers to vote will “restore the integrity of our system and strengthen our democracy.”

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” -- H.L. Mencken (Baltimore Evening Sun on 26 July 1920)

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for lunch."

[HVACTech]

Democracy: "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,".

Democracy is your neighbors getting together and deciding who will rule you, with or without your approval.

That would not be part of voluntarist system.

so. Anarchism. is ALWAYS voluntary?

[Anti Federalist]

so. Anarchism. is ALWAYS voluntary?

that was not an answer. it was evasion.
pure and simple word games.
why don't you explain it for us simpletons sir.

Emmanuel Kant said there were four kinds of government:

Law and freedom without force (anarchy). What all humanity should strive for.
Law and force without freedom (despotism). What we have now.
Force without freedom and law (barbarism). What we are about to get.
Force with freedom and law (republic). What the original plan called for e.g. the DoI and Aoc, and what you would probably call "liberty".

If there is no force, then it must be that all obligations within an anarchist society are voluntary.

[HVACTech]

LOL - I didn't realize until I scrolled back the very first post, that this was yet another "call out" by HVACTech and his rep envy, or something.

I figured the "playing chess with pigeon" analogy meant you could not play the game, due the pieces being pushed around by Mr. Pigeon in no coherent, rational or logical manner.

"call out's" are bad?

why would you assume that Mr Pigeon set up the chess board?

[HVACTech]

Emmanuel Kant said there were four kinds of government:

Law and freedom without force (anarchy). What all humanity should strive for.
Law and force without freedom (despotism). What we have now.
Force without freedom and law (barbarism). What we are about to get.
Force with freedom and law (republic). What the original plan called for e.g. the DoI and Aoc, and what you would probably call "liberty".

If there is no force, then it must be that all obligations within an anarchist society are voluntary.

you have repeated this twice now.. thank you sir!
and you even placed it as #1 again!

Anarchy is a form of government.

[fisharmor]

You'll often find that skeptics do more legwork than true believers.

And that goes both ways.

That's much too simplistic.

It's like saying, "Well, had we not flown in the plane, we wouldn't have crashed; therefore, flying in planes inevitably leads to crashing."

Yet most planes don't crash, do they? So this is an inadequate explanation.

An adequate explanation would explain why some crash and others don't.

Which "planes" didn't crash? Let's let you lead the dance this time. You give me a state that respects liberty. And remember, it has to still exist today. No historical examples, since by definition they were failures.

I thought I was saying it pretty explicitly.

Yes, we should return to monarchy, ASAP.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

A sensible monarch would probably allow common law to operate in most cases, as it's just an efficient way of administering justice.

You're already off. First, your system apparently relies on monarchs being "sensible". What happens when you get a non-sensible monarch in power?

But an absolute monarch would not, obviously, be bound by the common law, or by any statutes he himself had introduced in the past.

He could and probably would violate it from time to time, as the situation required.

I fail to see the difference here. Wait, no, I do see the difference. Right now we have a national fantasy that the law is to be followed by everyone. People go out of their way to ignore evidence that the cops routinely ignore or break the law. AF shows up here posting stories every single day about how rotten it is that they're breaking the law, and you're talking about moving all that out in the open and making it legit.

You're familiar with the economic argument for monarchy?

Not really. Is it going to make me throw up in my mouth a little like your last argument did?

[fisharmor]

You are such a $#@!ing hysteric. Of course, I support none of that. I support a system where privately owned cities compete to provide the best service of law to their "citizen customers", and the social contract is replaced by a business contract, negotiated and signed by both the sovereign corporation and the customer. The customers have no say in how the business is run, except insofar as they can take their business elsewhere. No voice, free exit.

Ok so you're also an advocate of statelessness then? If so, I didn't know.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Ok so you're also an advocate of statelessness then? If so, I didn't know.

Well,, that depends. What is a "state"? The sovcorp would have a monopoly on force, but it would derive from the private ownership that the business would possess over the city or area. If a sovcorp wanted to institute competition in DROs, they could do that, but it would not be my preference. Some things are better monopolized. Is a sovcorp with a monopoly on force a "state"? Maybe. I don't think that's a particularly interesting question. I want the system that will work the best, not the one that is ideologically pure or anti-statist for its own sake.

[fisharmor]

Well,, that depends. What is a "state"? The sovcorp would have a monopoly on force, but it would derive from the private ownership that the business would possess over the city or area. If a sovcorp wanted to institute competition in DROs, they could do that, but it would not be my preference. Some things are better monopolized. Is a sovcorp with a monopoly on force a "state"? Maybe. I don't think that's a particularly interesting question. I want the system that will work the best, not the one that is ideologically pure or anti-statist for its own sake.

What is a corporation?

[r3volution 3.0]

Which "planes" didn't crash?

Almost all of them. Virtually every state in the last 100 years has been larger than virtually every state prior to the last 100 years.

I wonder what suddenly changed...

Hmmm...

You give me a state that respects liberty. And remember, it has to still exist today. No historical examples, since by definition they were failures.

Historical examples are completely relevant. To dismiss them makes no sense (reread the plane crash analogy).

Anyway, a good contemporary example would be Singapore.

You're already off. First, your system apparently relies on monarchs being "sensible". What happens when you get a non-sensible monarch in power?

To be clear, sensible here means rationally self-interested (i.e. a revenue maximizer). A king who is a revenue maximizer will pursue laissez faire policies, because that is the best way to maximize his revenues. Whereas, a democratic politician who wishes to maximize his revenues will pursue socialistic policies, as that is the best way to please voters and donors, which is - in a democratic system - the best means of maximizing his own revenues (first keeping his job and then extracting bribes). Now, if a person is not a revenue maximizer, if they're an egomaniac or sadist or just straight-up crazy, then the results are going to be bad regardless of the form of government.

Not really. Is it going to make me throw up in my mouth a little like your last argument did?

It depends, does economics make you ill?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Who owns you? Liberty is getting permission. Try freedom instead.

No one owns me, including me. In order for something to be "owned" by person X, there has to be a theoretical set of affairs where that same thing is owned by person Y, or owned by no one. Ownership cannot apply to the self, because there's no state of affairs where my "self" could be owned by someone else, even in slavery.

[HVACTech]

Ok so you're also an advocate of statelessness then? If so, I didn't know.

thank you for sharing that fishy. "statelessness"

I needed another word to describe a vacuum to aspiring techs!

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What is a corporation?

Under this definition, a legal entity owned by shareholders. The functional "government" of a sovereign corporation would be the CEO as king, and the shareholders as the aristocracy. I think in some situations it would be best for a larger corporation to delegate more local levels of control to subsidiaries. For example, each Borough of New York could be managed by a local hierarchy, but the entire city would be owned by the same company. That's one of the reasons I use the term "anarcho-feudalism". Also it sounds cool and throws people for a loop.

They could organize it differently, but I think that would be quite an efficient state of affairs.