Anarchy Is Neither Chaos nor Hard to Find

[Swordsmyth]

Your vision of Trump the Beneficent is no less a fantasy. You just admitted who it is that creates states. It's a fantasy even just to assume that once you take control of it away from these people, they won't try to take it back.

A beneficent state is just as much a fantasy, just as much a utopian swindle that people delude themselves over.

The founders created a state that was far better than any other, so have others throughout history, and so can we.
Imperfect as all governments in history have been, the best of them created by those with good motives are far preferable to just letting the worst of humanity impose their rule on us.

[acptulsa]

The founders created a state that was far better than any other, so have others throughout history, and so can we.
Imperfect as all governments in history have been, the best of them created by those with good motives are far preferable to just letting the worst of humanity impose their rule on us.

You don't think Stalin at some forty million dead didn't outperform a gaggle of little local warlords? Not even a tiny bit?

[Swordsmyth]

You don't think Stalin at some forty million dead didn't outperform a gaggle of little local warlords? Not even a tiny bit?

Stalin and friends are the kind of people who will form and impose a state if the good people don't create a better one to stop them.
The whites (monarchist and republican) lost and the reds formed the government.
The gaggle of local warlords will not stop them any more than the Chinese warlords stopped Mao.
And local warlords have a pretty bad record themselves, ask Rwanda among many other places about that.

[acptulsa]

And local warlords have a pretty bad record themselves, ask Rwanda among many other places about that.

Try it yourself. They'll tell you about interference from French imperialism.

[Swordsmyth]

Try it yourself. They'll tell you about interference from French imperialism.

There are lots of examples from all through history where that wasn't a factor, like Genghis Khan's trail of bodies.
And that just demonstrates that local warlords (who were absolutely part of it) were unable to protect against a much larger outside power.

[acptulsa]

There are lots of examples from all through history where that wasn't a factor, like Genghis Khan's trail of bodies.
And that just demonstrates that local warlords (who were absolutely part of it) were unable to protect against a much larger outside power.

And now we are Khan. It's the U.S. leaving the trail of bodies.

When the day comes, have fun explaining to our Lord and Savior why you supported and ran interference for the modern day version of old Genghis.

[Swordsmyth]

And now we are Khan. It's the U.S. leaving the trail of bodies.

When the day comes, have fun explaining to our Lord and Savior why you supported and ran interference for the modern day version of old Genghis.

Have fun explaining your libel.

I have never supported the foreign wars and what I advocate is designed to create a government least likely to engage in them as opposed to letting random conqueror types establish the government.

[acptulsa]

Have fun explaining your libel.

I have never supported the foreign wars...

... but you sure support the status quo that wages them, wittingly or not.

And if you do support them unwittingly, it's not for lack of access to information.

[Invisible Man]

... but you sure support the status quo that wages them, wittingly or not.

And if you do support them unwittingly, it's not for lack of access to information.

If we just expand the jurisdiction of the regime widely enough, no wars will be foreign any more.

The same logic that justifies the institution of the state over a territory of any size also justifies the institution of a single regime over the entire globe.

[Swordsmyth]

... but you sure support the status quo that wages them, wittingly or not.

And if you do support them unwittingly, it's not for lack of access to information.

Nonsense.
I support Trump who was ending them.
You support the status quo by opposing him.

[Swordsmyth]

If we just expand the jurisdiction of the regime widely enough, no wars will be foreign any more.

The same logic that justifies the institution of the state over a territory of any size also justifies the institution of a single regime over the entire globe.

LOL

Absolutely not.
The state is only justified to the point it can defend its people and not beyond.
If it weren't a utopian pipe dream it would be best to not have a state at all, therefore it is only justified to the point of necessity.

[acptulsa]

I support Trump who was ending them.

He had four years. We were in World War II for three years and nine months.

Suuuuuure he was trying to stop them.

[CCTelander]

LOL

Absolutely not.
The state is only justified to the point it can defend its people and not beyond.
If it weren't a utopian pipe dream it would be best to not have a state at all, therefore it is only justified to the point of necessity.

Holy $#@!!

You’re an anarchist!

[TheTexan]

Holy $#@!!

You’re an anarchist!

Without sarcasm, I've considered SS to be an anarchist for years now.

[PAF]

Without sarcasm, I've considered SS to be an anarchist for years now.

Without sarcasm:





His stance on protectionism and tariffs [which is function of raising government revenue] alone proves that he is the furthest thing from an anarchist, not to mention his stances on other governmental policy.

[CCTelander]

Without sarcasm, I've considered SS to be an anarchist for years now.

Well, I WAS being sarcastic. Typically anarchists don’t advocate for authoritarian “solutions” at virtually every turn.

[TheTexan]

Without sarcasm:





His stance on protectionism and tariffs [which is function of raising government revenue] alone proves that he is the furthest thing from an anarchist, not to mention his stances on other governmental policy.

Well, I WAS being sarcastic. Typically anarchists don’t advocate for authoritarian “solutions” at virtually every turn.

He supports (in my subjective opinion) secession. In my book, that's all that is required to be an anarchist. Don't like his authoritarian positions? He's not requiring you to participate in them.

[PAF]

He supports (in my subjective opinion) secession. In my book, that's all that is required to be an anarchist. Don't like his authoritarian positions? He's not requiring you to participate in them.

What does secession have to do with or relate to being an anarchist? Answer: it doesn't.

One can be pro-secession and want/demand:

1. to live in a left-wing commune where everybody shares the same bath salts [even the yucky half-used ones].

2. to live in a right-wing authoritarian state where you are told who you can buy/sell from and who you can't, require papers-please to know who-from-who, and who is permitted to cross the street.

If you wish to secede and live with @Swordsmyth under option 2., who am I to stop you? lol


A secessionist can be an anarchist, but it doesn't equate to being one. @Swordsmyth is not an anarchist.

[TheTexan]

What does secession have to do with or relate to being an anarchist? Answer: it doesn't.

As far as sovereignty is concerned (being "without ruler"), it's the only thing that matters.

If you cannot secede, then you are not sovereign, and you are not "without ruler".

So if you want to live in a world where people can choose to live without rulers, secession is absolutely core to that ideal.

[PAF]

As far as sovereignty is concerned (being "without ruler"), it's the only thing that matters.

If you cannot secede, then you are not sovereign, and you are not "without ruler".

So if you want to live in a world where people can choose to live without rulers, secession is absolutely core to that ideal.

Thus:

A secessionist can be an anarchist, but it doesn't equate to being one.

[TheTexan]

Thus:

Having the ability to secede is both necessary and sufficient to being sovereign.

Thus, anyone who supports the right to secede, also supports the ideals necessary for anarchism to exist. That to me, is sufficient criteria to label someone as an "anarchist", regardless of whatever other labels they may choose to identify as.

[PAF]

Having the ability to secede is both necessary and sufficient to being sovereign.

Thus, anyone who supports the right to secede, also supports the ideals necessary for anarchism to exist. That to me, is sufficient criteria to label someone as an "anarchist".

We shall agree to absitively posolutely disagree

[TheTexan]

We shall agree to absitively posolutely disagree

The more important point was the statement immediately prior to the section you bolded; specifically, that he supports the ideals necessary for anarchism to exist.

[PAF]

The more important point was the statement immediately prior to the section you bolded; specifically, that he supports the ideals necessary for anarchism to exist.

Yes, I agree with that part of it. But once secession is accomplished, do you pick Option 1., 2., [in Post #48], or the third option of having not 1. or 2.?

I don't want to share bath salts, and I don't want to show my papers-please to cross the street. That makes me the true anarchist.

[TheTexan]

Yes, I agree with that part of it. But once secession is accomplished, do you pick Option 1., 2., [in Post #48], or the third option of having not 1. or 2.?

I would choose whichever was best for me at the time. If option 2 had a wonderful economy and a culture that I liked, I would probably choose that over a "less authoritarian" option that had an economy/culture I didn't like.

That's what freedom really means, is to be able to choose your own path -- even if it is "authoritarian".

I don't want to share bath salts, and I don't want to show my papers-please to cross the street. That makes me the true anarchist.

I would never dare to question "true anarchy"

[Swordsmyth]

He had four years. We were in World War II for three years and nine months.

Suuuuuure he was trying to stop them.

He ended wars during that time, and he made progress on others.

[Swordsmyth]

Holy $#@!!

You’re an anarchist!

LOL
No, I'm not.
I don't believe in pipe dreams and try to implement them in real life regardless of the actual results.

[Swordsmyth]

He supports (in my subjective opinion) secession. In my book, that's all that is required to be an anarchist. Don't like his authoritarian positions? He's not requiring you to participate in them.

I do support secession, but I have practical limits on it.
I would not say I was an anarchist.

[TheTexan]

I do support secession, but I have practical limits on it.

Everything has practical limits; otherwise such a thing would be impractical.

I would not say I was an anarchist.

That's ok. You still are in my book

[acptulsa]

He ended wars...

Like a propagandist, you say that over and over and over, acting completely oblivious to the fact that you've been challenged on that b.s. repeatedly, and all you've ever been able to come up with is, even though the withdrawal from Afghanistan looked like a hasty put-up job that hadn't had five minutes' planning you don't think Biden could have done it so soon after taking office if Trump hadn't been laying groundwork for years. Which might not be as invalid an opinion as the facts on the ground make it look, but is still an opinion in any case.

At least Zippy repeated only somewhat plausible-sounding opinions over and over hoping we'd come to take them as fact.

You can at least drop that last S. You've never before even pretended to believe he ended more than the one.