# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?

## ProIndividual

Look, I know anarchism isn't the most popular idea in the world, but I tend to think we are rather disdained on this forum. Maybe it's just me...I am rather new (first impressions can be deceiving).

For any of you who consider yourselves anarchists (you can use any label you want, but you know who you are), do you feel like you are disliked by a lot of other folks here?

Anytime we talk about immigration, borders, free trade, monopolies on money, monopolies on social contracts, etc., etc., certain things are said. Usually we are called "internationalists" (contradictory; how can an anarchist be a nationalist of any kind?), or accused of holding unAmerican views, or not being patriotic (as if nationalism is patriotism, which it isn't), etc.

Then the generalizations...

(paraphrase) ' There are a lot of anarchists on this site, no border, free trade until we die, half-liberals on here. They want one world government and don't know it.'

or

'They aren't here to help Ron Paul, they are here to advance their own agenda.'


I mean, I thought this whole "Revolution" thing was about ideas...maybe it's just me.

And the word LOVE is highlighted in that word "Revolution"...so where's the love?

All you minarchists (paleocons too, neocons not so much; to me neocons are liberals), I want you to remember: you are anti-State too! You don't take it as far as we do, but compared to neocons and other assorted liberals, we are nearly genetically indistinguishable! 

All I'm asking of anarchists is to say whether or not they feel disliked (not that this is unusual...lol). 

All I'm asking of minarchists is to give us a break...we DO support Ron Paul, we do work to spread the message, we do agree with you on like 80-99% of issues (depending on how minarchist you are, or are not), and we do love our country (to us, that means the people and excludes government).

I think we spend way too much time arguing with each other based on labels (he's a paleocon/anarchist so he can't know anything of worth), rather than debating real tangible facts. The debates are awesome, don't get me wrong, and I want all the passion in the world in that....but the labels are shutting out reason (on both sides).

This is why libertarians never win elections and can't organize. We seem to have fixed the organize part, now let's fix the WIN part. This can't hurt that cause, right?

Anyway, I'm just as guilty as anyone, so I'll try my best to stop being closed minded to others based on their beliefs overall, instead of taking them an issue at a time and paying attention to hard facts only.

Or maybe I'm just completely bat$#@!...that's always possible too...lol.

----------


## 1836

I can only speak for myself and not for anyone else who wouldn't consider themselves an anarchist as I do not.

However, I think a state is necessary to enforce contracts, provide for the common defense, and ensure the redress/control of externalities.

In the present time, I think all of us would be considered fairly "anti-state" and I would embrace that term too. However, if we did happen to live in a time when the big issue of the day was how small government should be and not how large, I know that I would be on the front lines advocating for a minimalist, but strong, government with a well-worded constitution that was adhered to as law. A government that would have a lot of trouble passing much of anything that would increase its size.

In other words, a government much like that which our founders set up is about right; the Constitution isn't perfect, but it is the best governing document the world over.

The fundamental problem with anarchy is that it leaves the very protection of our rights up to voluntary associations; that leaves far too much room for abuse and tyranny by some over others. If you believe our rights are inherent, and I do, then I think it is absolutely necessary to have a state to protect them.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system

----------


## freshjiva

Because the closest example of true anarchy currently exists in the geographic region known as Somalia, and the people of Somalia aren't exactly thriving despite a completely free market in currency and trade, no taxes, and no regulations.

Anarchy works in theory but not in practice.

That being said, I'm very sympathetic to anarchism it is indeed the most principled and consistent, and because I do agree the State does more harm than any other entity in the world; but if peace and prosperity can be attained with a minimal invasion of personal liberty in the presence of a State, which is exactly what a Constitutional Republic achieves, anarchy is no longer needed nor desired.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

I'm a minarchist(I think) who likes anarchists. Who knows how many books I have that were written by anarchists(Woods, Murphy, Rothbard, ect...). Most of them are actually principled, and don't have their pet issues(tariffs, immigration, marriage, ect...). This place would be untolerable at times without them. 

Still though, I think that whoever originally invented the ideology could have picked a more attractive name. It's also bothersome(to me) when some have 10,000 posts on this board and still refuse to vote in a private primary for Paul. 

The arrogance on both sides frequently seen is quite annoying as well.

----------


## Johncjackson

> Because the closest example of true anarchy currently exists in the geographic region known as Somalia, and the people of Somalia aren't exactly thriving despite a completely free market in currency and trade, no taxes, and no regulations.
> 
> Anarchy works in theory but not in practice.
> 
> That being said, I'm very sympathetic to anarchism it is indeed the most principled and consistent, and because I do agree the State does more harm than any other entity in the world; but if peace and prosperity can be attained with a minimal invasion of personal liberty in the presence of a State, which is exactly what a Constitutional Republic achieves, anarchy is no longer needed nor desired.


Actually I've read positive coverage of Somalia on LvMI (mises.org). I don't know my point of bringing that up exactly, but I find a lot of anarchists as well as the more.. um, I guess social-conservative anti-immigration types ( sorry if I'm mislabeling anyone there) find something to support their viewpoint from LvMI and LRC, which have written both in favor of anarchism and statism ( and troubling police state authoritarianism) depending on... I don't know.

----------


## BamaAla

I've been a member here shy of a year and have been lurking since 2008. With that said, I haven't seen a great deal of anger or disdain thrown at the people that consider themselves anarchists. There have been robust and heated debates between anarchists and everyone else, but not to the point to get butt-hurt over.

----------


## Carehn

To me it seems the anarchist have an upper hand on this forum. Maybe we can organize into some entity in order to impose are beliefs on the rest of you seeing how we have the upper hand.. Er... hold on a sec.

----------


## angelatc

> I mean, I thought this whole "Revolution" thing was about ideas...maybe it's just me.
> 
> A


The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours.    People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy.  But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected.  It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war.  They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.

But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."  I mean, only only has to look at the category you chose to expound upon yourself in to understand that you wanted to make sure this was seen by a maximum number of posters. And of course this is all about you, and not Ron Paul.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

As a voluntaryist, I can generally get along with both minarchists and anarchists.  In the long run, I don't think either will work for everyone.  The minarchists should keep their government to themselves and the anarchists can take care of their own property and never the twain conflict. JMO

----------


## AuH20

> The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours.    People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy.  But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected.  It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war.  They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.
> 
> But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."


I don't think you should be so hostile to our anarchist friends over a few differences, which I chalk up to as naivete as opposed to some subversive agenda. The anarchists in this forum bring coherent thought for the most part and boundless energy to the discussions here.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours.    People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy.*  But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected.  It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war.  They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.
> *
> But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."


Well, that's not entirely true.  Some anarchists see voting as "defensive" and use elections/political debates to advance their ideas.  Rothbard, for example.  Walter Block also believes that voting can be justified if done for the right reasons.  Also, some of the best Constitutional scholars are/were anarchists of some sort(like DiLorenzo and Woods), and the Ron Paul movement would be lacking quite a bit of intellectual ammunition without them.

----------


## angelatc

I don't care what the hell they believe.  When it moves to Philosophy and out of General Politics, I won't post any more.

----------


## BuddyRey

> But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected.  It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war.  They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.


That may be true for _some_ anarchists, but on the day that Ron Paul wins the Presidency, it will be one of the happiest days of my entire life (ranking up there with the birth of my baby sister, and my dad surviving leg vein surgery.)  In fact, I'll have to strongly resist the urge to douse myself in Salisbury steak gravy and Truffle Shuffle my way down Central Avenue.

----------


## AceNZ

If you had to put a label on it, I'm a minarchist, I guess -- and yes, I have been consistently attacked for my beliefs.

The problem I have with anarchists is that anarchy has generally and successfully been used in the past as a tool of collectivists.  It's viewed as a necessary step on the way to socialism, communism or some other collectivist utopia.  I realize that's not what most anarchists here advocate, but the differentiation is not crystal clear to me, and I'm sure others have the same problem.

I also think the anarcho-capitalists really haven't thought the whole thing through in enough detail.  I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I see some problems that appear to be insurmountable if one's goal is to live in a peaceful, productive and civilized society.

----------


## Sentient Void

I don't feel hatred or anger towards me as an anarchist in this forum, though I definitely notice some marginalization (mostly from the admins). That said, it's hard to marginalize a group that not only brings some serious, logical, economic, consistent etc approach to the debates here, but it's also difficult to successfully marginalIze this group which has such a large and intellectual presence here as well. 

As for the claims about all anarchists rejecting voting and electoral politics, that's not only flat out wrong of members here on the forum (such as myself, see my most recent blog post), but also wrong of some of the most prominent and influential libertarian anarchist thinkers that have already been mentioned. 

The Rothbard article (posted by Wesker1982) in this philosophy forum ('Do you Hate the State') i feel covers this whole issue pretty well.

----------


## Sentient Void

> If you had to put a label on it, I'm a minarchist, I guess -- and yes, I have been consistently attacked for my beliefs.


Really? Where? Here? I'm honestly surprise by this, as there are farrr more minarchist type libertarians on this board than any other.




> The problem I have with anarchists is that anarchy has generally and successfully been used in the past as a tool of collectivists.  It's viewed as a necessary step on the way to socialism, communism or some other collectivist utopia.  I realize that's not what most anarchists here advocate, but the differentiation is not crystal clear to me, and I'm sure others have the same problem.


Anyone that is 'using Anarchy as a tool' to further *any* ends, particularly collectivist ones - aren't really anarchists, no matter how much they stamp their feet and claim to be so. Note any self-proclaimed 'anarchists' who get their panties all up in a bunch when government regulations are repealed or their welfare checks might stop coming. 

'anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy.' - Murray Rothbard

Anarchocapitalism is a tautology. All other 'versions' of anarchy such as 'anarchocommunism', 'anarchosyndicalism', and 'anarchosocialism' are not anarchy, they are oxymorons based in crypto-statism. Economic theory shows this, as well as history and the legacy left by all attempts at such alleged versions of 'anarchy' - and no 'no true Scotsman fallacies' can save these philosophies from these facts. 




> I also think the anarcho-capitalists really haven't thought the whole thing through in enough detail.  I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I see some problems that appear to be insurmountable if one's goal is to live in a peaceful, productive and civilized society.


If you actually read any Rothbard, Block, Kinsella, et al - you wouldn't be saying that. There are tons of free books online in PDF format, so ultimately there is no excuse for believing such a thing.

If you are legitimately interested, we can recommend some stuff for you. Again - free and very easily accessible.

----------


## playboymommy

> That may be true for _some_ anarchists, but on the day that Ron Paul wins the Presidency, it will be one of the happiest days of my entire life (ranking up there with the birth of my baby sister, and my dad surviving leg vein surgery.)  In fact, I'll have to strongly resist the urge to douse myself in Salisbury steak gravy and Truffle Shuffle my way down Central Avenue.


wish I could give you rep for this

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Actually I've read positive coverage of Somalia on LvMI (mises.org). I don't know my point of bringing that up exactly, but I find a lot of anarchists as well as the more.. um, I guess social-conservative anti-immigration types ( sorry if I'm mislabeling anyone there) find something to support their viewpoint from LvMI and LRC, which have written both in favor of anarchism and statism ( and troubling police state authoritarianism) depending on... I don't know.






h/t, Wesker

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Really? Where? Here? I'm honestly surprise by this, as there are farrr more minarchist type libertarians on this board than any other.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that is 'using Anarchy as a tool' to further *any* ends, particularly collectivist ones - aren't really anarchists, no matter how much they stamp their feet and claim to be so. Note any self-proclaimed 'anarchists' who get their panties all up in a bunch when government regulations are repealed or their welfare checks might stop coming. 
> 
> 'anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy.' - Murray Rothbard
> 
> Anarchocapitalism is a tautology. All other 'versions' of anarchy such as 'anarchocommunism', 'anarchosyndicalism', and 'anarchosocialism' are not anarchy, they are oxymorons based in crypto-statism. Economic theory shows this, as well as history and the legacy left by all attempts at such alleged versions of 'anarchy' - and no 'no true Scotsman fallacies' can save these philosophies from these facts. 
> ...


Well said, again, SV.  

Apparently, I must spread some rep around before giving it to you, again.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours.    People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy.  But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected.  It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war.  They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.
> 
> But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."  I mean, only only has to look at the category you chose to expound upon yourself in to understand that you wanted to make sure this was seen by a maximum number of posters. And of course this is all about you, and not Ron Paul.


Ron Paul does not call the ideas he espouses "his".  

I'm still relatively new here, but I've yet to find an anarchist who's trying to undermine Paul in anyway, nor one who thinks it's all about him/her.  I will absolutely vote for Ron Paul.  

Ron Paul has never disassociated himself with Lew Rockwell, nor the Mises Institute, nor any other person or entity that espouses ideas that are more radical than those he's open with.  Ron Paul associates with raging leftists like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank.  I don't think Ron would mind if I posted my philosophical view points here, and I'm not sure why you do.  And I definitely do not understand your vitriol.

----------


## Travlyr

> And I definitely do not understand your vitriol.


I do understand it, and it would be to your advantage if you understood it too.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I do understand it, and it would be to your advantage if you understood it too.


Well explain it then.  

I've never said a cross word about Ron Paul.  I'm ACTIVELY supporting his campaign.

----------


## Travlyr

> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...rchyDefinition of 
> ANARCHY
> a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government


This is what 99% of the people think when they hear the word "ANARCHY."
People don't want ANY part of it, and too few people will take the time to learn otherwise. So, their mind shuts down, and they say, _"Those Ron Paul people are anarchists."_ It destroys our credibility... right or wrong... the definition of the word sends people running away.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> This is what 99% of the people think when they hear the word "ANARCHY."
> People don't want ANY part of it, and too few people will take the time to learn otherwise. So, their mind shuts down, and they say, _"Those Ron Paul people are anarchists."_ It destroys our credibility... right or wrong... the definition of the word sends people running away.


Oh, that.  




> Ron Paul has never disassociated himself with Lew Rockwell, nor the Mises Institute, nor any other person or entity that espouses ideas that are more radical than those he's open with. Ron Paul associates with raging leftists like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank.

----------


## mczerone

> This is what 99% of the people think when they hear the word "ANARCHY."
> People don't want ANY part of it, and too few people will take the time to learn otherwise. So, their mind shuts down, and they say, _"Those Ron Paul people are anarchists."_ It destroys our credibility... right or wrong... the definition of the word sends people running away.


So does "libertarian", "constitutionalist", "Christian conservative", or any number of other terms more embraced by RP and his supporters.

People (i.e. a majority of voters) don't want ANY part of shutting down the drug war, federal education controls, the Federal Reserve, welfare programs, etc., etc., and too few people will take the time to learn why RP advocates these things.  So their mind shuts down, and they say "those RP people are crazy".  The ignorance of outsiders destroys our credibility.

So what to do?  Go back in the closet?

No, it seems to me that if the problem is that others don't understand, the best course of action is to live true to yourself and gently educate those on the margins of accepting the validity of your position (anarchy and minarchy alike).

To the OP:
You'll find that most "anarchists" here self-identify as Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, or some other term designed to be less fear inducing and more inviting to open discussion.  They recognize that they are mis-understood, even by many here, and must do more to build bridges.  There are a few statists here that are hostile to these ideas (the logical conclusion of saying that no central agency deserves to rule others by force) who don't seem to understand that the "anarchists" are working to support the same goals at this point, and will logically work HARDER toward goals like getting Paul elected, because they see this as an intermediate step to living more freely and educating more people about how freedom (without hyphens) is the most compassionate, humane, economical, just, peaceful, and fair system by which to conduct one's self in a society.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Speaking for myself, being attacked/mocked/etc. and called a statist/tyrant/etc, (the ol, "voting is an act of aggression" argument) one too many times, has left me quite cynical. While there are plenty of ancaps who consider when, how, and where, to have debates on certain issues, it is those who display no discretion, nor common sense, that I find a PITA.  

An-caps like Tom Woods encourage people to engage in the political process to further the march towards liberty. Others come here to dissuade people from voting, or being involved at all. Sensible ancaps like Tom would never come here, to a board centered on the electoral process for a GOP candidate, and argue things that are sure to turn off typical GOP primary voters.

----------


## Travlyr

All I was doing was explaining why attaching the word "anarchy" to Ron Paul's campaign for president is objectionable to some people. The campaign is trying to gain voters, not drive them away. Ron Paul is not trying to achieve "lawlessness" or "chaos."

The baby boomers and older voters who learned about the Constitution in civics class in High School are the target voters.

Ron Paul called himself the _"Champion of the Constitution"_ and rightly so. Those older voters can relate to that, but they will avoid anarchy at all costs. 

I'm voting for Ron Paul. 



> So what to do?


The thing to do is embrace honest sound money at the State level as called for in the Constitution, and work to "Separate banking from the State." That's the right solution because it is already in place lawfully. When that benchmark is achieved, then move forward from there. In the meantime, the anarchy vs. minarchy debate is silly.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So does "libertarian", "constitutionalist", "Christian conservative", or any number of other terms more embraced by RP and his supporters.


Libertarian may be slightly off-putting to Republicans, but neither constitutionalist or Christian conservative would be.  And all that matters right now is how Republicans view the situation.  If Paul does not win the Republican nomination, his campaign is over.




> People (i.e. a majority of voters) don't want ANY part of shutting down the drug war, federal education controls, the Federal Reserve, welfare programs, etc., etc., and too few people will take the time to learn why RP advocates these things.  So their mind shuts down, and they say "those RP people are crazy".  The ignorance of outsiders destroys our credibility.
> 
> So what to do?  Go back in the closet?
> 
> No, it seems to me that if the problem is that others don't understand, the best course of action is to live true to yourself and gently educate those on the margins of accepting the validity of your position (anarchy and minarchy alike).


So, what a minute.  You're saying that before we can talk to people about Dr. Paul's ideas to turn America around, we FIRST will have educate them on anarchy?  That is ridiculous, you know.  Anarchy isn't part of Dr. Paul's platform, so why on earth would we want to add another barrier we have to jump over to reach Republican voters? 

I would think that at least during the campaign, that we would remember that we are his ambassadors and that since many people see "RonPaulForums" and think that Ron Paul established this forum, that we do our best to use this forum to get the man elected.




> To the OP:
> You'll find that most "anarchists" here self-identify as Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, or some other term designed to be less fear inducing and more inviting to open discussion.  They recognize that they are mis-understood, even by many here, and must do more to build bridges.  There are a few statists here that are hostile to these ideas (the logical conclusion of saying that no central agency deserves to rule others by force) who don't seem to understand that the "anarchists" are working to support the same goals at this point, and will logically work HARDER toward goals like getting Paul elected, because they see this as an intermediate step to living more freely and educating more people about how freedom (without hyphens) is the most compassionate, humane, economical, just, peaceful, and fair system by which to conduct one's self in a society.


There are still several who use the term "anarchist" on these forums.  And some, use every chance they get to bash the Constitution and those who you call "minarchists"; Not to mention making the constant, but erroneous, claim that Dr. Paul is an anarchist.

Tell me, when Ron Paul is telling Americans that he is the "champion of the Constitution" and that the Constitution needs to be restored, and also his Christianity, do you believe that potential Paul voters who see supposed supporters bashing the Constitution, Republicans, Conservatives and Christians, are helping or harming Dr. Paul's campaign?  The answer seems pretty obvious to me.  So why do some do it?

Not all ancaps/anarchists do this of course and when they don't, there is no problem.

----------


## Kade

> And the word LOVE is highlighted in that word "Revolution"...so where's the love?


I'm pretty good about listening to all sorts of ideas. Having a pretty deep understanding of human behavior, I generally reject pure anarchism on biological/evolutionary reasons.

See c. _Nathan Holn_ , ie _Holnists_

----------


## Deborah K

There are entirely too many bashers of values that Ron Paul holds near and dear like Christianity and the Constitution. The extremists on this site are going to put Ron in a very bad light and as far as I am concerned this forum is in a do or die situation if it is widely reported that we as a group advocate anarchy, atheism, etc. etc.  Dr Paul probably doesn't mind that anarchy and atheism are values that a portion of his supporters embrace.  But the cold, hard fact is that we will be in the spotlight from time to time and scrutinized coldly.  Calling the Constitution a piece of crap and those who respect it statists, and calling Christians ignorant will hurt his chances irreversibly.

----------


## acptulsa

> Look, I know anarchism isn't the most popular idea in the world, but I tend to think we are rather disdained on this forum. Maybe it's just me...I am rather new (first impressions can be deceiving).





> 'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty.  Now the greatest aid that I know of  that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty".  What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison.  I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to.  Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work.  So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"
> 
> 'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give.  That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--_Will Rogers_


Now, I don't include the Will Rogers quote because I think it's entirely gospel (though I do love it).  And I don't include it because I'm trying to piss you off.  I include it because he had a point.

The minarchists here most often think an ancap society sounds very nice, and many of us believe it would indeed work on a very small scale.  We've probably all been on small committees where the chair just didn't much enforce any rules and things got done very nicely, thank you.  It isn't as if you're not among friends.  You are.  And allies, too.  Here we are--we want to get to Sixth Street and you want to get to First Street and we're on 248th.  So, of course we want to work together.

But when you come in arrogant and cocky from too many arguments from statists, and you don't even test the waters to see if, a, we're sympathetic and, b, if we've had this conversation twelve million, six hundred forty-two thousand, nine hundred eighteen times before, and you ice this cake by not keeping a civil tongue in your fingers, what the hell do you expect?  Roses?

----------


## Theocrat

> Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system


One of my main problems with anarchy is that it has no universal law which everyone is obligated to keep on a civil realm. It essentially allows every person to do that which is right in his own eyes, without civil restraints and a uniform process of law to bring about restitution and justice. Anarchy inherently assumes that rules are not absolute, and therefore, there should be no magistrates to ensure those rules are followed in society, universally and without variance.

----------


## Theocrat

> There are entirely too many bashers of values that Ron Paul holds near and dear like Christianity and the Constitution. The extremists on this site are going to put Ron in a very bad light and as far as I am concerned this forum is in a do or die situation if it is widely reported that we as a group advocate anarchy, atheism, etc. etc.  Dr Paul probably doesn't mind that anarchy and atheism are values that a portion of his supporters embrace.  But the cold, hard fact is that we will be in the spotlight from time to time and scrutinized coldly.  Calling the Constitution a piece of crap and those who respect it statists, and calling Christians ignorant will hurt his chances irreversibly.


I agree, Deborah K. More importantly, the presence of those conflicting ideas makes it difficult to recommend this site to Constitutionalists and Christians who like Ron Paul and would be interested in knowing more about his views. It also makes it challenging for said groups to be comfortable networking with anarchists and/or "atheists" to be part of grassroots activities.

What we don't need is something like a segment on _The Rachel Maddow Show_ showcasing this site to prove her thesis that Ron Paul is supported by "crazy anarchists" who want to overthrow our government and destroy the Constitution. This site gets a lot of traffic, and I'm sure as Ron gets more momentum in the race, some opponents in the media will use this site as a tool against Ron Paul himself.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Speaking of Woods, he just posted this relevant article from Jeff Tucker @ Mises

http://blog.mises.org/17179/scrupulo...ting-business/




> *Scrupulosity and the Condemnation of Every Existing Business* 
> 
> There’s a growing moral scrupulosity going on in libertarian land, to the point that every really existing business is closely examined for any hint of state involvement (sin!), even when one stage removed (sin!), and then, upon discovery, condemned to hell has yet another example of the terrible things that the state does to the world.
> 
> ...
> 
> Murray Rothbard used the phrase “do you hate the state?” to ferret out real from mild libertarians. As a correlative question, we might ask “do you love commerce?” to ferret out real defenders of real markets as versus those who just enjoy standing in moral judgement over the whole world as it really exists.


I belive this applies to more than just fast food/markets...

----------


## AceNZ

> Really? Where? Here? I'm honestly surprise by this, as there are farrr more minarchist type libertarians on this board than any other.


Yes, here -- as well as IRL and on other forums.  Although there are minarchists on RPF, I think the majority here are in favor of a constitutional style government, at a minimum, usually with a few "extras," such as closed borders, etc.  What I find lacking is true, consistent, principled support of individual rights.




> Anyone that is 'using Anarchy as a tool' to further *any* ends, particularly collectivist ones - aren't really anarchists, no matter how much they stamp their feet and claim to be so.


I agree.  However, for the majority of the public, collectivists have managed to conflate "true" anarchy with their version of anarchy.  Look at people like Chomsky, for example.




> 'anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy.' - Murray Rothbard


I don't buy it.  The best arguments I've heard for anarchy usually end up advocating some form of ad hoc government, so they aren't really true anarchy.  I believe that a civil society needs objective laws and an arbiter of honest disagreements -- which is part of what a proper government should provide.  (I would be happy to discuss my misgivings in more detail, if there's interest.)




> If you actually read any Rothbard, Block, Kinsella, et al - you wouldn't be saying that. There are tons of free books online in PDF format, so ultimately there is no excuse for believing such a thing.
> 
> If you are legitimately interested, we can recommend some stuff for you. Again - free and very easily accessible.


I'm interested.  I don't have time at the moment to read anything too lengthy, but if you know of a reasonably concise summary, I would appreciate a pointer.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I also think the anarcho-capitalists really haven't thought the whole thing through in enough detail.  I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I see some problems that appear to be insurmountable if one's goal is to live in a peaceful, productive and civilized society.


This would be a good start: 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List

Everything there just scratches the surface, though. A good place to start is _Chaos Theory_ by Bob Murphy. Short and sweet. For a longer and more detailed analysis, I could not think of a better place to start than _For a New Liberty_ by Murray Rothbard (free on mises.org, audio version is nice imo).

Related to a few posts here, the much neglected but important question is:




> Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.




edit:
Free PDF for _Chaos Theory_: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
Free audio, good for when driving or mowing the lawn etc: http://mises.org/media/category/215/...Market-Anarchy

----------


## Kade

> There are entirely too many bashers of values that Ron Paul holds near and dear like Christianity and the Constitution. The extremists on this site are going to put* Ron in a very bad light* and as far as I am concerned this forum is in a do or die situation if it is widely reported that we as a group advocate anarchy, atheism, etc. etc. .


What light would that be? Freedom?

----------


## Deborah K

> What light would that be? Freedom?


The light of non-electability.

----------


## Kade

> The light of non-electability.


You think the movement is really about gathering up Conservatives? I've fought that fight for years, those people are immovable and stubborn. Liberals and moderates are interested in alternatives. Or you can alienate them by pushing the cherished beliefs of the 5-7% of Christian Reconstructionists in the country. Awesome.

And I really take offense to being called an extremists. Atheists make up a least 20% of this country, and possibly far more.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Right now in the General Politics forum, there is a thread entitled, "Re Michele Bachmann: 17 of 24 statements are FALSE", wherein the darling prom queen of the Tea Party - a major player in the primaries this season - is being pilloried.  There are a couple of threads wherein RPF'ers of all philosophies are excoriating the philosopher-king of the Tea Party movement (Glenn Beck).  There is a thread entitled, "Ronald Reagan, 'Isolationist' - by Jack Hunter" (GASP!), as well as one that I'm assuming is just dripping with Alex-Jones-esque conspiracy juices entitled, "The Omega Agency: "Above The President"".  

It may be true that some potential voters may turn up here and find a dozen or so "anarchists" and be turned off of Ron Paul; but there is PLENTY going on in the open forums that have nothing to do with anarchism that could just as well turn off potential supporters.  

Now, I'm all for the owners and moderators of this site determining what can and cannot be said in whichever forum they wish to impose those rules; but this notion that the anarchists here are the great bugaboo of the campaign is absurd.

----------


## Southron

It's not easy to reconcile political ideology and what is essentially a worldview/religion.  You see the entire world through that lense.

I want to restore a Constitutional Republic.   I'm unconvinced we are headed in the same direction but don't take it personally.

----------


## Meatwasp

> The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours.    People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy.  But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected.  It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war.  They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.
> 
> But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."  I mean, only only has to look at the category you chose to expound upon yourself in to understand that you wanted to make sure this was seen by a maximum number of posters. And of course this is all about you, and not Ron Paul.


       a winner

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I want to restore a Constitutional Republic.   I'm unconvinced we are headed in the same direction but don't take it personally.


Besides the moral and natural truth of anarchism, this is the thing that really convinced me to turn away from minarchism.  How many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain?  It has been just 10 scant generations - approximately 3 or 4 full human life-times - since the installation of a system of government that had gone further than any other system of government in human history to restrain the power of the state over individuals.  And yet, look at us now.  We individuals are burdened with the largest, most powerful and growing government in human history.  200 years.  That isn't really long.  It's not really uncommon for one person alone to live half of that time period.

----------


## Deborah K

> You think the movement is really about gathering up Conservatives? I've fought that fight for years, those people are immovable and stubborn. Liberals and moderates are interested in alternatives. Or you can alienate them by pushing the cherished beliefs of the 5-7% of Christian Reconstructionists in the country. Awesome.
> 
> And I really take offense to being called an extremists. Atheists make up a least 20% of this country, and possibly far more.


Show me where - anywhere on this forum - where I have stated that this movement is about gathering up conservatives.  If anything, I have stated over and over that Ron is the only candidate who unites us all - dems, reps, indys, etc.

And just because you are an atheist, doesn't make you an extremist.  And just because someone is an anarchist, doesn't make them an extremist.  Way to misconstrue the point.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *One of my main problems with anarchy is that it has no universal law which everyone is obligated to keep on a civil realm.* It essentially allows every person to do that which is right in his own eyes, without civil restraints and a uniform process of law to bring about restitution and justice. Anarchy inherently assumes that rules are not absolute, and therefore, there should be no magistrates to ensure those rules are followed in society, universally and without variance.


This trait is shared with minarchy.  However, the anarchists propose free market solutions to maintain civility, which you overlook (I assume because you aren't versed in anarchist literature).  I am not in favor of either anarchy or minarchy, but you are not accurately representing anarchy here, and grossly overestimating minarchy (unless you are including monarchy and parliamentary monarchy in your definition.  Monarchies are historically much more stable and free than republics and democracies).

----------


## acptulsa

> Besides the moral and natural truth of anarchism, this is the thing that really convinced me to turn away from minarchism.  How many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain?


Well, you know, the boulder comes down the mountain through incrementalism.  And incrementalism is your best shot at getting an ancap world.  Maybe the human race just needs to grow up.  I know that as recently as thirty years ago, this nation was still a paradigm of freedom.  So, we got the whole two hundred years, and this is no bad thing.  Meanwhile, in Somalia (where there's nothing resembling our Constitution) they went from nothing to gangsterism in no time.

I agree with SOL that anarchists aren't the biggest internal bugaboo in this campaign; probably their biggest baggage is the people the media have been misidentifying as them for the past century or two.  That said, we won't win without some kind of uneasy coalition here, involving everyone from ancaps to outright socialists who want their socialist state to be accountable to the people.

And I still say the OP is whining about a natural reaction he brought on himself.




> This trait is shared with minarchy.


I respectfully disagree, hb.  I think there are plenty of universal principles enumerated in the Declaration and Constitution, and I think that's why this growing ugliness has only gotten out of control a few times in our history and why it has been successfully turned back in the past.  Like Wilson and House, these modern totalitarians can be defeated with Constitutional principles and Jefferson's wisdom.  These things ain't chopped liver.

----------


## Deborah K

> Right now in the General Politics forum, there is a thread entitled, "Re Michele Bachmann: 17 of 24 statements are FALSE", wherein the darling prom queen of the Tea Party - a major player in the primaries this season - is being pilloried.  There are a couple of threads wherein RPF'ers of all philosophies are excoriating the philosopher-king of the Tea Party movement (Glenn Beck).  There is a thread entitled, "Ronald Reagan, 'Isolationist' - by Jack Hunter" (GASP!), as well as one that I'm assuming is just dripping with Alex-Jones-esque conspiracy juices entitled, "The Omega Agency: "Above The President"".  
> 
> It may be true that some potential voters may turn up here and find a dozen or so "anarchists" and be turned off of Ron Paul; but there is PLENTY going on in the open forums that have nothing to do with anarchism that could just as well turn off potential supporters.  
> 
> Now, I'm all for the owners and moderators of this site determining what can and cannot be said in whichever forum they wish to impose those rules; but this notion that the anarchists here are the great bugaboo of the campaign is absurd.


I'm not one who thinks there is a concerted effort by anarchists to sabotage Ron's campaign.  But the difference between some offensive pieces on his opponents verses a philosophy that so vehemently opposes his, is being propagated relentlessly on this forum.  You can be an atheist or an anarchist and express your views without belittling people who don't agree with you, or sounding fanatical.  It's the trashing and bashing that is the problem.  Ron Paul is a Christian and the "Champion of the Constitution".

----------


## acptulsa

And +rep to heavenlyboy for using 'voluntaryist' instead of 'anarchist'.  I think this a wise nod to the unjust reality of the current situation.

...err, when I get some reloads, that is.  

And since this thread deserves to be hijacked anyway, why are lurkers impotent in the rep department?  I don't get it.  Quiet people deserve to reward their favorite loud people at _least_ as much as other loud people do...

----------


## Deborah K

> And +rep to heavenlyboy for using 'voluntaryist' instead of 'anarchist'.  I think this a wise nod to the unjust reality of the current situation.
> 
> ...err, when I get some reloads, that is.  
> 
> And since this thread deserves to be hijacked anyway, why are lurkers impotent in the rep department?  I don't get it.  Quiet people deserve to reward their favorite loud people at _least_ as much as other loud people do...


You have a lot of gray reps too?

----------


## acptulsa

> You have a lot of gray reps too?


  Are you as proud of yours as I am of mine?

----------


## Echoes

> There are entirely too many bashers of values that Ron Paul holds near and dear like Christianity and the Constitution. The extremists on this site are going to put Ron in a very bad light and as far as I am concerned this forum is in a do or die situation if it is widely reported that we as a group advocate anarchy, atheism, etc. etc.  Dr Paul probably doesn't mind that anarchy and atheism are values that a portion of his supporters embrace.  But the cold, hard fact is that we will be in the spotlight from time to time and scrutinized coldly.  Calling the Constitution a piece of crap and those who respect it statists, and calling Christians ignorant will hurt his chances irreversibly.


This. This. This.

----------


## ProIndividual

1836, please read this to address your issues with externality and other possible statist economic fallacies:

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I) (Part 2-3 are linked at the top of the page you are being linked to now)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436

Externality Fallacy is the last one on the list.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I respectfully disagree, hb.  I think there are plenty of universal principles enumerated in the Declaration and Constitution, and I think that's why this growing ugliness has only gotten out of control a few times in our history and why it has been successfully turned back in the past.  Like Wilson and House, these modern totalitarians can be defeated with Constitutional principles and Jefferson's wisdom.  These things ain't chopped liver.


I appreciate your respectfulness.  Could you elaborate on what exactly is the "universal law which everyone is obligated to keep on a civil realm" in American-style minarchical regimes?  Historically, there is no such "universal law". The laws and principles in minarchy change at the whims and fancies of the ruling class. ("total war" did not exist until the advent of modern democracies and republics, for example)  Even under the best circumstances, we end up with the Lincolns, Wilsons, FDRs, and Bushes (not to mention all the scoundrels in congress).  Thanks again.

----------


## acptulsa

I'm mostly looking to Jefferson's words and philosophy, especially as articulated in the Declaration.  'We take these truths to be self-evident...'  So do I, Thomas, so do I.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Because the closest example of true anarchy currently exists in the geographic region known as Somalia


I'd say it WAS anarchistic, it is not now. I think looking at nations that have collapsed post-State and blaming it's ills on anarchism is a bit like looking at a man dying of AIDS and saying the flu killed him. Sure in a technical sense it did, but it was hardly WHY he died, as most survive the flu normally. Chaos in Somalia isn't anarchism, as anarchism is not chaos...despite what state schools teach.

In fact, America was the closest nation to anarchism...it had the most minimal government, and broke State monopolies on nearly every industry (no thanks to Hamilton and Hay). The only major monopolies it didn't break, and we are trying to still break, are the monopoly on capital (the End the Fed movement, an anarchistic movement since before the Fed existed, from the 1850s, calling for "currency competition"), the monopoly on violence (we do not allow competition among private security firms for first class mail, police, fire service, or military...althoug military is one I even admit is sketchy...lol. Law is not a monopoly as long as a few modifications are made to return us to time when jury nullification was acknowledged), and the monopoly on social contracts (the "Free Constitutionalist" movement, which wishes to allow everyone to be judged by natural law, or "do no harm", at minimum, and all other laws and social contract specific regulations would be optional. This basically means you sign on to what laws you want to follow, beyond the minimum standard of harm, opening up competition for social contracts. If found to be breaking an agreed to law, you pay the penalty prescribed in said social contract, given it doesn't violate "harm" in our Constitutional sense; basic rights, so you can't chop off a hand for theft, for example. There is one court system, the jury simply uses harm as a standard for anarchists and children, while adults that opt into social contracts will be held to those contracts they have agreed to. Right now, everyone is liable to some laws they didn't agree with, everyone fights over what the rules are, simply because whoever controls the rules in a given gang turf within a certain area controls others as well. This ends the problem, by removing power over others, and making social contracts like every other contract: voluntary or void).

So ty, for the smear that I've heard too many times before...I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that's what it is.

Look at the Australian Outback's Natural Justice common law courts to see functional voluntary social contracts under a single law system with jury nullification.

From W#ikipedia:




> Before the Islamic Courts Union took control, large parts of southern Somalia were effectively functioning without a central government. However, an economic survey by the World Bank found that distribution of wealth in the country was more equitable, and the extent of extreme poverty was lower than that found in nominally more stable West African nations. According to the same paper, although southern Somalia was effectively operating without a federal government before the rise to prominence of the Islamic Courts Union, it was not an anarchist society in the sense that society was more or less chaotic than organized non-coercively.[12] Despite this, a libertarian think tank reported that living standards in Somalia increased – in absolute terms, relative to the pre-Somali Civil War era, and relative to other nations in Africa – during this period.[13] Economist Peter Leeson attributes the rather astounding increase in economic activity[14] since the rise of statelessness to the security in life, liberty and property provided by Somali customary law — the Xeer — in most parts of Somalia, which ensures for a relative free market.


So, Somalia WAS anarchistic, before the Islamic courts. It is NOT now. And when it was, it was exactly what Thomas Paine talked about, the flourishing SOCIETY devoid of a State. Society pushes on inspite of the State, not because of it.




> A kibbutz (Hebrew: קיבוץ, קִבּוּץ, lit. "gathering, clustering"; plural kibbutzim) is a collective community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial plants and high-tech enterprises.[1] Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism. In recent decades, many kibbutzim have been privatized and changes have been made in the communal lifestyle. A member of a kibbutz is called a kibbutznik (Hebrew: קִבּוּצְנִיק‎‎).
> 
> In 2010, there were 270 kibbutzim in Israel. Their factories and farms account for 9 percent of Israel’s industrial output, worth $8 billion, and 40 percent of its agricultural output, worth over $1.7 billion.[2]


Notice how 'socialism' here somehow translates to highly succesful (disproportionately so) capitalist gains. Voluntary economics, whether left or right, lead to highly productive and wealthy economies. This is why most libertarians, and no self respecting anarchists, even believe in the left/right false dichotomy/illusion.

You said :




> Anarchy works in theory but not in practice.


Wow, I never heard this b4!...lol. 

Yeah, like Statism has worked out sooooo well. Every State is unsustainable, they all collapse. Over 80% of human history was anarchistic....and nowhere near the people died in wars, either in total or per capita, etc., etc.

Anarchism fails when the State demands monopolies over specific things...when people finally codify natural law, or "do no harm" as a standard for law (what anarchists call "the one law"), then State will be illegal, and no such bully will be able to steal away liberty. As of now, we all mindlessly fight over who controls the gang turf, instead of realizing there is, and always was, an alternative. 

It's just the logical end to the minimalist State, and the decentralization mantra; decentralize to the individual.




> That being said, I'm very sympathetic to anarchism it is indeed the most principled and consistent, and because I do agree the State does more harm than any other entity in the world; but if peace and prosperity can be attained with a minimal invasion of personal liberty in the presence of a State, which is exactly what a Constitutional Republic achieves, anarchy is no longer needed nor desired.


I'd agree, minus the monopolies I mentioned above...and we can debate the merits of the military, as I eluded to.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'd say it WAS anarchistic, it is not now. I think looking at nations that have collapsed post-State and blaming it's ills on anarchism is a bit like looking at a man dying of AIDS and saying the flu killed him. Sure in a technical sense it did, but it was hardly WHY he died, as most survive the flu normally. Chaos in Somalia isn't anarchism, as anarchism is not chaos...despite what state schools teach.


All the semantics in the world (and Lord how y'all do love semantics) won't change the fact that Somalia was without government and didn't stabilize into something respectable.  No, demented socialists who are sick of the corporatism and want to put themselves in charge aren't really anarchists.  But anarchy, in the strictest definition, is still a lack of government, and concrete examples of this tend to either be small or unstable.  Sorry.  I'd sugar coat this fact if I could.

If a society is to run on principle, somehow that principle has to be codified.  This is what led the U.S. to be a paradigm for two hundred years.  Sure beats the Somalian record.

----------


## Deborah K

> All the semantics in the world (and Lord how y'all do love semantics) won't change the fact that Somalia was without government and didn't stabilize into something respectable.  No, demented socialists who are sick of the corporatism and want to put themselves in charge aren't really anarchists.  But anarchy, in the strictest definition, is still a lack of government, and concrete examples of this tend to either be small or unstable.  Sorry.  I'd sugar coat this fact if I could.
> 
> If a society is to run on principle, somehow that principle has to be codified.  This is what led the U.S. to be a paradigm for two hundred years.  Sure beats the Somalian record.


+rep when I get ma powers back..

----------


## acptulsa

> +rep when I get ma powers back..


  Your credit's good with me!

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> All the semantics in the world (and Lord how y'all do love semantics) won't change the fact that Somalia was without government and didn't stabilize into something respectable.  No, demented socialists who are sick of the corporatism and want to put themselves in charge aren't really anarchists.  But anarchy, in the strictest definition, is still a lack of government, and concrete examples of this tend to either be small or unstable.  Sorry.  I'd sugar coat this fact if I could.
> 
> If a society is to run on principle, somehow that principle has to be codified.  This is what led the U.S. to be a paradigm for two hundred years.  Sure beats the Somalian record.


Just because a state failed and collapsed into madness does not prove that anarchy doesn't work. BTW from what I've read about the Somalian situation, their economy actually improved after the state fell

----------


## ProIndividual

> All the semantics in the world (and Lord how y'all do love semantics) won't change the fact that Somalia was without government and didn't stabilize into something respectable.


Yeah, except it isn't close to semantics to point out a Islmaic state is NOT anarchistic. Secondly, you said it correctly...WAS without government...or actually WAs without a State...a government is NOT the Sate. Ancient Stateless societies had government and no State. Historians put the transition form nations with voluntary governments (or ganized, functional) to nation-states (coercive government and monopolies) at about 5th-4th Century BC...in both Greece and China seemingly simultaneously. So, in no way should you confuse a lack of government with a lack of State....but without belaboring the point, we'll say your intended point WAs correct....the nation WAS without a State...and when it ceased to be without a State, it ceased to relatively functional economically, and ceased to have the same respect for human rights (as Islamic states don't tend to be human rights advocates).

Chronology is only semantics to the sophist...it's extremely relevant...lol.

Would you mae the same case for the flourishing American anarchistic economy and quality of life that largely existed during and after the Revolution, until the Articles of Confederation (which still were largely unenforced on anyone individually, therefore limiting this encroachment by the State to almost non-existant levels)? Would you assume that anarchists just got lucky when we were on the right side of history concerning feminism, abolition, central banking, pornography, how to effective deliver mail for cheap to your door instead of a post office where you had to pick it up, on civil disobedience and the concept of nullification, etc.? 

We sure are right by accident a lot.

----------


## Wesker1982

> All the semantics in the world (and Lord how y'all do love semantics) won't change the fact that Somalia was without government and didn't stabilize into something respectable.  No, demented socialists who are sick of the corporatism and want to put themselves in charge aren't really anarchists.  But anarchy, in the strictest definition, is still a lack of government, and concrete examples of this tend to either be small or unstable.  Sorry.  I'd sugar coat this fact if I could.
> 
> If a society is to run on principle, somehow that principle has to be codified.  This is what led the U.S. to be a paradigm for two hundred years.  Sure beats the Somalian record.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3247815




> According to the logic of pointing to Somalia and saying "see what happens under anarchy!", we could point to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin and use them as examples of why we should oppose government. Both are worse case scenarios of the respective systems (anarchy and statism). 
> 
> *1:10:00 to 1:31:29 on Somalia*: 
> 
> 
> 
> This whole video is very good btw. 
> 
> *Another (and shorter) video on Somalia:*
> ...

----------


## ProIndividual

> Still though, I think that whoever originally invented the ideology could have picked a more attractive name. It's also bothersome(to me) when some have 10,000 posts on this board and still refuse to vote in a private primary for Paul.


I agree. If you can kill in self defense, you should vote in self defnse...unless your a pascifist of course (which I'm not).

More anarchists should look at it this way.

The common retort I get is "you can't rape in self defense"...but I liken voting to aggression of a less sexual nature...tax season is when I'm raped...lol.

As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were Greek regional tyrants, at the dawn of the city-states. The name is thought of negatively and synonamous with things it has nothing to with, like chaos, disorganization, and violence, because State school, being part of the /state, have a vested interest in having children believe maximum liberty is negative. Even private schools muist meet State requiremnets, and use the same lying Politically Correct dictionaries. 

As an experiment, take a controversial word, like the "n" word, and look it up now. Then look it up in a dictionary that is more period specific, say the 1930s or previous. You'll see how words get "pc'd" up to aid the State and it's BS.

Any name it was given would have been slandered for the past 2500 years, to be sure.

----------


## Theocrat

> This trait is shared with minarchy.  However, the anarchists propose free market solutions to maintain civility, which you overlook (I assume because you aren't versed in anarchist literature).  I am not in favor of either anarchy or minarchy, but you are not accurately representing anarchy here, and grossly overestimating minarchy (unless you are including monarchy and parliamentary monarchy in your definition.  Monarchies are historically much more stable and free than republics and democracies).


I disagree with you that "minarchy" has no universal civil law by which all citizens are obligated to obey. In our American republic, it is the Constitution, which derived from a Christian worldview on civics (starting with the Puritans). Our Founders understood that since all men get their rights from God, they would need a system of civil government by which those rights were honored and protected, as men live amongst other men in day-to-day life. Surely, sinful men will disobey those laws, but that's the problem of the other end, not necessarily the law (or nature of the law) itself. The point is there is a uniform code by which all men, on some level, are obligated to obey so that there is little infringement of rights as possible.

I am aware of some of the proposals which anarchists have made for maintaining civility in society by means of a free market (i.e. private courts). My fundamental disagreement with them is that justice is not a service-for-profit, based on supply and demand. Justice is absolute (based on objective moral laws), and therefore, it must be administered on grounds less pervasive as what producers and consumers think will be profitable and bought at a good price, respectively. The idea of private courts assumes that moral and laws are relative, and thereby, each private court has its own set of rules for jurisdiction. Essentially, it makes each court its own mafia or gang. That is what I was getting at in my previous post.

----------


## ProIndividual

> The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas,


No, it isn't. Since the "love" in revolution suggests evolution not violence, let's talk about who came up with the idea of evolving society and not using violent revolution for change....the individualist anarchists. The same folks who statretd the "End the Fed" movement by opposing central banking and monopolies on money (advocating currency comeptition) in the 1850s. They same people MLKjr was inspired by when using civil disobedience, or individual nullification (he credited Henry David Throeau, as did Ghandi). The same people who Ayn Rand basically mirrored, except on her new way of looking at morality, and her athiesm, and her overt capitalism (albeit a minarchist form). The same folks who were ahead of their time on women's rights, abolition, etc., etc.

Ron Paul himself says it's about ideas...not HIS ideas. He didn't invent these ideas...and anyone who says so isn't reading American history very in depth. The anarchists invented most of your beloved ideals...stop acting like we're new to these things, or you have some monopoly on them.

You, BTW, are one of the people I'm talking about when I say "belittle" or "disdain". 

Wake up, this 'revolution' isn't about Ron's ideas, it's about ideas in general...or we reduce ourselves to groupthink. The truest ideas will come to pass...and getting Ron elected is step one in this process.

So stop with your nonsense about whose ideas are okay, and whose aren't.

----------


## ProIndividual

> As a voluntaryist, I can generally get along with both minarchists and anarchists. In the long run, I don't think either will work for everyone. The minarchists should keep their government to themselves and the anarchists can take care of their own property and never the twain conflict. JMO


I'd like to point out voluntaryism is anarchism...just another name for another slice of the community. I could call myslef voluntaryist also, as I understand and agree with it. You do not have to label yourself as such....but unless you're talking to a socialist anarchist, or a collectivist of some type, then your property comment doesn't fit.

I don't even beleive in home owner's associations because they limit property rights...I'm probably in 99.9% comaptability with you. I also believe the best economic system is a fully voluntary system. 

Also, anarchism of any true sense (uncoerced organized society) cannot be uniform...uniformity demands coercion, especially on large scales. 

So, for "leftist" anarchists your comment fits, but otherwise being anti-State and voluntaryist pretty much qualifies you as anaanrchist...albeit one who avoids the term because of it's neagtive connotations.

----------


## Kade

Reading this entire thread, I would give my left testicle to see Chomsky comment on some of this pseudo-intellectual garbage. He would ride your philosophical asses around like it was a carpet on a newly waxed wooden floor.

----------


## Travlyr

> As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were Greek regional tyrants, at the dawn of the city-states. The name is thought of negatively and synonamous with things it has nothing to with, like chaos, disorganization, and violence, because State school, being part of the /state, have a vested interest in having children believe maximum liberty is negative.


The definition of the word ANARCHY goes to the heart of why I oppose using it to describe anything other than lawlessness. Without ruler means without rules by default because as soon as a rule is made, the question immediately becomes "Who enforces the rule?" Then either a ruler is chosen to enforce the rule so anarchy is abandoned, or everybody is their own ruler which is chaos.

----------


## ProIndividual

To Sentient Void, I agree with almost eveything you said except one...

...all economic styles exist freely in anarchism, or at least anarchy, uncoerced. No uniformity ca exist without coercion, so socialists will have their communes in anarchy, as will capitalists have their (our) free market paradises...and everything in between. Even social contracts that require what we deem "tyranny" will exist, but will purely voluntary.

Anarchism wouldn't outlaw boxing because it's violent, it would "outlaw" assault because it's coerive. Therefore all harmful economics and practices like social contracts will exist, just not in a coercive manner. No one will be forced to do anything where no harm has occurred, although some may opt for more intrusive rules for themelves.

We agree on all else though, thanks for the help.

----------


## Echoes

> Reading this entire thread, I would give my left testicle to see Chomsky comment on some of this pseudo-intellectual garbage. He would ride your philosophical asses around like it was a carpet on a newly waxed wooden floor.


Chomsky is a socialist, who gives a whale's fart what he thinks. Unless, you're one too.

----------


## acptulsa

> Reading this entire thread, I would give my left testicle to see Chomsky comment on some of this pseudo-intellectual garbage. He would ride your philosophical asses around like it was a carpet on a newly waxed wooden floor.


Gee, Kade, could you be referring to this?




> Chronology is only semantics to the sophist...it's extremely relevant...lol.


Two long lifetimes--ten generations--of liberty reduced to sophistry.  If that's what it is, I'll buy my child all the sophistry I can get, thank you very much.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Reading this entire thread, I would give my left testicle to see Chomsky comment on some of this pseudo-intellectual garbage. He would ride your philosophical asses around like it was a carpet on a newly waxed wooden floor.


Chomsky?  Speaking of pseudo-intellectuals...  He ought to stick to linguistics.

----------


## ProIndividual

> The definition of the word ANARCHY goes to the heart of why I oppose using it to describe anything other than lawlessness. Without ruler means without rules


No it doesn't. Again, it does NOT mean chaos, lawlessness, disorganization, or violence. This is BS. 

The first "Natural Lawyers" were anarchists. Besides Utilitarians and Egoists (those who think rights are "spooks in the mind", and essentially "might makes right"), all anarchists believe in one law, "the one law", natural law, or "do no harm" for short. How is stopping harm in a court with a jury, a natural justice system, or common law courts in some places, lawless? It's illogical.

Again, governemnt is NOT the same as the State...governments existed in Stateless societies, as did courts.

----------


## Kade

> Chomsky?  Speaking of pseudo-intellectuals...


I hope that is sarcasm.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Without ruler means without rules by default because as soon as a rule is made, the question immediately becomes "Who enforces the rule?" Then either a ruler is chosen to enforce the rule so anarchy is abandoned, or everybody is their own ruler which is chaos.


Everyone is the "ruler" of their property. So in that sense, there are rulers who can enforce rules.

----------


## Deborah K

> Reading this entire thread, I would give my left testicle to see Chomsky comment on some of this pseudo-intellectual garbage. He would ride your philosophical asses around like it was a carpet on a newly waxed wooden floor.


Not sure why anyone would care what a self proclaimed socialist would have to say about anything on these forums.....but that's just me.

----------


## Kade

> Chomsky is a socialist, who gives a whale's fart what he thinks. Unless, you're one too.


The fact that it is so easy for you to summarily dismiss someone based on a single word identifies the high level of ignorance live through in your daily life. 

Chomsky is often referred to as a libertarian socialist, but even that "label" doesn't really do him any justice, he is more of an anarchist than even I would like to admit, seeing as he is a very important mentor of mine. 

Why don't you read up on him?

----------


## acptulsa

> Everyone is the "ruler" of their property. So in that sense, there are rulers who can enforce rules.


Which is pretty funny, because one of the favorite 'good examples' cited by voluntaryists are American Indians, and they didn't in any way recognize the right to own real estate.

----------


## Kade

> Not sure why anyone would care what a self proclaimed socialist would have to say about anything on these forums.....but that's just me.


Because time and time again you folks have a unquenchable proclivity to loudly proclaiming your ignorance on the subject. Why is it that you only listen to people who you already agree with? Take the freaking time to know what you are talking about... they should care what Chomsky has to say, because Chomsky is a valuable political dissident, scientist, and intellectual

----------


## ProIndividual

> To the OP:
>  You'll find that most "anarchists" here self-identify as Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, or some other term designed to be less fear inducing and more inviting to open discussion. They recognize that they are mis-understood, even by many here, and must do more to build bridges. There are a few statists here that are hostile to these ideas (the logical conclusion of saying that no central agency deserves to rule others by force) who don't seem to understand that the "anarchists" are working to support the same goals at this point, and will logically work HARDER toward goals like getting Paul elected, because they see this as an intermediate step to living more freely and educating more people about how freedom (without hyphens) is the most compassionate, humane, economical, just, peaceful, and fair system by which to conduct one's self in a society


Great comment, thank you.

----------


## Travlyr

> No it doesn't. Again, it does NOT mean chaos, lawlessness, disorganization, or violence. This is BS. 
> 
> The first "Natural Lawyers" were anarchists. Besides Utilitarians and Egoists (those who think rights are "spooks in the mind", and essentially "might makes right"), all anarchists believe in one law, "the one law", natural law, or "do no harm" for short. How is stopping harm in a court with a jury, a natural justice system, or common law courts in some places, lawless? It's illogical.
> 
> Again, governemnt is NOT the same as the State...governments existed in Stateless societies, as did courts.


It is not BS. I was referring to the definition of ANARCHY - _Without Ruler._ So my question to you is: Who enforces the law in an anarchical society?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> The fact that it is so easy for you to summarily dismiss someone based on a single word identifies the high level of ignorance live through in your daily life. 
> 
> Chomsky is often referred to as a libertarian socialist, but even that "label" doesn't really do him any justice, he is more of an anarchist than even I would like to admit, seeing as he is a very important mentor of mine. 
> 
> Why don't you read up on him?


Chomsky is brilliant when it comes to foreign policy and highlighting the propaganda system that is used in modern American society. His documentary 'Manufacturing Consent' is one of the best I have ever seen, and the more I see from the press regarding Dr. Paul the more it confirms this documentary as true.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Which is pretty funny, because one of the favorite 'good examples' cited by voluntaryists are American Indians, and they didn't in any way recognize the right to own real estate.


I have never talked about them so I don't know much about it, but were they aggressed against if they wanted to secede and build a hut or w/e?

----------


## Kade

> Chomsky is brilliant when it comes to foreign policy and highlighting the propaganda system that is used in modern American society. His documentary 'Manufacturing Consent' is one of the best I have ever seen, and the more I see from the press regarding Dr. Paul the more it confirms this documentary as true.


Thank you for acknowledging this, Chomsky is no friend to ANY establishment.

----------


## acptulsa

> I have never talked about them so I don't know much about it, but were they aggressed against if they wanted to secede and build a hut or w/e?


They settled areas all the time.  And when their own refuse made the area smelly and unsafe, they went and settled another area.

They also had tribal wars and tribal compacts all the time.  And, yes, some were far, far more nomadic than others.

----------


## ProIndividual

I wanna say, I agree with LibertyEgle in one sense...anarchists shouldn't try to explain anarchism or even say that we are anarchists when selling Ron Paul. I do several radio shows online every week, as a host and co-host...and I didn't mention it unless I had to, which is almost never. Selling Ron does mean acting as if we're just run of the mill libertarians...but then again, in any other country, anarchism is synonamous with libertarianism, so it isn't a lie. 

I have no problem telling other anarchists to keep focus, and talk about Ron, not about us. He is a step in the right direction, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I hope that is sarcasm.


 Nope.  FYI, I have read up on Chomsky.  I find his contributions to linguistics and certain sciences much more useful and sensible than most of his other intellectual activities. JMO

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'm pretty good about listening to all sorts of ideas. Having a pretty deep understanding of human behavior, I generally reject pure anarchism on biological/evolutionary reasons.
> 
> See c. Nathan Holn , ie Holnists


I do not agree, but that's a super long debate as you know. I'm familiar with the viewpoint though, and am thankful for the positive comment.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Because time and time again you folks have a unquenchable proclivity to loudly proclaiming your ignorance on the subject.* Why is it that you only listen to people who you already agree with? Take the freaking time to know what you are talking about... they should care what Chomsky has to say, because Chomsky is a valuable political dissident, scientist, and intellectual


 I have to admit, you are right about the majority of folks here on that.

----------


## Wesker1982

> They settled areas all the time.  And when their own refuse made the area smelly and unsafe, they went and settled another area.
> 
> They also had tribal wars and tribal compacts all the time.  And, yes, some were far, far more nomadic than others.


If they retain the right to secede, then they voluntarily choose to belong to a group that does not recognize property rights in houses. This is consistent with Voluntaryism. You can live in a commune or whatever you want in a Voluntaryist society...

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3308916

----------


## ProIndividual

DeborahK :




> The extremists


So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?

My hypocrisy meter is going off, brb...lol.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Chomsky is brilliant when it comes to foreign policy and highlighting the propaganda system that is used in modern American society. His documentary 'Manufacturing Consent' is one of the best I have ever seen, and the more I see from the press regarding Dr. Paul the more it confirms this documentary as true.


 This too. ^^

----------


## Kade

> DeborahK :
> 
> 
> 
> So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?
> 
> My hypocrasy metter is going off, brb...lol.


This was also what I pointed out...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> DeborahK :
> 
> 
> 
> So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?
> 
> My hypocrisy metter is going off, brb...lol.


 "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ProIndividual again."  IOU 1 +rep.

----------


## Deborah K

> Because time and time again you folks have a unquenchable proclivity to loudly proclaiming your ignorance on the subject. Why is it that you only listen to people who you already agree with? Take the freaking time to know what you are talking about... they should care what Chomsky has to say, because Chomsky is a valuable political dissident, scientist, and intellectual


You mean like you do?  Is Bertrand Russell another of your heroes - advocate of eugenics?  What exactly can Chomsky or Russell contribute to this conversation?

----------


## Deborah K

> DeborahK :
> 
> 
> 
> So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?
> 
> My hypocrisy meter is going off, brb...lol.


You are putting yourself in the category of extremist, not I.  My definition of extremist per this issue is of those who bash the values of Ron Paul i.e. the Constitution and Christianity.  I have been very clear on that point.  If you have trouble with comprehension that isn't my problem.

----------


## Deborah K

> I have to admit, you are right about the majority of folks here on that.


Personally, I think it's pretty ignorant to proclaim someone else is ignorant, just because they don't agree with you.

----------


## Kade

> You mean like you do?  Is Bertrand Russell another of your heros - advocate of eugenics?  What exactly can Chomsky or Russell contribute to this conversation?


Chomsky:



> The political policies that are called conservative these days would appall any genuine conservative, if there were one around to be appalled. For example, the central policy of the Reagan Administration - which was supposed to be conservative - was to build up a powerful state. The state grew in power more under Reagan than in any peacetime period, even if you just measure it by state expenditures. The state intervention in the economy vastly increased. That's what the Pentagon system is, in fact; it's the creation of a state-guaranteed market and subsidy system for high-technology production. There was a commitment under the Reagan Administration to protect this more powerful state from the public, which is regarded as the domestic enemy. Take the resort to clandestine operations in foreign policy: that means the creation of a powerful central state immune from public inspection. Or take the increased efforts at censorship and other forms of control. All of these are called "conservatism," but they're the very opposite of conservatism. Whatever the term means, it involves a concern for Enlightenment values of individual rights and freedoms against powerful external authorities such as the state, a dominant Church, and so on. That kind of conservatism no one even remembers anymore.





> The "corporatization of America" during the past century has been an attack on democracy—and on markets, part of the shift from something resembling "capitalism" to the highly administered markets of the modern state/corporate era. A current variant is called "minimizing the state," that is, transferring decision-making power from the public arena to somewhere else: "to the people" in the rhetoric of power; to private tyrannies, in the real world.


Russell:




> As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our troubles.





> The modern power of the State began in the late fifteenth century and began as a result of gunpowder.



I have hundreds more, if you are still chirping.

----------


## ProIndividual

Rifleman:




> It's not easy to reconcile political ideology and what is essentially a worldview/religion. You see the entire world through that lense.
> 
> I want to restore a Constitutional Republic. I'm unconvinced we are headed in the same direction but don't take it personally.


I'm a Christian Deist...so no conflict here with Christianity in general, or belief in God for that matter. I use a Jefferson Bible, and attend local Unitarian Church services. My worldview is simply that of ills, liberty is the lesser, and of virtues, liberty is the greater; in all things liberty is preferable to coerion. It's not a cure-all, it's admitting the problems still exist, just that they are better handled and controlled at the most decentralized level possible, and often that is the individual level.

If you think anarchists can arrive at anarchy without first achieving, and then passing, a Constitutional Republic like you want, then I question your sense of direction.

Then again we're also debating protectionism versus free trade elsewhere, and you support protectionism; so you operate under a lot of false notions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Personally, I think it's pretty ignorant to proclaim someone else is ignorant, just because they don't agree with you.


 Yes, but that's not why I claimed anyone ignorant.  Certain people here are simply ignorant and try to wax eloquent about things they simply don't understand.  Whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. (I'm not going to name names, because I don't want to violate forum rules or start another silly flame war)

----------


## Deborah K

> This was also what I pointed out...


Yes, and I noticed you conveniently ignored my response:




> Show me where - anywhere on this forum - where I have stated that this movement is about gathering up conservatives.  If anything, I have stated over and over that Ron is the only candidate who unites us all - dems, reps, indys, etc.
> 
> And just because you are an atheist, doesn't make you an extremist.  And just because someone is an anarchist, doesn't make them an extremist.  Way to misconstrue the point.

----------


## mczerone

> It is not BS. I was referring to the definition of ANARCHY - _Without Ruler._ So my question to you is: Who enforces the law in an anarchical society?


Who enforces "the law" in a minimalist state?  A communal organization run by a bureaucracy beholden to special interests, mob-rule, and self-favors.  And this is immune from the price mechanism.  How much "property protection" are you willing to pay for?  Would you live in abject poverty to fund a gestapo that patrolled everything 24-7?  Maybe you would, and anarchy would give you that option.  But it would also give you the option to devote little to no money to protection if you desired "living on the edge".

If you can convince me, and 100% of everyone else, that there is a single, perfect, level of property rights protection, we may join your system.  Until then, how does your minimalist state handle dissenters?  Those who see that public-choice economics and monopoly theory prove that a single entity providing ANY good or service will inflate their prices and reduce their quality are awaiting your answer.

You want something (property rights, a well-suited defense force, legal system, health-care system, education system, etc.), pay for it or find a benefactor.  TANSTAAFL.  Be the change you wish to see.  

Who enforces the law in an anarchic society? YOU DO!  You get to choose the best service, you get to choose the method of enforcement, AND YOU HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE to others who see your law as unjust. And they to the rest of society.  Do you have some need to be ruled, or is it that you have the need to rule others?

----------


## ProIndividual

> Besides the moral and natural truth of anarchism, this is the thing that really convinced me to turn away from minarchism. How many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain? It has been just 10 scant generations - approximately 3 or 4 full human life-times - since the installation of a system of government that had gone further than any other system of government in human history to restrain the power of the state over individuals. And yet, look at us now. We individuals are burdened with the largest, most powerful and growing government in human history. 200 years. That isn't really long. It's not really uncommon for one person alone to live half of that time period.


Son of Liberty, you speak the truth (imho). For 200+ years we have tried to get minimal government, and have continuously watched it grow into large government. Repeating the same behavior over and over expecting a different result is...the definition of insanity. Why not try for anarchism, and if we get small Constitutional government instead, I'll cry me a river while you dance in the street. At least it's more of what we all want, right?

----------


## Deborah K

> Chomsky:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russell:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Irrelevant.  Hitler had some pretty snappy quotes too.  Doesn't absolve these guys of their basic philosophies i.e. advocate of eugenics; socialism - which is in oppositon to my own.

Stop attacking.  It isn't becoming.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, but that's not why I claimed anyone ignorant.  Certain people here are simply ignorant and try to wax eloquent about things they simply don't understand.  Whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. (I'm not going to name names, because I don't want to violate forum rules or start another silly flame war)


Like who for instance?  Who in your mind is 'waxing eloquent'?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Like who for instance?  Who in your mind is 'waxing eloquent'?


 I told you before 


> I'm not going to name names, because I don't want to violate forum rules or start another silly flame war


  I can pm you some examples if you really want.

----------


## Travlyr

> As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were Greek regional tyrants, at the dawn of the city-states. The name is thought of negatively and synonamous with things it has nothing to with, like chaos, disorganization, and violence, because State school, being part of the /state, have a vested interest in having children believe maximum liberty is negative.





> The definition of the word ANARCHY goes to the heart of why I oppose using it to describe anything other than lawlessness. Without ruler means without rules by default because as soon as a rule is made, the question immediately becomes "Who enforces the rule?" Then either a ruler is chosen to enforce the rule so anarchy is abandoned, or everybody is their own ruler which is chaos.





> No it doesn't. Again, it does NOT mean chaos, lawlessness, disorganization, or violence. This is BS. 
> 
> The first "Natural Lawyers" were anarchists. Besides Utilitarians and Egoists (those who think rights are "spooks in the mind", and essentially "might makes right"), all anarchists believe in one law, "the one law", natural law, or "do no harm" for short. How is stopping harm in a court with a jury, a natural justice system, or common law courts in some places, lawless? It's illogical.
> 
> Again, governemnt is NOT the same as the State...governments existed in Stateless societies, as did courts.


The definition of anarchy is no rulers. Rules require rulers. Either a society has no rules and no need for rulers, or it has rules and rulers. It is silly to use it to describe a philosophy. Voluntaryism makes much more sense.




> Everyone is the "ruler" of their property. So in that sense, there are rulers who can enforce rules.


Exactly, which by definition is no longer anarchy.

----------


## Deborah K

> I told you before   I can pm you some examples if you really want.


Please do, I'm interested, I'll keep your confidence.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Exactly, which by definition is no longer anarchy.


I am really trying to stop using the term, but just for clarification, anarchy means the absence of the State in the context used a lot of the time. Not necessarily "no ruler". See SV's blog if you haven't: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.p...-and-the-State.

----------


## ProIndividual

Once again, ACPTulsa, how is anarchism responsible for the failure of State? how is it taking credit for the economic boom after it's fall? And how is anarchism somehow responsible for a theocratic Islamic State that followed? 

It's nonsense., sorry.

----------


## mczerone

> Rules require rulers.


I don't think I'll join game night at your house...

The term refers to rulers OVER OTHER PEOPLE, having dominion over property is not "ruling" it, and rules need not be enforced by a single Ruler.  If we hypothesize that one ruler was needed, who would keep him acting within the rules so that the rule of law was not just a myth?  The ruled? Another Ruler?  In either case, if a set of rules is going to remain neutral between men it must devolve into anarchy: no one person truly is a Ruler because they always have to answer to someone else.

----------


## ProIndividual

Wesker, ty for all your help...but..




> Everyone is the "ruler" of their property. So in that sense, there are rulers who can enforce rules.


If self governance be government, then I am for government. If ownership of property be "ruler" or "ruling", then I'm for ruling.

However...ruling implies coercion and gang turf not willing to be ceded...whereas property is alienable (it can be transferred to another), not inalienable, so you never "rule" it, you own it. You will cede it upon death, unlike your inalienable (non-transferrable) rights...assuming you don't sell it first.

This is perhaps semantics, but in the spirit of the meaning of the word, anarchy meansd literally "without rulers".

----------


## ProIndividual

> Which is pretty funny, because one of the favorite 'good examples' cited by voluntaryists are American Indians, and they didn't in any way recognize the right to own real estate.


Incorrect. Iriquois, for example, allowed even women to hold property of their own, not mergable with the husbands land, thereforew in divorce they retained their own homesteas and wealth...

...they also had communal farm land and hunting areas...

...so it's not quite so black and white.

Remember also, they counted coupe sometimes to hash out battles, instead of mass killing each other (not always, but still).

----------


## ProIndividual

> It is not BS. I was referring to the definition of ANARCHY - Without Ruler. So my question to you is: Who enforces the law in an anarchical society?


And I've explained why dictionaries are bad sources for definitions...they are politically correct, conformed to State lingo.

Read anarchists for yourself, they almost never advocate for such things...and those who do are largely viewed as fake anarchists among the anarchist community, as any coercion is non-anarchistic, violence (not in self defense) disqualifies you automatically.

And again, how is a legal system lawless?

----------


## cjm

> Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?


The non-anarchists, generally speaking, do not appear to be anti-anarchist to me.  They might be anti-_anarchism_ (opposed to the philosophy of anarchy), but that's what makes them non-anarchists by definition.  Some non-anarchists ask the anarchists to tone down the anarchy talk but, again generally speaking, non-anarchists don't tell the anarchists to go away and don't attack them personally.  The discussions are often lively, but the majority of posts on both sides are very thoughtful and respectful.  I'm sure you can find individual examples of anti-anarchist non-anarchists, but your question is about the general atmosphere and I don't see anti-anarchist attitudes.

As for anarchy threads scaring away potential Ron Paul supporters, I don't buy that.    If people can't tell the difference between Ron Paul's positions and the philosophies of his supporters, they are going to fall for whatever the MSM is pushing anyway.  And if they are put off by challenging discussions and prefer "A is more presidential than B", then they probably don't embrace liberty all that much and will vote for whichever candidate paints the scariest terrorism picture.  The open discussions on RPF are thought provoking and refreshing.  Anyone craving a little freedom of expression (within admin/mod set limits, of course), will find RPF a breath of fresh air.  I certainly did.

----------


## Travlyr

> Who enforces "the law" in a minimalist state?


In a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people do.




> A communal organization run by a bureaucracy beholden to special interests, mob-rule, and self-favors.  And this is immune from the price mechanism.  How much "property protection" are you willing to pay for?  Would you live in abject poverty to fund a gestapo that patrolled everything 24-7?  Maybe you would, and anarchy would give you that option.  But it would also give you the option to devote little to no money to protection if you desired "living on the edge".


What we have now is Merchantilism which is nothing even close to a minimal government. 




> If you can convince me, and 100% of everyone else, that there is a single, perfect, level of property rights protection, we may join your system.  Until then, how does your minimalist state handle dissenters?  Those who see that public-choice economics and monopoly theory prove that a single entity providing ANY good or service will inflate their prices and reduce their quality are awaiting your answer.


I do not believe that we can find Utopia in this life, so we do have to put-up with each other's nonsense from time to time. Laissez-faire free-market capitalism is as close to perfect as it gets in this world and it works every time it is tried. 




> You want something (property rights, a well-suited defense force, legal system, health-care system, education system, etc.), pay for it or find a benefactor.  TANSTAAFL.  Be the change you wish to see.


A lot of this is straight out of Karl Marx's doctrines. It can only be achieved with fiat money central planning and the inflation tax of debasement of currency. 

I am in favor of a constitutional republic and separation of state and money. State constitutions are lawful along with County and City charters. City/States are not as inherently bad as anarchists claim, imo.




> Who enforces the law in an anarchic society? YOU DO!


Then you are the ruler which by definition is no longer an anarchic society.




> You get to choose the best service, you get to choose the method of enforcement, AND YOU HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE to others who see your law as unjust. And they to the rest of society.


This is the same as minarchy.




> Do you have some need to be ruled, or is it that you have the need to rule others?


Not at all. I just realize that rules require rulers. If no ruler is designated, then the strongest will be the ruler. If a ruler is designated, then it is best to strive for impartiality. I believe that a constitutional republic can do that better than any other form of organization.




> I don't think I'll join game night at your house...
> 
> The term refers to rulers OVER OTHER PEOPLE, having dominion over property is not "ruling" it, and rules need not be enforced by a single Ruler.  If we hypothesize that one ruler was needed, who would keep him acting within the rules so that the rule of law was not just a myth?  The ruled? Another Ruler?  In either case, if a set of rules is going to remain neutral between men it must devolve into anarchy: no one person truly is a Ruler because they always have to answer to someone else.


Lolz... self-rule is not bad as long as everybody plays nice. What happens though is somebody cheats and then the ruler has to make a decision... whoever that is whether designated or not.

----------


## Wesker1982

> However...ruling implies coercion and gang turf not willing to be ceded...whereas property is alienable (it can be transferred to another), not inalienable, so you never "rule" it, you own it. You will cede it upon death, unlike your inalienable (non-transferrable) rights...assuming you don't sell it first.
> 
> This is perhaps semantics, but in the spirit of the meaning of the word, anarchy meansd literally "without rulers".


What I mean by "ruler" is that I can apply rules to my property. In this sense, I am a ruler (one who rules?) only because I applied a rule to my property. Anyone who is subject to my ruling does so on a voluntarily basis. Voluntarily subjecting yourself to rulers is consistent with Voluntaryism.

----------


## ProIndividual

> You are putting yourself in the category of extremist, not I.


No, I didn't call myself extremist, you did...so no.

You know as well as I do the only view worthy of being called "extreme" is a view that advocates violence. Any attempt to say someone's ideas are "extreme" otherwise is simply a Marxist propaganda model called "guilt by association". 

Anarchists are not extremists...we may be somewhat fringe, I'll admit that...but to label us with the same kind of people who blow themselves up for religious idealism and to thwart occupation to attempt to discredit our logic without addressing it is wrong.

Maybe that's not how you meant it...so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until your next comment shows otherwise.





> Personally, I think it's pretty ignorant to proclaim someone else is ignorant, just because they don't agree with you.


Ignorance, btw, doesn't mean stupid...it means uneducated. Like most people are ignorant to any writing about anarchism beyond a State school textbook or State influenced politically correct dictionary. Just like MOST Americans are ignorant to the Constitution, and it's original intent.



Lastly, and for the second time, I'm a Christian Deist (a constructional Deist)...so why use the Christianity loathing angle on me? It doesn't apply. Also, I'm not against the Constitution, if it's "consent of the governed", and I mean individually as well as States. You might see this as "sacreligious", but I see it as the logical end of your own argument....I hope that clears that little misunderstanding up.

----------


## Deborah K

> The non-anarchists, generally speaking, do not appear to be anti-anarchist to me.  They might be anti-_anarchism_ (opposed to the philosophy of anarchy), but that's what makes them non-anarchists by definition.  Some non-anarchists ask the anarchists to tone down the anarchy talk but, again generally speaking, non-anarchists don't tell the anarchists to go away and don't attack them personally.  The discussions are often lively, but the majority of posts on both sides are very thoughtful and respectful.  I'm sure you can find individual examples of anti-anarchist non-anarchists, but your question is about the general atmosphere and I don't see anti-anarchist attitudes.
> 
> As for anarchy threads scaring away potential Ron Paul supporters, I don't buy that.    If people can't tell the difference between Ron Paul's positions and the philosophies of his supporters, they are going to fall for whatever the MSM is pushing anyway.  And if they are put off by challenging discussions and prefer "A is more presidential than B", then they probably don't embrace liberty all that much and will vote for whichever candidate paints the scariest terrorism picture.  The open discussions on RPF are thought provoking and refreshing.  Anyone craving a little freedom of expression (within admin/mod set limits, of course), will find RPF a breath of fresh air.  I certainly did.


You are missing the point.  It isn't about philosophical debate.  It is about extreme points of view that include bashing values that Ron holds near and dear, like Christianity and the Constitution.  The point is, if newcomers who also have the same values as Ron, pay a visit and see over and over again on this forum, those views being relentlessly belittled - they will view the forum as a whole, as a group who abides by views they don't agree with.  In addition, we have the challenge of the media scrutinizing us in a very calculating way.  Most would be more than happy to paint us with that broad brush if they had the chance - as a way to discredit Ron.  The bashing really needs to come to a screeching halt. That is the point.

----------


## Wesker1982

> In a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people do.


The same people would be the consumers choosing which defense agencies to fund. 

You can't simultaneously believe that the consumers (the people) are too stark-raving mad and ignorant to govern themselves and choose to fund non-sociopathic defense services, while believing the very same people are sane and educated enough to elect mentally sound, non-corrupt, and wise leaders. It would be explicit doublethink to hold this view.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, I didn't call myself extremist, you did...so no.
> 
> You know as well as I do the only view worthy of being called "extreme" is a view that advocates violence. Any attempt to say someone's ideas are "extreme" otherwise is simply a Marxist propaganda model called "guilt by association". 
> 
> Anarchists are not extremists...we may be somewhat fringe, I'll admit that...but to label us with the same kind of people who blow themselves up for religious idealism and to thwart occupation to attempt to discredit our logic without addressing it.
> 
> Maybe that's not how you meant it...so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until your next comment shows otherwise.


This is a feeble attempt at wordsmithing.  Have you bashed Christianity or the Constitution here?  I think you are smart enough to get the jist of my concern.  That you are wanting to play the victim is somewhat befuddling to me.  I have no interest in reiterating my point.  Perhaps it would help you to look up the various definitions of the word extremism

----------


## ProIndividual

> Rules require rulers.


No, rules do not require rulers. Again, courts and governments existed before the State. It's historical nonsense to say the State is needed (rulers) in order to have government function or for courts and law to exist.




> Voluntaryism makes much more sense.


Voluntaryism doesn't have rulers ( a State). You might want to read up on the conflicts in what you're saying.





> Exactly, which by definition is no longer anarchy.


I adressed this issue by responding to Wesker. When he said land owners "rule" their property as "rulers" I feel he makes a semanctical error. Please go back and read my response.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You are missing the point.  It isn't about philosophical debate.  It is about extreme points of view that include bashing values that Ron holds near and dear, like Christianity and the Constitution.  The point is, if newcomers who also have the same values as Ron, pay a visit and see over and over again on this forum, those views being relentlessly belittled - they will view the forum as a whole, as a group who abides by views they don't agree with.  In addition, we have the challenge of the media scrutinizing us in a very calculating way.  Most would be more than happy to paint us with that broad brush if they had the chance - as a way to discredit Ron.  The bashing really needs to come to a screeching halt. That is the point.


+1

----------


## Travlyr

> No, rules do not require rulers.


Then why have rules? Unenforcible rules are meaningless.

All I am really saying is that most people will use the dictionary if they want to know the meaning of a word. Using ANARCHY to describe a peaceful orderly society doesn't work well.

----------


## ProIndividual

> What I mean by "ruler" is that I can apply rules to my property. In this sense, I am a ruler (one who rules?) only because I applied a rule to my property. Anyone who is subject to my ruling does so on a voluntarily basis. Voluntarily subjecting yourself to rulers is consistent with Voluntaryism.


In this sense, I agree...it's the use of the word ruler to imply the enforcer of rules I have a problem with. A Judge is not ruler, and yet enforces rules...for this reason a ruler just isn't an enforcer of rules, but a coercer.

Now, in your sense of the word, I again agree, because all social contracts are legal in anarchism....you can choose any harmful social contract yopu like, even if I think it tyranny. It's the p[ure voluntary nature that makes it compatable with anarchism....and Voluntaryism is very much a form of anarchism. The difference might be social theory, class theory, etc.

And in that I point to Konkin III and agorism, which isn't "pure" anarchism to agorists either. To me, however, agorism and voluntaryism are just different strains of anarchism, which have different views on problem solving w/o a State.

I'd say using the word "ruler" will get things confused....but it depends who you are speaking with. Personally I'd refrain from using it. 

But your point is true, and again, I'm just pointing out semantics.

----------


## erowe1

I'm a non-anarchist who is not anti-anarchist.

When I first got involved in supporting RP in 2007 I thought the anarchists were nuts. Now I consider them important allies with a coherent philosophy that I can respect. I feel the same way about the protectionist paleo-con wing of RP supporters too, though I'm not one of them either.

----------


## cjm

> You are missing the point.  It isn't about philosophical debate.  It is about extreme points of view that include bashing values that Ron holds near and dear, like Christianity and the Constitution.  The point is, if newcomers who also have the same values as Ron, pay a visit and see over and over again on this forum, those views being relentlessly belittled - they will view the forum as a whole, as a group who abides by views they don't agree with.  In addition, we have the challenge of the media scrutinizing us in a very calculating way.  Most would be more than happy to paint us with that broad brush if they had the chance - as a way to discredit Ron.  The bashing really needs to come to a screeching halt. That is the point.


I'm missing _your_ point?  I addressed your concern with disagreement.  I didn't miss it.  We were all newcomers to this site at one time.  We didn't fall into the trap you describe.  You need to give people more credit.  Those that cannot distinguish between Ron Paul and some posts on RPF are not thinking for themselves anyway.  They will go with whomever Fox or CNN tells them to go with.

As for bashing, it exists, but not to the degree you describe.  I stand by my point that RPF threads are generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful.

----------


## ProIndividual

> This is a feeble attempt at wordsmithing. Have you bashed Christianity or the Constitution here? I think you are smart enough to get the jist of my concern. That you are wanting to play the victim is somewhat befuddling to me. I have no interest in reiterating my point. Perhaps it would help you to look up the various definitions of the word extremism


This is what I mean...you just used the Marxist propaganda model "guilt by association", and "buzzword", AGAIN.

You are the extremist...there now we are even. Stop with your childish name calling and address the logic of the issues. Anything else conceded intellectual defeat.

And STOP using Marxist propaganda models. Wikipedia "propaganda", please!

----------


## ProIndividual

> Then why have rules? Unenforcible rules are meaningless.


Ugh!

Again, for the last time, over 80% of human history had rules, but no State. they had rules enforced by Stateless government and courts.

This doesn't seem to be sinking in. I've only wrote it like 3 times...lol.

Get it through your head...law existed before States (including city-states).

Wow.





> All I am really saying is that most people will use the dictionary if they want to know the meaning of a word


Yes, and this is why democracy fails; the majority is USUALLY wrong.

Using dictionaries for scholarly reference is a poor excuse for research. It's like me continuously pointing at a "fact" that can be easily disproven, and yet still asserting it because it's politically correct and popular.

Argumentum ad populum : the informal logical fallacy of appealing to majority opinion, votes, or polls to prove the legitimacy of an argument.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm missing _your_ point?  I addressed your concern with disagreement.  I didn't miss it.  We were all newcomers to this site at one time.  We didn't fall into the trap you describe.  You need to give people more credit.  Those that cannot distinguish between Ron Paul and some posts on RPF are not thinking for themselves anyway.  They will go with whomever Fox or CNN tells them to go with.
> 
> As for bashing, it exists, but not to the degree you describe.  I stand by my point that RPF threads are generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful.


I agree that RPF is generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful.  I would also add ingenious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, pro-liberty, and exceptional activists.  But as for bashing, it indeed exists to the degree I describe.  On that you are entirely mistaken.  And I am not alone in my opinion.

----------


## mczerone

> In a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people do.


Who is this nebulous "people"?  Certainly not everyone's voice can be heard and respected, so how do we decide who counts, who runs the state on a day-to-day basis, and how much money (i.e. resources) it needs to get its jobs done?  Why is a devotion to a "republic" favorable to and more universal than "free-association govts" of whatever internal form?  All this talk about "the people" sounds awfully Marxist to me (only returning your lob).




> What we have now is Merchantilism which is nothing even close to a minimal government.


Read what I wrote, and you'll see that I wasn't intending to describe what "we" have now, but any minimalist governance scheme that has a territorial monopoly.




> I do not believe that we can find Utopia in this life, so we do have to put-up with each other's nonsense from time to time. Laissez-faire free-market capitalism is as close to perfect as it gets in this world and it works every time it is tried.


So why do you get to decide that "Laissez-faire free-market capitalism" works for producing food, clothing, land management, etc., but preclude me from trying Laissez-faire free-market capitalism in the realm of personal and group defense and law provision?  Besides, I wasn't trying to claim that yours or any system was being described as an unattainable Utopia, I was asking you what right you have to impose your system on dissenters. 




> A lot of this is straight out of Karl Marx's doctrines. It can only be achieved with fiat money central planning and the inflation tax of debasement of currency.
> 
> I am in favor of a constitutional republic and separation of state and money. State constitutions are lawful along with County and City charters. City/States are not as inherently bad as anarchists claim, imo.


Lolwut? Because I borrowed a line from Ghandi, you attack it for being "straight out of Marx's doctrines"?  What about individuals needing to decide for themselves what their resources should be spent on, either individually or in cooperation with others, is Marxist?  You've laid out a smear here, and I don't even see what part of what I said could be construed in that manner.

I'm glad you support the separation of state and money, but what if your "constitutional republic" representatives don't agree with you?  Why couldn't I subscribe to a government that not only set regulations on it's members behaviors, but also coined money for external trade or tokens for internal trade?  Do you have any evidence that these systems are worse than forcing a govt agency to stay out of the money industry entirely?

Then you, ex nihilo, claim that "State constitutions are lawful along with County and City charters."  Why? What does "lawful" mean if you circularly define it by whatever is in a state constitution?  And I don't personally have problems with certain "city charters" if the all the just landowners voluntarily enter into an agreement, but they only have jurisdiction over the members of the charter - all of which can be determined by private land and contract law.




> Then you are the ruler which by definition is no longer an anarchic society.


Again, see the difference between "one who rules over others" and "one who sets the rules for his property".  It seems that you're working hard not to understand what we're arguing about.




> This is the same as minarchy.


Again, lolwut?  You're saying that in minarchy I can keep my property, real and personal, and choose a different law and/or defense provider?  That's not minarchy.




> Not at all. I just realize that rules require rulers. If no ruler is designated, then the strongest will be the ruler. If a ruler is designated, then it is best to strive for impartiality. I believe that a constitutional republic can do that better than any other form of organization.


If One is designated Ruler, he will be the strongest.  If no ruler is designated, then you are free to solve problems by listening to a central authority or by bargaining for your own solutions.  Do "the strongest" have certain advantages in life?  Yes, but your system gives them power; voluntarism allows the meek to work together to defend themselves and seek a balance of powers.  I don't understand how you can live in a post-Machiavellian world and claim that a designated ruler has as it's own best interest to "strive for impartiality". 

It's okay that you believe that a "constitutional republic" is the best solution, but is this based on anything but faith?  And again, what if I don't agree with you?




> Lolz... self-rule is not bad as long as everybody plays nice. What happens though is somebody cheats and then the ruler has to make a decision... whoever that is whether designated or not.


What happens when someone cheats at game night where you are assembled as equals? If you have a "ruler", what if its the "ruler" that's doing the cheating?

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'm a non-anarchist who is not anti-anarchist.
> 
> When I first got involved in supporting RP in 2007 I thought the anarchists were nuts. Now I consider them important allies with a coherent philosophy that I can respect. I feel the same way about the protectionist paleo-con wing of RP supporters too, though I'm not one of them either.


Ty for the positive comment...I agree pretty much. All philsophies are valid, althoug I may disagree with them.

----------


## Deborah K

> This is what I mean...you just used the Marxist propaganda model "guilt by association", and "buzzword", AGAIN.
> 
> You are the extremist...there now we are even. Stop with your childish name calling and address the logic of the issues. Anything else conceded intellectual defeat.
> 
> And STOP using Marxist propaganda models. Wikipedia "propaganda", please!


Hit a nerve, did I?   How about you just get back to your argument and quit taking offense where it isn't aimed.  Good grief.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Ron Paul was on the Alex Jones Show today.  Alex, a "small" government advocate and seemingly sincere and sweet man with a nationally syndicated radio, internet and satellite program is nonetheless largely considered (outside of his numerically-but-not-proportionally large following) to be an utter lunatic by the vast majority of the population who has heard of him, given his theories concerning the September 11th attacks and other organizations and historical events.  Alex has been on The View, and other mainstream media outlets, and he's been the subject of a feature article in Rolling Stone magazine.  

But I should be ashamed for using the word 'anarchist' on this forum.  el oh el

----------


## cjm

> I agree that RPF is generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful.  I would also add ingenious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, pro-liberty, and exceptional activists.  But as for bashing, it indeed exists to the degree I describe.  On that you are entirely mistaken.  And I am not alone in my opinion.


I guess you're right.  This comes down to opinion.

----------


## Pericles

My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to  authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made. For example, we have this work by  Rothbard on the self enforcing nature of contracts  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html where we are  presented with some basic concepts "For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will                prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency                and impartiality." and this concept "On the other                  hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal                  possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property                  of an individual."

This has one very important principle - the importance of reputation, if  I am thought to be a person on business with a bad reputation, fewer  people will want to deal with me - this is the economic incentive to do  what I say I will do. Thus, anyone who harms my reputation, does me  harm. But Rothbard can't go there because if he did, he would have to  allow that I have an economic interest or an ownership interest in my  reputation, and my economic competitors have an interest in destroying  my reputation, as I have an interest in destroying theirs. In the  current legal framework, the concept of libel, keeps this in check.

However, Rothbard can't allow to have the concept of libel in his  anarchist society - http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
"Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own  head; he  also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it.  He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows  it to be false, and to print and sell that statement." Rothbard then  goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in  an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all.

So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets

There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that  need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything  other than academic interest.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Who is this nebulous "people"?


This is the whole point, isn't it?  There is no "the people".  The "people" cannot think; the "people" cannot feel.  There are individual human beings, each _created equal_, and as such not one of which is entitled to rule.

----------


## Deborah K

Where did anyone say you should be ashamed of using the word 'anarchist'?  Wow!  The sensitivity level is beyond the scope of reason today folks.  And btw, this isn't about you.  It's about electing the only hope we have right now.  No one is asking anyone to table their philosophies, just to have an understanding that as a member of RPFs, and a supporter of Ron, that in a sense, you are an ambassador and it behooves us all to stop with the bashing of the values he holds near and dear.  It's NOT about your views, it's about the bashing of Ron's values.  I see it as extreme (oh no's - that awful word again) to be touting an opposing view while degrading another.  That's it.

----------


## mczerone

> I agree that RPF is generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful.  I would also add ingenious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, pro-liberty, and exceptional activists.  But as for bashing, it indeed exists to the degree I describe.  On that you are entirely mistaken.  And I am not alone in my opinion.


100% agree - as someone who is more in the "anarchist" and "atheist" camps, I see a ton of bashing coming from fundamentalists of the other stripes (I wouldn't use either term to describe myself, but for convenience).

If there are 2000 members on RPFs, there are 4000 sets of opinions on the contentious issues, just remember that it is only those who are mad enough to post that do, and those who passively agree _might_ hand out some +rep.  Live with love, despite differences in opinion, and these threads and bashing posts won't be so upsetting.

----------


## Deborah K

> I guess you're right.  This comes down to opinion.


Opinions are all we really have here.

----------


## Deborah K

> 100% agree - as someone who is more in the "anarchist" and "atheist" camps, I see a ton of bashing coming from fundamentalists of the other stripes (I wouldn't use either term to describe myself, but for convenience).
> 
> If there are 2000 members on RPFs, there are 4000 sets of opinions on the contentious issues, just remember that it is only those who are mad enough to post that do, and those who passively agree _might_ hand out some +rep.  Live with love, despite differences in opinion, and these threads and bashing posts won't be so upsetting.


It is for tactical reasons that I am concerned about the bashing of Ron's values, i.e. his presidential run.  Other than that, I agree with you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Where did anyone say you should be ashamed of using the word 'anarchist'?  Wow!  The sensitivity level is beyond the scope of reason today folks.  And btw, this isn't about you.  It's about electing the only hope we have right now.  No one is asking anyone to table their philosophies, just to have an understanding that as a member of RPFs, and a supporter of Ron, that in a sense, you are an ambassador and it behooves us all to stop with the bashing of the values he holds near and dear.  It's NOT about your views, it's about the bashing of Ron's values.  I see it as extreme (oh no's - that awful word again) to be touting an opposing view while degrading another.  That's it.


Are you not saying that any post arguing on behalf of anarchism here could possibly potentially be damaging to Ron's campaign?  Have I not stated that I am actively supporting Ron's campaign?  Therefore, should I not understand your position that my espousal on an internet forum of an anarchist philosophy runs contrary to my wish to see Ron elected?  What are you expecting me to feel, if not shame?  

I don't feel shame, because I don't for a second buy this notion that I'm doing damage to Ron's campaign with what I discuss on this forum.  That, to me, is a bunch of overly dramatic hyperventilating by some folks who seem to be imbued with an inflated sense of importance, when one takes a look at the overall picture of the campaign, not to mention who Ron freely and proudly associates with.

----------


## Deborah K

> Are you not saying that any post arguing on behalf of anarchism here could possibly potentially be damaging to Ron's campaign?


No, I am not saying that. Show me where I said that. Do you have trouble with comprehension?  Geez o Pete!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, I am not saying that. Show me where I said that. Do you have trouble with comprehension?  Geez o Pete!


It's been a long and fast-developing thread, so if I've  misunderstood your point, or misconstrued it with others, I apologize;  but I've taken your position to be that those here who espouse principles that are outside of Ron's open view points jeopardize the success of the campaign.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's been a long and fast-developing thread, so if I've  misunderstood your point, or misconstrued it with others, I apologize;  but I've taken your position to be that those here who espouse principles that are outside of Ron's open view points jeopardize the success of the campaign.


You've taken it wrong then.  I respect civil discourse on the subjects of anarchy and atheism, and even have friends in here from both viewpoints.  I appreciate the apology.  You have my respect.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You've taken it wrong then.  I respect civil discourse on the subjects of anarchy and atheism, and even have friends in here from both viewpoints.  I appreciate the apology.  You have my respect.


Cheers.  I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.   

But my comments stand to those with whom I've misconstrued your position!

----------


## playboymommy

> wish I could give you rep for this


YAY! I can give rep again...thanks admins!!!!!!!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to  authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made. For example, we have this work by  Rothbard on the self enforcing nature of contracts  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html where we are  presented with some basic concepts "For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will                prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency                and impartiality." and this concept "On the other                  hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal                  possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property                  of an individual."
> 
> This has one very important principle - the importance of reputation, if  I am thought to be a person on business with a bad reputation, fewer  people will want to deal with me - this is the economic incentive to do  what I say I will do. Thus, anyone who harms my reputation, does me  harm. But Rothbard can't go there because if he did, he would have to  allow that I have an economic interest or an ownership interest in my  reputation, and my economic competitors have an interest in destroying  my reputation, as I have an interest in destroying theirs. In the  current legal framework, the concept of libel, keeps this in check.
> 
> However, Rothbard can't allow to have the concept of libel in his  anarchist society - http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
> "Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own  head; he  also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it.  He has a property right to say that Jones is a thief even if he knows  it to be false, and to print and sell that statement." Rothbard then  goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in  an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all.
> 
> So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets
> 
> There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that  need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything  other than academic interest.


Well, if you ask more experienced anarchists, you'll get better answers (try mises.org).  I can relate though-I get crickets (or non-answers or insults and dismissal) from minarchists when I press them on the numerous flaws in minarchist/constitutionalist theory.

----------


## brushfire

I dont believe in anarchy, I'm not an anarchist, although anyone who is for "free market" capitalism is ok by me.  In other words, I find my self agreeing more with anarchists much more than I do with communists.

I'd consider myself a minimalist as well... 

My ideal minimalist government would serve as to:
1.  Protecting God (sub creator/humanity) given rights through law (i.e. Bill of Rights, including unenumerated rights)
2.  Providing civil/criminal courts
3.  Providing a police force to enforce the laws
4.  Providing for a defense - protecting our sovereignty (not to be confused with world police force)

I think that very small governments are best, where their inefficiencies can be managed, and their injustices can be corrected by a few individuals (i.e. my township officials are quite concerned about my views - obama and dick durbin are not)

Granted, there are no perfect solutions.  With any government will come the flaws of "man" - hence Jefferson's quote about "The Tree of Liberty".  Government has a useful lifespan, but at some point we have to "reboot the server".  Not necessarily throw it away, but clean house.  We were given many provisions to do just that, hopefully people wake up and take advantage.

----------


## Deborah K

> Cheers.  I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.   
> 
> But my comments stand to those with whom I've misconstrued your position!


I don't understand the second sentence.  Are you just qualifying your stance by siding with those who oppose my view on this?  If so, I'm cool widdat.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I dont believe in anarchy, I'm not an anarchist, although anyone who is for "free market" capitalism is ok by me.  In other words, I find my self agreeing more with anarchists much more than I do with communists.
> 
> I'd consider myself a minimalist as well... 
> 
> My ideal minimalist government would serve as to:
> 1.  Protecting God (sub creator/humanity) given rights through law (i.e. Bill of Rights, including unenumerated rights)
> 2.  Providing civil/criminal courts
> 3.  Providing a police force to enforce the laws
> 4.  Providing for a defense - protecting our sovereignty (not to be confused with world police force)
> ...


Interesting.  Jefferson believed that "throwing it away" was well within reason when government became tyrannical.  "..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, *it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.*.."

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't understand the second sentence.  Are you just qualifying your stance by siding with those who oppose my view on this?  If so, I'm cool widdat.


What I'm saying is that I stand by my comments (that I'm not doing damage to the campaign) by taking an anarchist position on this forum.  And :raspberries: to those who think I am.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Interesting.  Jefferson believed that "throwing it away" was well within reason when government became tyrannical.  "..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, *it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.*.."


Jefferson elucidated a fundamental, eternal truth with the statement, "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".  It is at the completion of that sentence where minarchists and anarchists part ways.  Minarchists believe that government is necessary to secure those unalienable, God- (or natural) given rights.  Anarchists believe that government is detrimental to those rights.  Government is by definition, then, an unnatural or man-made creation; and thus my opposition to it.  God/nature did not create government to secure the rights with which He/it endowed us - man did, out of fear and collectivism.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Hit a nerve, did I? How about you just get back to your argument and quit taking offense where it isn't aimed. Good grief.


Is this you asking me? Or the liberals asking the TEA party or Ron Paul supporters?

I can't tell, BECAUSE IT"S THE SAME THING...childish name calling to avoid the issues being debated.

----------


## cjm

> So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets


From what I've read, I think Murray's point about "no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual" does not include intangibles like reputation, only physical property or your physical body.  If so, he's consistent, but does not allow for libel or slander cases in his theory as you would like.

One has no control over one's own reputation.  Since your reputation is really the idea that someone else has about you, it's not your property, it's theirs.  And they can come up with a poor reputation (idea) about you even in the absence of slander or libel.  I don't know if Rothbard goes into this, but some anarchists say that ideas can't be property at all, since adopting an idea does not deprive the original idea holder from continuing to have that same idea.  In other words, if nothing's been taken from you, you have no claim of aggression.  I'm probably butchering that line of reasoning, but hopefully you can get the gist.

Now with regard to libel or slander, that's the action of someone else which affects your reputation, but as described above, your reputation isn't your property.  And the lies do not harm your body or physical property.

I'm sure this is a major oversimplification of the theory, but since you were curious and all you got were crickets I thought I'd take a stab at explaining my (limited) understanding of those statements.

That being said, some libertarian theorists consider both force and fraud to be aggressions.  If damages due to fraud (lies) can be established (a lost sale?), a free market court may allow for libel/slander claims.

I know this is not a perfect summary of Rothbard, but that's how I took those statements.  I hope that helps your understanding or interpretation.

----------


## ProIndividual

> So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets


I'm not Rothbardian...although in economics we agree a lot. I also don't refer to myself as anarcho-capitalist, although I am a free market anarchist. I'm also not strictly an Austrian, although I do agree largely on business cycle, among other things. 

The question of intellectual property has long been debated by anarchists. Tucker was against it, Spooner for it. I think it's both...

I take a somewhat nuanced approach advocated by one free market economist who blogs at econtalk.com (I believe, been a while). Anyway, he explains why the market calls for intellectual property naturally in some ways (a book being printed w/o authors permission), and how the market actually deems it theft in another way (if you invented the log cabin, you cannot keep another pioneer from building one by just looking at yours and reverse engineering (per se), in an attempt to monopolize this habiatation innovation). So, intellectual property needs to be protected strongly in some ways, and absolutely deemed theft in other ways, in order for the market to function efficiently. The determination is largely done organically, as I just described. Almost no one would think printing off a book you just bought at the book store and selling it for half price (bootlegging) would be considered a legitimate way to do business....and almost no one would see building a log cabin as theft. 

Again, social norms dictate behavior, not laws. And all the bootlegging you think rules prevent, are happening right now even with the State being here. The laws and rules don't prevent crime, they respond to it after the fact (making pre-emptive regulation basically inept). 

So, like you said, Rothbard can't go there. He would be saying your reputation isn't owned by you. But I can, and so did Lysander Spooner in the 1800s.

The question of monopolies on courts and judges (or what we often refer to as arbitors)...well I personally think courts are the oldest function of government, predating even the State, legislators, and executives (or monarch, w/e). So, courts, in order to not be monopolized, must have a backstop and competition. The backstop is jury nullification, and the competition can be private agencies competing for a contract from a nation, or private freelance arbitars competing for the slots in the system (essentially how it was designed), but not where these people are necessarily elected, or undismissable on a moments notice. If you're anarchocapitalist the former, if you're more of a Free Constitutionalist like me, you'll choose the latter. In effect, both of us are theorizing, and will just go with what has the best results in the market.

If I didn't address what you meant, please redirect me, and I will try to do better next time.

----------


## ProIndividual

> stop with the bashing of the values he holds near and dear.


We aren't bashing anything in this thread, so maybe you mean elsewhere. To question these ideas is not to bash them. Groupthink will do us no good. If you mean elsewhere that I am not privy to (remember, I'm fairly new) then I will defer to your experience.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Originally Posted by brushfire
> 
> I dont believe in anarchy, I'm not an anarchist, although anyone who is for "free market" capitalism is ok by me. In other words, I find my self agreeing more with anarchists much more than I do with communists.
> 
> I'd consider myself a minimalist as well... 
> 
> My ideal minimalist government would serve as to:
>  1. Protecting God (sub creator/humanity) given rights through law (i.e. Bill of Rights, including unenumerated rights)
>  2. Providing civil/criminal courts
> ...



Benjamin Tucker called individualist anarchists (like me) "unterrified Jeffersonians", because we hold dear the belief "that the best government is the government which governs least, and the government that governs least doesn't govern at all". I'd simply point out he is refering to the State when he says "government"...words anarchists use interchangably but don't necessarily mean the exact same thing.

He also said (in the quote in my signature) that "The State is said by some to be a necessary evil; it must be made unncecessary."

In that, he sums it up for me...I wouldn't advocate taking away government where it is necessary, I say it MUST be made unnecessary through human innovation. But then again, government isn't the State monopoly either...

----------


## ProIndividual

> Minarchists believe that government is necessary to secure those unalienable, God- (or natural) given rights. Anarchists believe that government is detrimental to those rights. Government is by definition, then, an unnatural or man-made creation; and thus my opposition to it. God/nature did not create government to secure the rights with which He/it endowed us - man did, out of fear and collectivism.


A collective to stop collectivism...that's about right...errr, wrong too.

----------


## mczerone

> My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to  authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made. For example, we have this work by  Rothbard on the self enforcing nature of contracts  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html where we are  presented with some basic concepts "For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will                prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency                and impartiality." and this concept "On the other                  hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal                  possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property                  of an individual."
> 
> This has one very important principle - the importance of reputation, if  I am thought to be a person on business with a bad reputation, fewer  people will want to deal with me - this is the economic incentive to do  what I say I will do. Thus, anyone who harms my reputation, does me  harm. But Rothbard can't go there because if he did, he would have to  allow that I have an economic interest or an ownership interest in my  reputation, and my economic competitors have an interest in destroying  my reputation, as I have an interest in destroying theirs. In the  current legal framework, the concept of libel, keeps this in check.
> 
> However, Rothbard can't allow to have the concept of libel in his  anarchist society - http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
> "Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own  head; he  also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it.  He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows  it to be false, and to print and sell that statement." Rothbard then  goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in  an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all.
> 
> So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets
> 
> There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that  need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything  other than academic interest.


Firstly, I must admit that I disagree with Rothbard and Block and Hoppe on some things.  If you look through my post history you'll find that I never blindly direct people to read these authors, and will argue the philosophical, political, legal, or pragmatic issues with my own thoughts and deductions.

Second, there is no contradiction in Rothbard here: he very clearly states that no one owns their reputation, but that a "reputation" is an opinion that someone else owns about you.  You can certainly try to improve your reputation and defend it from attacks, but when he says that there is no legal basis for libel he means that person A's spreading of information about B is either true and should rightly be disseminated, or it is false and person B can demonstrate it's falsity, or person A will quickly erode their own reputation for honesty.  Especially today when information is cheap and widely disseminated there would be little risk of libel permanently effecting one's earning potential.  And even if it could, why should a business owner expect a communally supported legal system to defend his from these charges?  Couldn't "Libel Insurance" develop to protect income streams and work to counteract untrue attacks?

This brings me to my third and central point, that in a anarchic or volutaryist or ancap system you'd be free to join a legal association/govt that forbids their members from disseminating libel, and seeks to justly recover from those non-members who libel the members.  They would only be restricted by what the body of non-members found to be unjust - and they would quickly reach an equilibrium that represented the point at which the quality and cost of protection against libel truly reflected what their members were willing to pay for, and at which non-members were satisfied that the rules were being applied justly.

Rothbard fleetingly wrote what he thought the "perfect libertarian law" should be.  He had some good insights, and some things that I don't think are right.  But that shouldn't stop you from embracing your own reasoned version of a political philosophy (and if you've followed discussions on mises.org, or here, or elsewhere, you'd know that Rothbard is venerated, but only a few people take what he wrote as infallible dogmatic gospel).  I wouldn't let Hillary Clinton's musing about the role of a state dissuade me from considering other arguments in favor of a state, so I ask that you don't say "You see, this one guy wasn't perfect, therefore you're all wrong."

I hope that didn't just sound like crickets to you.

----------


## Travlyr

> This brings me to my third and central point, that in a anarchic or volutaryist or ancap system you'd be free to join a legal association/govt that forbids their members from disseminating libel, and seeks to justly recover from those non-members who libel the members.


A couple of questions.
At what age, or qualifications, would one be able to join society? Would his/her parents be able to bind the children to a society?In a modern day state, a 160 acre farm is 1/4 section bounded by property pins surveyed and recorded by deed in the County Clerk's office. How would an anarchic society improve on that model?

----------


## brushfire

> Interesting.  Jefferson believed that "throwing it away" was well within reason when government became tyrannical.  "..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, *it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.*.."





> Jefferson elucidated a fundamental, eternal truth with the statement, "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".  It is at the completion of that sentence where minarchists and anarchists part ways.  Minarchists believe that government is necessary to secure those unalienable, God- (or natural) given rights.  Anarchists believe that government is detrimental to those rights.  Government is by definition, then, an unnatural or man-made creation; and thus my opposition to it.  God/nature did not create government to secure the rights with which He/it endowed us - man did, out of fear and collectivism.


IMO - Jeffersons actions didnt always align with some of his words.  He played many roles in government throughout his life, and held quite a few offices.  His participation as a founding father, his holding of multiple offices, and executive actions that were anything but laissez faire, all somewhat contradict the "Jeffersonian Anarchist" picture that I've seen painted.

To put more precision on my remark about "cleaning house", though.  I was not trying to put words in Jefferson's mouth, you actually caught me being lazy in that post... What I was really trying to say is that the structure of our government is such that it would be under the people's control for as long as possible.  It is my opinion that we can change rather than abolish.  _Although, as the governed, either option would be within our right..._
I agree with Ron Paul in that we took a wrong turn when we started to deviate from the constitution.  I hold the belief that there's still enough for us to salvage, even if that is just the constitution itself.

----------


## Travlyr

> My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made.
> So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets
> 
> There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything  other than academic interest.


Crickets? That's all I hear tonight.

----------


## Pericles

> Firstly, I must admit that I disagree with Rothbard and Block and Hoppe on some things.  If you look through my post history you'll find that I never blindly direct people to read these authors, and will argue the philosophical, political, legal, or pragmatic issues with my own thoughts and deductions.
> 
> Second, there is no contradiction in Rothbard here: he very clearly states that no one owns their reputation, but that a "reputation" is an opinion that someone else owns about you.  You can certainly try to improve your reputation and defend it from attacks, but when he says that there is no legal basis for libel he means that person A's spreading of information about B is either true and should rightly be disseminated, or it is false and person B can demonstrate it's falsity, or person A will quickly erode their own reputation for honesty.  Especially today when information is cheap and widely disseminated there would be little risk of libel permanently effecting one's earning potential.  And even if it could, why should a business owner expect a communally supported legal system to defend his from these charges?  Couldn't "Libel Insurance" develop to protect income streams and work to counteract untrue attacks?
> 
> This brings me to my third and central point, that in a anarchic or volutaryist or ancap system you'd be free to join a legal association/govt that forbids their members from disseminating libel, and seeks to justly recover from those non-members who libel the members.  They would only be restricted by what the body of non-members found to be unjust - and they would quickly reach an equilibrium that represented the point at which the quality and cost of protection against libel truly reflected what their members were willing to pay for, and at which non-members were satisfied that the rules were being applied justly.
> 
> Rothbard fleetingly wrote what he thought the "perfect libertarian law" should be.  He had some good insights, and some things that I don't think are right.  But that shouldn't stop you from embracing your own reasoned version of a political philosophy (and if you've followed discussions on mises.org, or here, or elsewhere, you'd know that Rothbard is venerated, but only a few people take what he wrote as infallible dogmatic gospel).  I wouldn't let Hillary Clinton's musing about the role of a state dissuade me from considering other arguments in favor of a state, so I ask that you don't say "You see, this one guy wasn't perfect, therefore you're all wrong."
> 
> I hope that didn't just sound like crickets to you.


I would note that you didn't address the point made in the first essay of Rothbard I linked in how reputation was the key to causing people to honor contracts and keep agreements because of the disincentive of a bad reputation. Point being that is good reputation is valuable to me so that I can function as a member of the society at a lower transaction cost than someone with a bad reputation. Thus a good reputation has economic value, and to -rep as an act to harm a competitor is doing actual harm.

Rothbard can't have it both ways. This then plays into his arbitration and dispute mechanism. A player who is trying to harm a competitor has no reason to agree to any form of dispute resolution. This is ultimately the problem, because efficient competitive markets depend on the lowest possible barriers to entry. A well established supplier of a good or service has every incentive to libel a competitor when there is no penalty for doing so, thereby raising an artificial barrier for a new entrant into the market. Libel operates as some means of restraint on this behavior by making it possible to impose a cost on a market participant who provides untruthful information intentionally.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I would note that you didn't address the point made in the first essay of Rothbard I linked in how reputation was the key to causing people to honor contracts and keep agreements because of the disincentive of a bad reputation. Point being that is good reputation is valuable to me so that I can function as a member of the society at a lower transaction cost than someone with a bad reputation. Thus a good reputation has economic value, and to -rep as an act to harm a competitor is doing actual harm.
> 
> Rothbard can't have it both ways. This then plays into his arbitration and dispute mechanism. A player who is trying to harm a competitor has no reason to agree to any form of dispute resolution. This is ultimately the problem, because efficient competitive markets depend on the lowest possible barriers to entry. A well established supplier of a good or service has every incentive to libel a competitor when there is no penalty for doing so, thereby raising an artificial barrier for a new entrant into the market. *Libel operates as some means of restraint on this behavior by making it possible to impose a cost on a market participant who provides untruthful information intentionally.*


 Technically yes.  But this disadvantage doesn't negate the other advantages the new market entrant has.  Plus, libel is an exercise of free speech.  It's not a very civil use of it, but that's not the issue.  You seem to be reducing a dynamic, real life situation to a 2-dimensional model.  It just doesn't work like this in real life.  The new market entrant, if competent, will have anticipated libel and so forth beforehand and prepared his business plan/model accordingly.

----------


## Kade

> Irrelevant.  Hitler had some pretty snappy quotes too.  Doesn't absolve these guys of their basic philosophies i.e. advocate of eugenics; socialism - which is in oppositon to my own.
> 
> Stop attacking.  It isn't becoming.


Russell's discourse on eugenics is one of the most complicated and convoluted misconceptions in the 20th century, and I'm well aware of the ridiculous sources you are gathering this from...

Your understanding of what socialism is, is so utterly flawed, it may not even be worth discussing it with you. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it would be humbling and honorable if you were to admit as much. I wouldn't even worry though, you join many on here in this level of comprehension.

----------


## mtj458

Haven't read through the whole thread of course, but here's my two cents:

I'm a minarchist and I find anarchy largely impractical.  Morally, I agree 100% with anarchists, but I don't hold morals as an absolute important thing.  I'm willing to live in a society where the government provides some services, and I think 99% of all people are too.  And yes, those services would clearly be provided through force and coercion.

But where I disagree with anarchists would not be where the OP says-  I support complete free trade, and open borders as an extension of my free trade stance.  I just don't see an anarchist economy dealing with public goods problems efficiently.  I think private law would work better than most people think, but I think it would be far less efficient than what I have now in America.  I disagree that an anarchist society would provide solid infrastructure such as roads.  Again, it would be better than the average person thinks it would be under anarchy, but I think the government would provide it better.

And finally my main complaint- I'm nearly certain an anarchist society would be overrun by another government.  You can give me 100 reasons why I'm wrong in theory, but if I was actually wrong, wouldn't we live in an anarchist society right now?  The world wasn't created with governments.  Originally we had anarchy and governments arose.  I can't see why that wouldn't happen again over time.  Just think of our own country's foreign policy- governments don't need a well thought out reason to invade another land.

Still, I mostly agree with anarchists and I definitely don't have a problem with them.  I've learned a lot about economics and philosophy from them.  I think associating with anarchists is probably not a good way to gain support for a minarchist society though.

----------


## Kade

> Haven't read through the whole thread of course, but here's my two cents:
> 
> I'm a minarchist and I find anarchy largely impractical.  Morally, I agree 100% with anarchists, but I don't hold morals as an absolute important thing.  I'm willing to live in a society where the government provides some services, and I think 99% of all people are too.  And yes, those services would clearly be provided through force and coercion.


So beautiful. I love that such a small majority, who are often responsible for the largest philosophical reductionism in liberty, happen to believe that their worldview should be imposed on the rest of us... Anarchists represents the world's only known case of Individualist tyranny over the collective.  

I wish they were better arguing for individual rights, but alas, the waiter at IHOP the other day did a better job of defending why he shouldn't be taxed on his tips. 

I do love this country.

----------


## mtj458

> So beautiful. I love that such a small majority, who are often responsible for the largest philosophical reductionism in liberty, happen to believe that their worldview should be imposed on the rest of us... Anarchists represents the world's only known case of Individualist tyranny over the collective.  
> 
> I wish they were better arguing for individual rights, but alas, the waiter at IHOP the other day did a better job of defending why he shouldn't be taxed on his tips. 
> 
> I do love this country.


But isn't your view that a much smaller minority should impose their worldview on the rest of us? Keep thinking that everyone who's not an anarchist must be pure evil, I'm sure that will win the naysayers over eventually.

And by the way, I don't think tipsshould be taxed.  I'd bet there a lot of people are not anarchists that don't think tips should be taxed

----------


## Kade

> But isn't your view that a much smaller minority should impose their worldview on the rest of us? Keep thinking that everyone who's not an anarchist must be pure evil, I'm sure that will win the naysayers over eventually.
> 
> And by the way, I don't think tipsshould be taxed.  I'd bet there a lot of people are not anarchists that don't think tips should be taxed


Not my view at all. I am only arguing that people are not very good at defending their rights, rationally. Just yesterday I got in a minor debate with someone here who squarely thought Freedom of Speech was only that in regards to the Constitution and how that speech affects government. I can defend Freedom of Thought from any group, organization, authority, etc. 

In case you didn't read my post, I was agreeing with you.

----------


## Kade

> My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to  authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made.


This annoys the living hell out of me... especially because I then go and read the links, to give them proper respect, and I'm disappointed greatly. People cannot make their own arguments in these debates, and really that is all I'm asking. 

People need to think for themselves more.

----------


## mtj458

> Not my view at all. I am only arguing that people are not very good at defending their rights, rationally. Just yesterday I got in a minor debate with someone here who squarely thought Freedom of Speech was only that in regards to the Constitution and how that speech affects government. I can defend Freedom of Thought from any group, organization, authority, etc. 
> 
> In case you didn't read my post, I was agreeing with you.


My fault, I thought you were being sarcastic

----------


## Deborah K

> Russell's discourse on eugenics is one of the most complicated and convoluted misconceptions in the 20th century, and I'm well aware of the ridiculous sources you are gathering this from...
> 
> Your understanding of what socialism is, is so utterly flawed, it may not even be worth discussing it with you. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it would be humbling and honorable if you were to admit as much. I wouldn't even worry though, you join many on here in this level of comprehension.


Then I am in good company because most on this forum reject the idea of eugenics and socialism.  Your need to belittle and insult is a reflection of your inability to argue an issue with fact.  If you are a socialist or an apologist for it, say it outright and explain your position with civility instead of hiding behind vitriol.

----------


## mczerone

> I would note that you didn't address the point made in the first essay of Rothbard I linked in how reputation was the key to causing people to honor contracts and keep agreements because of the disincentive of a bad reputation. Point being that is good reputation is valuable to me so that I can function as a member of the society at a lower transaction cost than someone with a bad reputation. Thus a good reputation has economic value, and to -rep as an act to harm a competitor is doing actual harm.
> 
> Rothbard can't have it both ways. This then plays into his arbitration and dispute mechanism. A player who is trying to harm a competitor has no reason to agree to any form of dispute resolution. This is ultimately the problem, because efficient competitive markets depend on the lowest possible barriers to entry. A well established supplier of a good or service has every incentive to libel a competitor when there is no penalty for doing so, thereby raising an artificial barrier for a new entrant into the market. Libel operates as some means of restraint on this behavior by making it possible to impose a cost on a market participant who provides untruthful information intentionally.


I did address this.  Your reputation (an opinion about you in other people's heads) is highly valuable to you, and you will work to improve it by any means possible, such as honoring your promises and contracts, and being generous and jovial.  But you don't own your reputation.

And further, I said that private law may indeed allow some form of libel that is determined by market factors and other law firms ensuring justice for non-members.

I really don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

----------


## mczerone

> Crickets? That's all I hear tonight.


Umm... two other lengthy posts had already responded to the "crickets" thing.  Are we on your ignore list or are you just not paying attention?

----------


## Travlyr

> Umm... two other lengthy posts had already responded to the "crickets" thing.  Are we on your ignore list or are you just not paying attention?


No, I don't have anybody on ignore.
I was hoping for a response to these two questions in part because landowners across America will want to know how anarchists plan to handle property rights before they join the philosophy.




> A couple of questions.
> At what age, or qualifications, would one be able to join society? Would his/her parents be able to bind the children to a society?In a modern day state, a 160 acre farm is 1/4 section bounded by property pins surveyed and recorded by deed in the County Clerk's office. How would an anarchic society improve on that model?


What say you?

----------


## mczerone

> Not my view at all. I am only arguing that people are not very good at defending their rights, rationally. Just yesterday I got in a minor debate with someone here who squarely thought Freedom of Speech was only that in regards to the Constitution and how that speech affects government. I can defend Freedom of Thought from any group, organization, authority, etc. 
> 
> In case you didn't read my post, I was agreeing with you.


If your oil changes aren't provided by the govt, you'll have to change your own oil in your car!!!!11!!! 

Just because there isn't a single monopoly "rights defender" doesn't mean that each poor soul who doesn't know anything about comparative ethics is left defending their own rights in the face of slick rights-abusers.  A division of labor and structure of production will develop so that (1) people will have some rational basis to actually have some idea of what rights are - because then they aren't just taken for granted, and (2) those firms which best protect rights will become the standard provider of protection.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So beautiful. I love that such a small majority, who are often responsible for the largest philosophical reductionism in liberty, happen to believe that their worldview should be imposed on the rest of us... Anarchists represents the world's only known case of Individualist tyranny over the collective.  
> 
> I wish they were better arguing for individual rights, but alas, the waiter at IHOP the other day did a better job of defending why he shouldn't be taxed on his tips. 
> 
> I do love this country.


Uh, what?  Anarchists would impose their world view on society?  

That's some funny stuff, right there.

----------


## Kade

> Uh, what?  Anarchists would impose their world view on society?  
> 
> That's some funny stuff, right there.


It is... because it is so blatantly antithetical to their goals.

----------


## Kade

> Then I am in good company because most on this forum reject the idea of eugenics and socialism.  Your need to belittle and insult is a reflection of your inability to argue an issue with fact.  If you are a socialist or an apologist for it, say it outright and explain your position with civility instead of hiding behind vitriol.


I don't hide my positions. I have to defend myself constantly from the YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!!! DIE DIE DIE type of comments. My positions have always, ALWAYS been misconstrued, even though they remain in writing for all to read. 

You did it again, btw. 


> Then I am in good company because most on this forum reject the idea of eugenics and socialism


 is entirely irrelevant to what I said.... namely, that you don't understand socialism, and have no right throw it out as an insult to anyone until you do, and that Russell's views on eugenics are misinterpreted. Your sentence still does not acknowledge that you understand those points. All you are saying is: "This is what I heard, and I disagree with that."

An equivalent argument: "You think Hitler was good for Germany, obviously you are wrong. I win"

Not fun.

----------


## Kade

> If your oil changes aren't provided by the govt, you'll have to change your own oil in your car!!!!11!!! 
> 
> Just because there isn't a single monopoly "rights defender" doesn't mean that each poor soul who doesn't know anything about comparative ethics is left defending their own rights in the face of slick rights-abusers.  A division of labor and structure of production will develop so that (1) people will have some rational basis to actually have some idea of what rights are - because then they aren't just taken for granted, and (2) those firms which best protect rights will become the standard provider of protection.


Brilliant. Do these "A division of labor and structure of production" outfits follow along the same lines as the Wal-mart training courses? I heard there is some really good civil discourse in those things.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't hide my positions. I have to defend myself constantly from the YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!!! DIE DIE DIE type of comments. My positions have always, ALWAYS been misconstrued, even though they remain in writing for all to read. 
> 
> You did it again, btw.  is entirely irrelevant to what I said.... namely, that you don't understand socialism, and have no right throw it out as an insult to anyone until you do, and that Russell's views on eugenics are misinterpreted. Your sentence still does not acknowledge that you understand those points. All you are saying is: "This is what I heard, and I disagree with that."
> 
> An equivalent argument: "You think Hitler was good for Germany, obviously you are wrong. I win"
> 
> Not fun.


Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument, Kade.  Boring.  Yawn.  You do this sort of thing to  most everyone with whom you disagree.  Debating without requiring the use of direct ad hominem attacks, requires a  certain level of maturity.   

I don't have to prove the extent of my knowledge of Russell's advocation of eugenics - his own words do that.  Nor do I have to prove my knowledge of socialism.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that it is a collectivist philosophy.  You are in the minority around here on this one, bud.  Be careful where you go with this, especially here, right now, with Ron Paul's name on this site.

----------


## Wesker1982

> My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to  authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made.


Maybe you aren't aware, or maybe you are pretending not to notice. But there are a couple of long threads where multiple Voluntaryists answer questions just like the one you asked (no questions left unanswered). If you would have asked the exact same question in one of those long threads, someone would have answered it. Fwiw, I have never seen you ask that question.

When the same or similar basic objections are raised multiple times, and people act like they were never answered (this doesn't mean they have to agree), it makes more sense to link a book than to put lot of time in to another post.





> So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray?


I think there is a distinction to be made between a business who has a reputation of  consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction vs someone defaming another for no reason. The reputation of a business (including courts) could have evidence of good reputation by being successful. Defaming someone with no evidence would not be seen as equally accurate.

People might not pay much attention to people who randomly try to defame another's reputation (without evidence), but the reputation of a business can be proven by it's success or failure. 

It is possible for people disregard attacks on someone's character (for the reasons Rothbard points out), while simultaneously viewing the reputation of an established business as a reliable indicator of the accuracy of reputation.




> For in that libertarian society since everyone would know that false stories are legal, *there would be far more skepticism on the part of the reading or listening public, who would insist on far more proof and believe fewer derogatory stories than they do now.*


So by saying: "Rothbard then goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all."

You are setting up a strawman. He does not say no one will pay attention to reputation at all. He (correctly imo) concludes that proof of the stated claims would be an important factor.


Edit: There is also a good chance that a reputation rating market would rise. It would be in their best interest to guarantee the accuracy and reliability of the reputation ratings they give out. For corrupt and evil reputation rating companies, the refutation for the criminal private courts objection applies. (in other words, that criticism has been answered so don't be surprised if no one wants to write a long post about it).

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It is... because it is so blatantly antithetical to their goals.


Firstly, government is an agency with power only because individuals acquiesce to that power; so an anarchist's first goal must be education - convincing enough people that government is inherently immoral and unjust.  

Secondly, even if anarchists somehow were able to "impose" a stateless society, is it really accurate to describe the act of denying others access to the agency of coercive violence, "tyrrany"?

----------


## Wesker1982

> I was hoping for a response to these two questions in part because landowners across America will want to know how anarchists plan to handle property rights before they join the philosophy.


The question is asked in a centralized framework. A lot of your questions are assuming that everything will be done the same way between the West Coast and the East coast, along with everything in between. An important thing to remember is decentralization. A commune in some forest in Oregon would probably have different ways of dealing with land ownership than a Libertarian city in Nevada. 




> A couple of questions.
> At what age, or qualifications, would one be able to join society? Would his/her parents be able to bind the children to a society?In a modern day state, a 160 acre farm is 1/4 section bounded by property pins surveyed and recorded by deed in the County Clerk's office. How would an anarchic society improve on that model?


1. Think decentralized. 
2. The market is the best way to find out

----------


## Pericles

> I did address this.  Your reputation (an opinion about you in other people's heads) is highly valuable to you, and you will work to improve it by any means possible, such as honoring your promises and contracts, and being generous and jovial.  But you don't own your reputation.
> 
> And further, I said that private law may indeed allow some form of libel that is determined by market factors and other law firms ensuring justice for non-members.
> 
> I really don't understand what it is that you don't understand.


Rothbard can't argue on one hand that reputation is important in maintaining a type of self enforcing mechanism for an anarchy based society, and then when asked about the necessity for libel laws in such a society in order to keep the players honest, state that there can't be such a concept as libel in an anarchy based society because nobody really pays any attention to reputation because everybody knows that everybody lies about others.

So - either reputation is important, and spreading untruth about me does me economic harm because it makes others less likely to enter into agreements with me, or forces me to incur increased cost of performance insurance and such. Interestingly, one of Rothbard's arguments against libel laws is that they work to protect those with a large amount of economic resources better than those without, which is true for any arbitration or private security or any other privately run 3rd party service.

----------


## Pericles

> So by saying: "Rothbard then goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all."
> 
> You are setting up a strawman. He does not say no one will pay attention to reputation at all. He (correctly imo) concludes that proof of the stated claims would be an important factor.


Quoting Murray:

"Hence, the reputations of poorer or less wealthy persons are liable to  suffer more now, when libel is outlawed, then they would if libel were  legitimate. For in that libertarian society since everyone would know  that false stories are legal, there would be far more skepticism on the  part of the reading or listening public, who would insist on far more  proof and believe fewer derogatory stories than they do now."

I submit it is just the opposite, particularly for a businessman. As a new entry to an established market, my competitor have every incentive to libel me in order to prevent competition.

----------


## mczerone

> Rothbard can't argue on one hand that reputation is important in maintaining a type of self enforcing mechanism for an anarchy based society, and then when asked about the necessity for libel laws in such a society in order to keep the players honest, *state that there can't be such a concept as libel in an anarchy based society because nobody really pays any attention to reputation because everybody knows that everybody lies about others.
> *
> So - either reputation is important, and spreading untruth about me does me economic harm because it makes others less likely to enter into agreements with me, or forces me to incur increased cost of performance insurance and such. Interestingly, one of Rothbard's arguments against libel laws is that they work to protect those with a large amount of economic resources better than those without, which is true for any arbitration or private security or any other privately run 3rd party service.


Are you arguing with me or Rothbard?

And I think your misunderstanding is bolded.  Libel laws aren't the only mechanism to keep players honest, and in fact may do more harm than good (another argument for free-law: we could actually compare which systems work the best through trying them out).  Also can you link to Rothbard saying that "nobody really pays attention to reputation"?  I don't think that was even mentioned in his argument against the ethics of libel laws, you seem to have made that up to force a contradiction.

A couple of other points: "pure economic harm" is not recognized as a proper basis in today's civil courts anyway, some other cause of action is needed and an explicit harm is needed for to show damages.  And how do you know that "any arbitration or private security [or other] 3rd party service" protect the rich more than the poor?  This is a statement that needs some proof, and it seems to me that helping the 90% poorest people is a more profitable market than helping the 10% richest.  But when there is a protected monopoly, THEN it is a certainty that the richest get the best treatment, and the poorest are left wanting.

----------


## Wesker1982

> As a new entry to an established market, my competitor have every incentive to libel me in order to prevent competition.


You are ignoring and disincentives and the risks the competitor would be taking. A business (on a freed market) becomes successful by satisfying consumer demand, not by cheating people and being dishonest.

It would be a greater risk to lose a large part of their consumer base by being dishonest than it would be to allow you to compete. 

People could also boycott business that do not submit themselves to a reputation rating granted by a reputable reputation agency. A business who tries to destroy another business by being dishonest would be taking a great risk in their reputation rating, the risk would be greater than allowing competition.

----------


## mczerone

> Quoting Murray:
> 
> "Hence, the reputations of poorer or less wealthy persons are liable to  suffer more now, when libel is outlawed, then they would if libel were  legitimate. For in that libertarian society since everyone would know  that false stories are legal, there would be far more skepticism on the  part of the reading or listening public, who would insist on far more  proof and believe fewer derogatory stories than they do now."
> 
> I submit it is just the opposite, particularly for a businessman. As a new entry to an established market, my competitor have every incentive to libel me in order to prevent competition.


So you're imputing to Rothbard your disagreement with his conclusions?  Why would an established businessman go out of his way to lie about you, and risk his own reputation?  And if he did, why would you turn to a socialized (everyone pays, you get the benefit) legal system to punish him or extract some theoretical lost profits?  Why could you not turn to your business endorsement bureau to investigate the charges and issue a statement which exposes the lie?

And the quote that you pulled from Rothbard says that people who know that lying may be used will be more skeptical to believe claims, not that people will have less incentive to lie.  Disagreeing with the quote you pulled would be to claim _that without liable laws people would be more gullible_, a claim that sounds quite absurd, and is totally unrelated to your claim to the incentives given to the liar (which the quote 100% agrees with, btw, that there would be more incentive to lie).

----------


## Travlyr

> The question is asked in a centralized framework. A lot of your questions are assuming that everything will be done the same way between the West Coast and the East coast, along with everything in between. An important thing to remember is decentralization. A commune in some forest in Oregon would probably have different ways of dealing with land ownership than a Libertarian city in Nevada. 
> 
> 
> 1. Think decentralized. 
> 2. The market is the best way to find out


I understand what you are saying because I've spent quite a bit of time reading anarchist material. However, that's a tough sell to most people. I seriously doubt any land owners will find interest in vague _(it could be this way or it could be that way)_ solutions. I know I'm not. I like the county clerk recording procedures as they are.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I understand what you are saying because I've spent quite a bit of time reading anarchist material. *However, that's a tough sell to most people.* I seriously doubt any land owners will find interest in vague _(it could be this way or it could be that way)_ solutions. I know I'm not. I like the county clerk recording procedures as they are.


So is Constitutionalism.   You're just making excuses, I say!

----------


## Travlyr

> So is Constitutionalism.   You're just making excuses, I say!


Ha.. ha... you guys are NOT taking me to the dark side... I refuse to go!
 Constitutionalism FTW!

----------


## Pericles

> You are ignoring and disincentives and the risks the competitor would be taking. A business (on a freed market) becomes successful by satisfying consumer demand, not by cheating people and being dishonest.
> 
> It would be a greater risk to lose a large part of their consumer base by being dishonest than it would be to allow you to compete. 
> 
> People could also boycott business that do not submit themselves to a reputation rating granted by a reputable reputation agency. A business who tries to destroy another business by being dishonest would be taking a great risk in their reputation rating, the risk would be greater than allowing competition.


How is Netscape doing vis a vis Internet Explorer? And that was with the current legal framework in place. How much better would the browser market be without that framework? Focus on the libel red herring is ignoring the underlying economic basis - a real free market has the lowest possible barriers to entry. A monopoly or oligopily has a big advantage over new entrants to the market, and the fewer restrictions on the type of competition allowed, the greater the possibility that the most efficient supplier does not win.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ha.. ha... you guys are NOT taking me to the dark side... I refuse to go!
> *Constitutionalism FTW!*


 How's that worked out for you the last 200 years?  /end ramble (ETA...come to the dark side, Travlyr...we have cookies  )

----------


## Travlyr

> How's that worked out for you the last 200 years?  /end ramble


The first 100 years or so in America was a lot better for my ancestors than their mother country. About the time Salmon P. Chase rose to power things started going down hill and have been getting worse ever since.

The Ron Paul r3VOLution is still growing, so I'm hopeful that the citizens will soon force our rulers to rule once again by law. 
Honest Sound Money FTW!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Honest Sound Money FTW!


 qft.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I understand what you are saying because I've spent quite a bit of time reading anarchist material. However, that's a tough sell to most people. I seriously doubt any land owners will find interest in vague _(it could be this way or it could be that way)_ solutions. I know I'm not. I like the county clerk recording procedures as they are.


There is a good chance the freed market model would be similar to what you like. The market is better at finding the answers to these questions than any one person could. That is the point of advocating a free market. 

It is a tough sell to most people just as free market anything is (healthcare etc). This is because most people are economically ignorant.

You should know what I mean if you have ever tried to tell a socialist that healthcare should be privatized. How much will this cost? Who will regulate that? What about greedy hospitals? How will the poor afford it? What about monopolies only serving the uber rich? etc etc. 

If the State were to be abolished through peaceful means (education and persuasion), then most currently owned property would probably be respected.

It is important to understand that customs and traditions of the people who compose the majority of a certain geographical area will determine how things are governed, with or without a State. That isn't to say that there are no theories on land ownership though (there is a lot of literature on in, just in case you didn't know). Imo it would be as simple as demand for property claim verification leading to a market for it. Entrepreneurs would satisfy this demand.

If the State were abolished because we first had a successful education campaign which resulted in a true minarchy then to pure statelessness, then this would mean enough people were educated to understand the free market on at least some level and respect property rights, so I don't think there would be much trouble with land rights. If we ever get to a minarchy, people won't have a problem with the answer "let the market find out".

----------


## Bryan

To the OP- the reason for the issue, IMO, is that when someone claims to be for anarchy, they generally don't specify the jurisdiction for which they speak. The general public will hear this as "you don't want me to have a government" -- and in fact, this is a tyrannical position to take- to force people to not be able to self-organize.

If someone said "You're welcome to have a government/state but I want to live some place without one" - that is an entirely different position,and there is nothing tyrannical about that.

Anarchists aren't typically clear on which of these two they are talking about- and the difference is like night and day.

Here's a few examples from this thread:




> I don't even beleive in home owner's associations because they limit property rights..., but otherwise being anti-State and voluntaryist pretty much qualifies you as anaanrchist...


By saying you don't believe in home owner's associations, you are saying you wouldn't ever join one, or are you saying they shouldn't exist? ... and when you say anti-state, do you mean you would never want to be a part of a state, or are you saying they shouldn't exist?




> Then again we're also debating protectionism versus free trade elsewhere, and you support protectionism; so you operate under a lot of false notions.


How is it that someone who supports protectionism has false notions? Is it OK for them to be protectionist for a jurisdiction that doesn't effect you?


BTW, I still have an open challenge to anyone supporting an absolute anti-state, open border position- after 150+ posts I don't see an argument that hasn't been refuted:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ers-supporters

----------


## Sentient Void

> Ha.. ha... you guys are NOT taking me to the dark side... I refuse to go!
>  Constitutionalism FTW!


Haha - we *will* get you, Travlyr. Sooner or later...

Your Stockholm Syndrome to the State is slowwwwly dwindling... I can see it 

Have you read 'For a new Liberty' by Rothbard yet? That's the one that did it for me. That and Spooner's 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority'.

----------


## Travlyr

> Haha - we *will* get you, Travlyr. Sooner or later...
> 
> Your Stockholm Syndrome to the State is slowwwwly dwindling... I can see it 
> 
> Have you read 'For a new Liberty' by Rothbard yet? That's the one that did it for me. That and Spooner's 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority'.


Heh.. heh... don't hold your breath.  
My son has already joined your side, and I'm working hard to bring him to his senses... lolz... but he is as stubborn as most of you lost souls. 

I've already read 'No Treason' ... that didn't do it. When I  finish 'For A New Liberty' I'll let you know. Rothbard is one of my favorite writers.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Heh.. heh... don't hold your breath.  
> My son has already joined your side, and I'm working hard to bring him to his senses... lolz... but he is as stubborn as most of you lost souls. 
> 
> I've already read 'No Treason' ... that didn't do it. When I  finish 'For A New Liberty' I'll let you know. Rothbard is one of my favorite writers.


How old is your son? How old are you? Just wondering

----------


## emazur

Actually, I've found many (certainly not all) anarchists on this board to be the ones who are anti-everyone else.  I'm not gonna name names, but there are too many anarchists here who take a big $#@! on just about every thread they participate in, and drive people away from Ron Paul or these forums.  I remember one of my earliest posts here was in a thread about the roads, and I said something like "I think the government can have a positive role in owning or creating roads" and some $#@! replied something like "It doesn't matter what you 'think' ".  My theory is that there's a vocal minority of rude anarchists out there that do nothing but create blowback for the things they say, and this generates the anti-anarchist resentment you're talking about and creates divisiveness amongst the liberty community.  Before making a statement, everyone - anarchist or not, would do well to think "what would Ron Paul say?" (or to be more precise, HOW would Ron Paul say it?).  Although I'm minarchist, I don't dislike anarchists, just the constantly rude ones.  Hell, if I was President and a bunch of anarchists wanted to buy up some land to form their own anarchist state and secede from the U.S. government's jurisdiction, I'd be happy to help facilitate that.

----------


## osan

> Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system


Precisely.

----------


## osan

> ...Truffle Shuffle my way down Central Avenue.


Phoenix?

----------


## Travlyr

> A couple of questions.
> At what age, or qualifications, would one be able to join society? Would his/her parents be able to bind the children to a society?In a modern day state, a 160 acre farm is 1/4 section bounded by property pins surveyed and recorded by deed in the County Clerk's office. How would an anarchic society improve on that model?


Still hearing crickets tonight ....

Wesker did give it an honest effort, but somehow I think that landowners across America would like a more definitive plan before joining the anarchists. 



> The question is asked in a centralized framework. A lot of your questions are assuming that everything will be done the same way between the West Coast and the East coast, along with everything in between. An important thing to remember is decentralization. A commune in some forest in Oregon would probably have different ways of dealing with land ownership than a Libertarian city in Nevada.


Anybody else want to give it a go?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Still hearing crickets tonight ....
> 
> Wesker did give it an honest effort, but somehow I think that landowners across America would like a more definitive plan before joining the anarchists. 
> 
> Anybody else want to give it a go?


We all ready have historical examples of how land was to be cordoned off and published to reduce conflicts of property trespassing. 

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Read about Land Associations. Randy Barnett does very well on non-State law as well.




> These voluntary, extra-legal associations provided protection and justice without apparent violence and developed rules consistent with the preferences, goals, and endowments of the participants.

----------


## eproxy100

As a non-anarchist I don't dislike or hate the anarchists here. Most seem quite nice. I think many people, including me, dislike anarchy because we believe it's a very temporary system that quickly leads to socialism or tyranny.

There are definitely anarchists who don't actually care about RP's political chances. I saw a youtube video of this anarchist girl talking about RP as if RP was an anarchist. It really turns most regular people off from RP. That girl didn't care to listen to the fact that what she was doing was detrimental to RP.

----------


## Theocrat

> Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system


I'm sorry, but I never got my understanding of what anarchy is from the government. It is a simple term that is defined in the English language, and it has been historically and culturally understood to mean "chaos and disorder." I think you're painting a broad stroke there.

----------


## Travlyr

> My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to  authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made.
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that  need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything  other than academic interest.





> We all ready have historical examples of how land was to be cordoned off and published to reduce conflicts of property trespassing. 
> 
> http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
> 
> Read about Land Associations. Randy Barnett does very well on non-State law as well.


Thanks for the reading assignment, but it's not what I was asking. What plan do YOU think would be better than surveying property boundaries and keeping land deeds publicly recorded at the county clerk's office? 

For example, tomorrow morning you show up at my door with an offer to eliminate the State and I ask, "What about land deeds?"
What do you offer me?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm sorry, but I never got my understanding of what anarchy is from the government. It is a simple term that is defined in the English language, and it has been historically and culturally understood to mean "chaos and disorder." I think you're painting a broad stroke there.


 Like many words, anarchy has layers of meaning.  It can also mean "without a ruler". (the prefix an- meaning "without", the root word "archy" meaning "a system of rulership")  Ben Franklin himself used the word this way on occasion.  You are unfortunately underestimating the complex nuances of the English language.  This same principle applies to languages related to English, such as Russian (which features a few dozen prefixes that alter the root word, such as без-).

----------


## Wesker1982

> What plan do YOU think would be better than surveying property boundaries and keeping land deeds publicly recorded at the county clerk's office?


I don't know exactly how it works, but with the way you explained it, there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be done in virtually the same way (except it would be voluntarily funded). The service would just be provided by a private business instead of a county clerk. Something like a reputable "Land Deed Data Base" company. 




> For example, tomorrow morning you show up at my door with an offer to eliminate the State and I ask, "What about land deeds?"
> What do you offer me?


If the people (i.e. consumers) want a particular service to function a certain way, taking away the State won't change their preferences and customs. The market is the best way to find out the most efficient method to satisfying consumer demands. The market result would just be a reflection of what people wanted their county government to do, except the market would do it more efficiently.

Again, the way you are framing your question is ignoring this:




> If the State were abolished because we first had a successful education campaign which resulted in a true minarchy then to pure statelessness, then this would mean enough people were educated to understand the free market on at least some level and respect property rights, so I don't think there would be much trouble with land rights. If we ever get to a minarchy, people won't have a problem with the answer "let the market find out".


Customs, preferences, and respect for land boundaries would already be practically universally accepted in a state of minarchy (this is proven by the fact that minarchy was achieved in the first place). At this point, especially given the fact that the maximum efficiency of the market has been illustrated, consumers would demand the private production of this service.

And if we got to the point of minarchy, property boundary services would probably already be provided by the market. So the question should be equally directed at minarchists.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't know exactly how it works, but with the way you explained it, there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be done in virtually the same way (except it would be voluntarily funded). The service would just be provided by a private business instead of a county clerk. Something like a reputable "Land Deed Data Base" company. 
> 
> 
> 
> If the people (i.e. consumers) want a particular service to function a certain way, taking away the State won't change their preferences and customs. The market is the best way to find out the most efficient method to satisfying consumer demands. The market result would just be a reflection of what people wanted their county government to do, except the market would do it more efficiently.
> 
> Again, the way you are framing your question is ignoring this:
> 
> 
> ...


In other words,



> There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that  need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything  other than academic interest.

----------


## Wesker1982

Would you like to elaborate?

i.e., respond to what I said

----------


## Travlyr

> Would you like to elaborate?


Sure. This is fun stuff to discuss ... and the discussions should continue. 
Yet, before it can be seriously considered as a viable option for society, advocates must first solve the inconsistencies. And there are many.




> My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to  dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to  authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of  answering to the point being made. For example, we have this work by  Rothbard on the self enforcing nature of contracts  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html where we are  presented with some basic concepts "For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will                prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency                and impartiality." and this concept "On the other                  hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal                  possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property                  of an individual."
> 
> This has one very important principle - the importance of reputation, if  I am thought to be a person on business with a bad reputation, fewer  people will want to deal with me - this is the economic incentive to do  what I say I will do. Thus, anyone who harms my reputation, does me  harm. But Rothbard can't go there because if he did, he would have to  allow that I have an economic interest or an ownership interest in my  reputation, and my economic competitors have an interest in destroying  my reputation, as I have an interest in destroying theirs. In the  current legal framework, the concept of libel, keeps this in check.
> 
> However, Rothbard can't allow to have the concept of libel in his  anarchist society - http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
> "Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own  head; he  also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it.  He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows  it to be false, and to print and sell that statement." Rothbard then  goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in  an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all.
> 
> So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets
> 
> There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that  need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything  other than academic interest.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sure. This is fun stuff to discuss ... and the discussions should continue. 
> *Yet, before it can be seriously considered as a viable option for society, advocates must first solve the inconsistencies.* And there are many.


 For implementation on a wide scale, yes.  But anarchists can try the option on a local level with few to no problems.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Sure. This is fun stuff to discuss ... and the discussions should continue. 
> Yet, before it can be seriously considered as a viable option for society, advocates must first solve the inconsistencies. And there are many.


Anarchists do not have inconsistencies. Perhaps you should look at yourself first and ask how an expropriating property entity can at the same time steal from you and claim to protect your property and your liberty. It doesn't compute. Get back to me when you solve that one.

----------


## AceNZ

Here's my version of minarchy.  I support a government that performs only the following functions:

-- Courts (to resolve contractual disputes and to determine whether someone has committed a crime)
-- Police (a monopoly on the use of force, but only as a response to the initiation of force, not as an initiator themselves)
-- Military (protection from actual violence and credible threats of violence from outside the country)

Forcible restraint of men is really the only underlying service that government should offer.  Government is a gun.

I do not support a governmental entity that makes new laws.  The base laws should be something like a refined version of English Common Law (which itself has been refined over more than a thousand years).  All government services should be paid voluntarily or by user fees; no taxation.

So, with regard to anarchy, a few questions:

1. What would happen if there was an honest disagreement between two people (with no prior contract in place)?
2. Why is it a good thing for anyone to be able to initiate force against others?  Doesn't that naturally lead to a gang-oriented society?
3. In AnCap, what happens if one person is a customer of agency A, and another of agency B, and the two agencies disagree on some fundamental point?

----------


## Gimme Some Truth

> Because the closest example of true anarchy currently exists in the geographic region known as Somalia, and the people of Somalia aren't exactly thriving despite a completely free market in currency and trade, no taxes, and no regulations.
> 
> Anarchy works in theory but not in practice.
> 
> That being said, I'm very sympathetic to anarchism it is indeed the most principled and consistent, and because I do agree the State does more harm than any other entity in the world; but if peace and prosperity can be attained with a minimal invasion of personal liberty in the presence of a State, which is exactly what a Constitutional Republic achieves, anarchy is no longer needed nor desired.


Bad argument.

A collapsed State(Somalia) is an Anarchist society like cutting spending by 90% and shutting down the Fed within an hour is a Libertarian State. Such a Libertarian State would be completely disastrous.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Bad argument.
> 
> A collapsed State(Somalia) is an Anarchist society like cutting spending by 90% and shutting down the Fed within an hour is a Libertarian State. Such a Libertarian State would be completely disastrous.


 -1000000 for terrible grammar and logic.

----------


## Gimme Some Truth

> -1000000 for terrible grammar and logic.


The grammar was bad, yes, but the logic is fine. You're certainly free, however, to bring an actual argument to the table and enlighten me as to where my reasoning fails.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The grammar was bad, yes, but the logic is fine. You're certainly free, however, to bring an actual argument to the table and enlighten me as to where my reasoning fails.


 You claimed "A collapsed State(Somalia) is an Anarchist society like cutting spending  by 90% and shutting down the Fed within an hour is a Libertarian State.  Such a Libertarian State would be completely disastrous."  This is baseless speculation (and anarchists have produced voluminous evidence to the contrary).  When you bring an actual argument to the table yourself, I will consider it.

----------


## Vessol

I think it's incredibly important to define two terms.

Anarchism= The rejection of the State.

The State= A coercive monopoly on force within a geographic region.

Therefore, any suggestion that Somalia is somehow a anarchistic society, is a massive jump to conclusions.

Rather, it should be seen as geographic region which holds a multitude of small and tiny "States". The states being the tribes, gangs, and warlords who hold a monopoly upon force within geographical areas.

The size of a State does not matter.

No one denies Andora or the Vatican City of being governments and States and they are only a few square miles in size.

Nor does the non-recognition of a State by other States make it not a State.

Somaliland, Palastine, South Ossetia, and others are either not recognized or recognized by only a few States.

----------


## Travlyr

> Anarchists do not have inconsistencies.


Then answer the questions posed by Pericles and me.




> Perhaps you should look at yourself first and ask how an expropriating property entity can at the same time steal from you and claim to protect your property and your liberty. It doesn't compute. Get back to me when you solve that one.


I've already looked at my positions and they are consistent with liberty, peace, prosperity and justice for all using the rule of law. Freedom is not free and I find it rather silly to believe otherwise. Somebody has to pay to maintain freedom, and I am of the opinion that it is everyone's job to contribute. I've consistently advocated for taxation without penalty for those who avoid paying them. You call it stealing ... I call it shared responsibility. And I also advocate that government be as small as possible. Complete separation of state and money can accomplish that goal.

The rule of law is the best design for organizing societies ever devised by man for this imperfect world. The U.S. Constitution has its share of flaws, yet there is an amendment process. States divided into counties divided into townships with charters for cities and towns to facilitate property ownership is an orderly way to promote prosperity among the masses. I find that design quite brilliant and do not wish to destroy it.

When the anarchist rulers of our day (the diplomatic immunity crowd) counterfeiting cabal are finally forced to obey the rule of law, then legitimate governments will once again liberate most people and prosperity will be abundant. There have been plenty of atrocities in our history and they continue to this very day. However, the 21st century brings a new understanding through instant world-wide communication for people to come together and improve on the models handed to us by our ancestors.

The U.S. Constitution is to the advantage of the common man for it is the supreme law of the land. It does not protect property and liberty ... it provides a structure of law that individuals can use to demand reparations for those who defend themselves against injustice.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Travlyr: you assume that anarchists propose doing away with law.  They don't (except for a few).  As a general rule, they simply support private law.  This, unlike constitutional law, has a history of success.  "The U.S. Constitution is to the advantage of the common man for it is  the supreme law of the land. It does not protect property and liberty  ... it provides a structure of law that individuals can use to demand  reparations for those who defend themselves against injustice."  The first part here is correct-the second is not.  There are numerous instances in which the government has done injustice itself to citizens and refused them justice.

----------


## bwlibertyman

I went from the first to last page so I don't know if people have talked about this yet.

Somalia does not have a legitimate government outside of the capital.  Somalia has shown more economic growth without a state than with the state it had before.  There was a recent mises daily article about this.  http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia I would rather live in a place where I am responsible for my safety than being forced to pay for the safety of others.  I have no problem with people paying people to protect them but to be forced to pay taxes for that safety I think is wrong.

I totally buy the nap.  I haven't heard a compelling argument that people should be able to force me to do something.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Bad argument.
> 
> A collapsed State(Somalia) is an Anarchist society like cutting spending by 90% and shutting down the Fed within an hour is a Libertarian State. Such a Libertarian State would be completely disastrous.


Uh.   What???

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr: you assume that anarchists propose doing away with law.


My point is that the constitution is what we have. Overthrowing it is not something I want any part of because with all its flaws it is better than anything else people are offering, imo. The counterfeiting cabal is the cancer of our day. Forcing them to obey the law is the solution. The design of the State is a minor problem compared to the monumental problem of rulers who consider themselves above the law. See - _The Magna Carta._

----------


## Wesker1982

> Then answer the questions posed by Pericles and me.


Answers that you didn't respond to:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3370051 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3370166

and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3375979




> 1. What would happen if there was an honest disagreement between two people (with no prior contract in place)?
> 2. Why is it a good thing for anyone to be able to initiate force against others?  Doesn't that naturally lead to a gang-oriented society?
> 3. In AnCap, what happens if one person is a customer of agency A, and another of agency B, and the two agencies disagree on some fundamental point?


1. 3rd party arbitration 
2. It is not good for necessarily *anyone* (i.e., aggressors) to initiate force, only defensive force is advocated.
3. 3rd party arbitration 

Long answers: Anarcho-Capitalism Reference List
FAQ: Threads http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...cho-capitalism and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3247815 and




> Bad argument.
> 
> A collapsed State(Somalia) is an Anarchist society like cutting spending by 90% and shutting down the Fed within an hour is a Libertarian State. Such a Libertarian State would be completely disastrous.


On Somalia: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3247815

----------


## Travlyr

> Answers that you didn't respond to:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3370051 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3370166
> 
> and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3375979


Right. There were no questions asked, and I have no interest in a stateless society, so no need to spend my time at it. I like property ownership as established by the current supreme law of the land... the constitution and the subsequent republics. It is much better than what you guys are offering, imo.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

For the record I decided to ignore this thread completely because of the thread title, which basically reads "why are people who are against anarchism so against anarchism?" It'd be cool if we could get some specificity instead of some vague thread where non-anarchists just demand answers in the form of rehashed discussions that have been covered before.

----------


## Wesker1982

> There were no questions asked


Questions are not required for a response . You must have at least a _little_ interested in a voluntary society or else you wouldn't be bullying me all the time! 

I came across this rereading Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory, and I thought of you 




> _Title Registry_
> 
> In market anarchy, who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house, what guarantees does he have?
> 
> This is a complex issue, and I won’t be able to give specifics, since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community.23* I can, however, offer some general remarks.
> 
> Whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian; they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.
> 
> The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves “owner” of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More  important,competition between firms would provide true “checks and balances.” If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions.
> ...


Footnote #23 reminds me that I also thought of you when watching Milton Friedman's _Lesson of the Pencil_ video on youtube (the I, Pencil story). I thought: If pencil production was coercively monopolized and I was advocating the voluntary market organization of pencil producing, how hard would it be to have to elaborate in detail the entire production process? Yet, this is precisely what is happening when people object to voluntaryism on the basis of an inability to have psychic powers. 

Why praise the market in every other aspect of organization? If a coercive monopoly is the best at providing courts and defense, why stop there? Any cutoff point is arbitrary.  




> The crux of the economic difference between market anarchists and market minarchists is that the minarchists -- a priori -- find a market failure in the provision of law and security. Market anarchists do not. Considering that the minarchists embrace market theory in every other area, it seems they have the burden of showing why their own principles don't apply in those excepted areas. (It is significant that the first market anarchist we know of was an economist, Gustave de Molinari.) - Sheldon Richman


Also, FWIW to anyone who might be interested, Bob Murphy's _Chaos Theory_ is a great place to start when exploring voluntaryism. The main text is only 63 pages, yet it manages to be very informative.

----------


## Travlyr

> Questions are not required for a response . You must have at least a _little_ interested in a voluntary society or else you wouldn't be bullying me all the time! 
> 
> I came across this rereading Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory, and I thought of you 
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote #23 reminds me that I also thought of you when watching Milton Friedman's _Lesson of the Pencil_ video on youtube (the I, Pencil story). I thought: If pencil production was coercively monopolized and I was advocating the voluntary market organization of pencil producing, how hard would it be to have to elaborate in detail the entire production process? Yet, this is precisely what is happening when people object to voluntaryism on the basis of an inability to have psychic powers. 
> 
> Why praise the market in every other aspect of organization? If a coercive monopoly is the best at providing courts and defense, why stop there? Any cutoff point is arbitrary.  
> ...


Heh...he.. I found this in RPH's signature and find it applicable to you... 



> Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
> ~ C.Coolidge


I find the U.S. Constitution to be different than described by anarchists. It is flawed and needs amended; however, almost everyone I know believes in its value, so for me it is better to accept it and follow Ron Paul's lead to restricting our leaders to be bound by it than argue for doing away with it. I can win Ron Paul supporters that way, and that is what we need now ... critical mass. 

I always argue for laissez-faire free-market capitalism which can be achieved while respecting the supreme laws of the land. That philosophy is damn close to anarcho-capitalism, so we're really not far apart on that. 

As for this?



> The crux of the economic difference between market anarchists and market minarchists is that the minarchists -- a priori -- find a market failure in the provision of law and security. Market anarchists do not. Considering that the minarchists embrace market theory in every other area, it seems they have the burden of showing why their own principles don't apply in those excepted areas. (It is significant that the first market anarchist we know of was an economist, Gustave de Molinari.) - Sheldon Richman


Law and enforcement of law is an issue that is for the collective good. We don't need many laws ... maybe nine, or so. But legitimate laws are fairly universal and using the election process at the local level to enforce laws (county sheriff and district attorney) is a model that makes sense to me for a civilized free society. 

But more importantly, it is what we have. The burden of changing it is on those who want it changed. ... ie. Offer something better and sell it. So far, I'm not buying what you're selling.


_Hint: shy completely away from the word "anarchy" it's a tough sell._

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But more importantly, it is what we have. *The burden of changing it is on those who want it changed*. ... ie. Offer something better and sell it. So far, I'm not buying what you're selling.
> 
> 
> _Hint: shy completely away from the word "anarchy" it's a tough sell._


The burden is on the one making the positive claim (you and other Constitutionalists).

----------


## Travlyr

> The burden is on the one making the positive claim (you and other Constitutionalists).


Ha.. ha.. okay, if that's the case, then I say, "Let it be."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ha.. ha.. okay, if that's the case, then I say, "Let it be."


 That's your proof?  No wonder you fail.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Ever since I've adopted the anarchist philosophy, I've found my discussions with statists - from minarchists to socialists - to be very... curious.  Maybe some of you guys here can help me... 

I see it like this - it's kind of like Molyneux's, "How to Win Political Arguments":




By the way, cameo appearance by Adam Kokesh at around 1:05:00.  

"Am I allowed to disagree with you?"  To me, this is the essence of the anti-state position (it's another way of stating the NAP).  I'm advocating a society in which the legitimacy of this socially-sanctioned violence is rejected.  Of course, the degree to which the state may impose it's values, edicts, opinions, etc., slides up and down the scale depending upon it's size and reach, so naturally I find common ground with minarchists over socialists, abolitionists over interventionists, etc.  

But where I find difficulty is that these statists - including minarchists - at best do not recognize that they advocate the implementation of violence, or, at worst, believe that I as a consquence of my advocacy of a stateless society actually aggress against others (you can imagine the justifications... in another forum I was told that I just wanted to "let them [the old/sick/poor] die").  

I guess I'm asking of the anarchists what I'm doing wrong, and of the minarchists what in the world you're talking about!?    I'm not sure why I can't get over this mental hump...

----------


## Seraphim

It boggles my mind that people still believe that NO STRUCTURE even exists. Anarchism= fallacious fantasy that cannot exist in the real world.

It's a stupid word that defies all logic and reason.

A Stateless society based on voluntary transaction is the ANTITHESIS to anarchy. Don't tell that to a staunch Statist though...

I do understand minarchy arguments and generally agree with minarchists about 95% (if not more) of the time.

But at some point, we as a society need to start being consistent with the applications of our morals. Sadly, most do not realize the violence they rationalize through our State serving democratic process.

Thou Shalt Not Steal. Uhhh...unless of course it's for ze greta good and order!

Democracy is best left within the marketplace.

----------


## Carson

The anarchist that used to show up at the anti illegal immigration rallies had other friends show up. For one was the communist. The other was the government.

Those of us that showed up in support of law and order were on our own.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Heh...he.. I found this in RPH's signature and find it applicable to you... 
> 
> 
> I find the U.S. Constitution to be different than described by anarchists. It is flawed and needs amended; however, almost everyone I know believes in its value, so for me it is better to accept it and follow Ron Paul's lead to restricting our leaders to be bound by it than argue for doing away with it. I can win Ron Paul supporters that way, and that is what we need now ... critical mass. 
> 
> I always argue for laissez-faire free-market capitalism which can be achieved while respecting the supreme laws of the land. That philosophy is damn close to anarcho-capitalism, so we're really not far apart on that. 
> 
> As for this?
> 
> ...


The Constitution is not anywhere near close to An-Cap. Perhaps you should open the Anti-Federalist papers and start reading. The Constitution was a massive centralization of power and no one respecting libertarian or minimal statist, etc. should place as their _end goal_.

----------


## Vessol

I've come to find that most people on these boards are fine with voluntary taxes and stuff.

But when it comes to a monopoly on certain services, they close all ears. The government has a complete monopoly on tons of services; from roads, to healthcare, to property protection. The worst is the judicial system.

The only way a monopoly can be maintained is through the use of force. Force is immoral.

It's like those who advocate the use of tariffs to pay for government, because it is victim free. Well, what if I want to buy a port and let ships dock and unload their goods without enacting a government toll. What happens then? 

Two things:
A) The State lets this happens, the State then withers away as it's income(tariffs) is denied to it and more ports become tariff free.
B) The most likely case, the State either doesn't allow(with violence) someone to own a port privately or if they do, when they try to do that then they will crack down on that person, threaten them, and eventually use violence if they have to. The State does not exist upon voluntary means, it has to be funded through violence. That is the only way for it to exist. And when it feels it's existence is in danger, it reacts.

This is why the State must wither away, it's the only hope for freedom. Sadly it won't be in our generation or the generation after that. We have to start at the very bottom of where violence lies, in children. People need to stop using the language of violence upon their children and make it as foreign as Swahilli. 

As it stands now, we have this warped morality system where people believe that there should be morality, but The State is exempt from this morality. This is exactly how many parent/child relationships are like, you are instructed by your parent(The State) that you are not to do these things because they are bad, and then your parent(The State) does them. And what does the parent tell the child when they rightfully bring this up? "Because I said so." And right there, the State was extended.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've come to find that most people on these boards are fine with voluntary taxes and stuff.
> 
> But when it comes to a monopoly on certain services, they close all ears. The government has a complete monopoly on tons of services; from roads, to healthcare, to property protection. The worst is the judicial system.
> 
> The only way a monopoly can be maintained is through the use of force. Force is immoral.
> 
> It's like those who advocate the use of tariffs to pay for government, because it is victim free. Well, what if I want to buy a port and let ships dock and unload their goods without enacting a government toll. What happens then? 
> 
> Two things:
> ...


 +1000000

----------


## AceNZ

> But where I find difficulty is that these statists - including minarchists - at best do not recognize that they advocate the implementation of violence, or, at worst, believe that I as a consquence of my advocacy of a stateless society actually aggress against others (you can imagine the justifications... in another forum I was told that I just wanted to "let them [the old/sick/poor] die").


I'm a minarchist.  I'm also anti-Statist.  One issue I have with Molyneux's perspective is that he seems to associate any type of government with the right to initiate force.  I disagree.  A proper government should be forbidden from initiating force, in the same way that individuals are.  My view is that government should have a monopoly on the legal use of force, but only in response to someone who initiates (defensive), not as initiators (this doesn't mean that people can't defend themselves, but it does mean that vigilantism is not acceptable).

At the core, I think a civilized society requires some people to be restrained.  In a very narrow sense, I don't believe in 100% freedom.  Others are not free to initiate force or fraud against me, and if they do, then they should be restrained.


In addition, I don't buy the idea of third-party arbitration as an absolute solution to honest disagreements.  What if people can't agree on an arbitrator?  Also, without objective laws, how would people be able to consistently predict whether there would be a "disagreement"?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm a minarchist.  I'm also anti-Statist.  One issue I have with Molyneux's perspective is that he seems to associate any type of government with the right to initiate force.  I disagree.  A proper government should be forbidden from initiating force, in the same way that individuals are.  My view is that government should have a monopoly on the legal use of force, but only in response to someone who initiates (defensive), not as initiators (this doesn't mean that people can't defend themselves, but it does mean that vigilantism is not acceptable).
> 
> At the core, I think a civilized society requires some people to be restrained.  In a very narrow sense, I don't believe in 100% freedom.  Others are not free to initiate force or fraud against me, and if they do, then they should be restrained.
> 
> 
> In addition, I don't buy the idea of third-party arbitration as an absolute solution to honest disagreements.  What if people can't agree on an arbitrator?  Also, without objective laws, how would people be able to consistently predict whether there would be a "disagreement"?


Thanks for your response.

The idea of a state existing without the ability to intiate force is confusing to me - that defines the state, it seems to me at least.  Take the example Vessol gave, above - in order for a state to have a monopoly even on the 'legal' use of force, it must also implicitly deny (force) other individuals from competing with it, which is an immoral use of force.  

Maybe my problem is that I don't differentiate between 'government' and 'state'.  Would you flesh out what you mean by being both minarchist and anti-state?

----------


## Wesker1982

> One issue I have with Molyneux's perspective is that he seems to associate any type of government with the right to initiate force.


Molyneux does not have a problem if people want to set up a voluntary government. 




> A proper government should be forbidden from initiating force, in the same way that individuals are.


So are you making the distinction between the State and a government? You call yourself an anti-statist. Just wondering. 




> My view is that government should have a monopoly on the legal use of force, but only in response to someone who initiates (defensive), not as initiators.


Does your view only apply to people in a certain geographical area who explicitly agree to these terms with the government? 




> At the core, I think a civilized society requires some people to be restrained.


Yep. I think it is important to point out that an elected voluntary government in a certain area is a reflection of what the market outcome would be anyways.




> In a very narrow sense, I don't believe in 100% freedom. Others are not free to initiate force or fraud against me, and if they do, then they should be restrained.


100% freedom would mean that no one has been invaded. 




> And finally, as Clara Dixon Davidson pointed out so cogently many years ago, Spencer’s Law of Equal Freedom is redundant. For if every man has freedom to do all that he wills, it follows from this very premise that no man’s freedom has been infringed or invaded. The whole second clause of the law after “wills” is redundant and unnecessary. Since the formulation of Spencer’s Law, opponents of Spencer have used the qualifying clause to drive holes into the libertarian philosophy. Yet all this time they were hitting at an encumbrance, not at the essence of the law.





> The law of equal freedom, “Every one is free to do whatsoever he wills,” appears to me to be the primary condition to happiness. If I fail to add the remainder of Herbert Spencer’s celebrated law of equal freedom, I shall only risk being misinterpreted by persons who cannot understand that the opening affirmation includes what follows, since, if any one did infringe upon the freedom of another, all would not be equally free.





> What if people can't agree on an arbitrator?


They would each go to their own arbitrator and then the arbitrators would come to a decision. Reputable arbitration agencies would make decisions based on consumer demands. In other words, unless the consumers in a given area want chaos (the market would be a reflection of voter desires, anyways), then no deviant arbitration agency would ever last, or even expand in the first place.




> Also, without objective laws, how would people be able to consistently predict whether there would be a "disagreement"?


For one thing, questions like these ignore the question of: How did we get there?




> If the State were abolished because we first had a successful education campaign which resulted in a true minarchy then to pure statelessness, then this would mean enough people were educated enough to understand the free market on at least some level and respect property rights.


And I don't know of any voluntaryists who advocate a violent overthrow of the State.




> Customs, preferences, and respect for property rights would already be practically universally accepted in a state of minarchy (this is proven by the fact that minarchy was achieved in the first place).


Thus, the market would illustrate this fact. 

And as Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out:



> As the result of competition between insurers for voluntarily paying clients, a tendency toward falling prices per insured property values would come about. *At the same time, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of property and contract law would be set in motion.*



Also, if one advocates the right of the individual to secede, then imo, they are a voluntaryist:




> Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course,* if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society*, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.





> But more profoundly, would a laissez-fairist recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from that country? Is it legitimate for West Ruitania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why not? And if so, then how can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual?* Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession*, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled.

----------


## mczerone

> I'm a minarchist.  I'm also anti-Statist.  One issue I have with Molyneux's perspective is that he seems to associate any type of government with the right to initiate force.  I disagree.  A proper government should be forbidden from initiating force, in the same way that individuals are.  My view is that government should have a monopoly on the legal use of force, but only in response to someone who initiates (defensive), not as initiators (this doesn't mean that people can't defend themselves, but it does mean that vigilantism is not acceptable).
> 
> At the core, I think a civilized society requires some people to be restrained.  In a very narrow sense, I don't believe in 100% freedom.  Others are not free to initiate force or fraud against me, and if they do, then they should be restrained.
> 
> 
> In addition, I don't buy the idea of third-party arbitration as an absolute solution to honest disagreements.  What if people can't agree on an arbitrator?  Also, without objective laws, how would people be able to consistently predict whether there would be a "disagreement"?


The only "legal use of force" is defensive.  Therefore you are claiming on one hand that everyone should be able to use "legal" force (in defense of themselves or others), but OTOH that only the state can use "legal" force.

There is nothing Objective about state-made law, even though the words-on-parchment are in black and white.

----------


## AceNZ

> The idea of a state existing without the ability to intiate force is confusing to me - that defines the state, it seems to me at least.  Take the example Vessol gave, above - in order for a state to have a monopoly even on the 'legal' use of force, it must also implicitly deny (force) other individuals from competing with it, which is an immoral use of force.  
> 
> Maybe my problem is that I don't differentiate between 'government' and 'state'.  Would you flesh out what you mean by being both minarchist and anti-state?


The way I understand the terms, a State is a form of government that is enabled to initiate force; a proper government is not.

For a government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, but only in a defensive way, as I described earlier, if someone now decides to compete, let's say as a vigilante, it's really a borderline case.  The government would only step in after the vigilante had acted, so they would be reacting, not initiating, and as such, it's hard for me to see that as immoral.

The issue here is that there is a fundamental difference between defending yourself in the middle of an assault, as compared to a third party reacting to an assault after the fact.  Without limits on the latter, it's hard to see how you could have any real sense of justice on the part of those who might be wrongly accused.

----------


## Vessol

> The way I understand the terms, a State is a form of government that is enabled to initiate force; a proper government is not.
> 
> For a government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, but only in a defensive way, as I described earlier, if someone now decides to compete, let's say as a vigilante, it's really a borderline case.  The government would only step in after the vigilante had acted, so they would be reacting, not initiating, and as such, it's hard for me to see that as immoral.
> 
> The issue here is that there is a fundamental difference between defending yourself in the middle of an assault, as compared to a third party reacting to an assault after the fact.  Without limits on the latter, it's hard to see how you could have any real sense of justice on the part of those who might be wrongly accused.


And what if I want to start a company that offers protection to its clients? Or what if I don't want this "government" to protect me? How would this "government" pay its operation costs?

----------


## ProIndividual

Kade, why do you assert anarchists would impose their worldview on society? 

This is nonsense.

An anarchist wishes to NOT be part of any social contract.

A minarchist wishes to partake in a singular voluntary social contract.

A Statist wishes to make EVERYONE partake in a singular COMPULSORY social contract (usually dictated by a single gang with a monopoly on violence, a monopoly on money, and a monopoly on land, and law in that land based on the compulsory social contract, within a given area).

So how do anarchists want to coerce anyone into anything? We ask to be allowed to be left alone only (negative rights).

How are minarchists, even voluntaryists like yourself, able to coerce me for your collective nonsense....since you obstensibly shouldn't coerce anyone with your VOLUNTARY social contract that isn't dependent on gang turf?

And how is anarchism then, somehow, imposing anything on anyone (unless you consider being left alone an imposition...lol)?

We are against the invader, the intervention, and the coercion. It is our principle moral theory. It is our code of ethics. How can you find any means of coercion here?

You need to realize, any anarchist throughout history who has used coercion to gain ground for our cause has disqualified themselves from being an anarchist by those very actions. Other than these nutters, like insurrectionists and illegalists (btw, both socialist movements, collectivists like yourself), anarchism has overwhelmingly ALWAYS (since 5th Century BC at least) been against any violent or even coercive action taken against the individual on behalf of the collective, unless in direct self defense.

It sounds like you're less a voluntaryist than a Chomskyan Statist. Yes, I said it. If he refuses to allow free market "communes", like he wants "democratic socialist" communes for his folks, then he is a statist. You can call yourself a libertarian socialist all you like, but unless your social contracts are strictly voluntary, then you are NOT advocating anarchism. Chomsky too often describes a utopia where capitalism is eradicated, and uniformity of process (pure direct democracy AKA mob rule) exists. This uniformity isn't possible without coercion...

...hence why all collectivism that isn't strictly voluntary is TYRANNY.

So, how again is individualist anarchism, or anarchism as a code of ethics, philosophy, or moral theory somehow invasive, or wishing to impose anything on anyone (save our RIGHT to self government when not harming another individual or their property)?

Sorry, I know we agree in a lot of areas on this post, but you attacking anarchism like that, and with such nonsense, is just impossible to defend...but do try.

You mine as well drop the paradox "never say never", and call that an insight...lol.

----------


## AceNZ

> So are you making the distinction between the State and a government? You call yourself an anti-statist. Just wondering.


I'm making a distinction between a State and a *proper* government.




> Does your view only apply to people in a certain geographical area who explicitly agree to these terms with the government?


Certain geographic area, yes.  Explicit agreement, no.  However, I would not advocate initiation of force to change someone's mind; people should be free to think whatever they wish.  But if someone in that geographic area breaks a law because they just don't agree with it, then they would be subject to the consequences.  The key is that the laws should be objective, and limited in scope to issues surrounding the initiation of force or fraud, including the protection of property rights.




> They would each go to their own arbitrator and then the arbitrators would come to a decision. Reputable arbitration agencies would make decisions based on consumer demands. In other words, unless the consumers in a given area want chaos (the market would be a reflection of voter desires, anyways), then no deviant arbitration agency would ever last, or even expand in the first place.


And what if the arbitrators couldn't come to an agreement?  My point is that you can only push the responsibility up the chain for so long; eventually there will need to be a single end point, not unlike the Supreme Court.  This also implies a single set of laws, not multiple, potentially conflicting ones.




> For one thing, questions like these ignore the question of: How did we get there?


Let's take a concrete example.  Say that you think that a fetus is a person, and is therefore entitled to corresponding protection and rights.  And let's say my wife feels that a fetus is a part of the mother, is a potential person and not an actual person, and is therefore not subject to protection under the law, and has no rights.

Then you hear that my wife is pregnant and is about to have an abortion.  You consider that to be an initiation of force equivalent to murder, and therefore illegal, so you think it's acceptable for someone to step in and use force to restrain the mother and protect the fetus, or to imprison her afterwards if she goes ahead.  She doesn't agree.

How can this situation be resolved by third party arbitration?  Without an objective law, how can a woman (and her doctor) know in advance what her choices are?  Without knowing her choices, how can she act without fear of possible future retribution?

Also, would situations like this have to be arbitrated every time they arise?  Re-debating/arbitrating the same issues over and over again?

----------


## AceNZ

> And what if I want to start a company that offers protection to its clients?


There's no ethical reason why self-defense in the moment couldn't be carried out by a proxy, such as a body guard or a company that provides similar services.  However, if you wanted to start a company to assassinate people who your customers thought had committed crimes, or to go beat them up after-the-fact, that would not be legal.




> Or what if I don't want this "government" to protect me?


Then don't call the police or use the courts, and be willing to be on your own if the country is invaded or attacked.  You would still be able to use third party arbitration or any other (legal) private service.

However, not wanting the government to protect you doesn't give you the right to ignore laws; you would still be restrained if you tried to initiate force or fraud against others (assuming they *did* want government protection).

There is an interesting line in here somewhere, in that it would be a bad idea for people to somehow be coerced into declining government protection.




> How would this "government" pay its operation costs?


There are many options.  I like user fees and voluntary contributions.  Whichever path is chosen, it should be voluntary, with the proviso that if you willingly don't pay, then you can't also make a claim to service.

Maybe the anarchists could all live in one town together, not pay the government anything, decline all services, and just do their own thing.  I wouldn't want to live anywhere near such a place (sounds kinda like East L.A. to me), but I think I could support it in principle.

----------


## ProIndividual

> By saying you don't believe in home owner's associations, you are saying you wouldn't ever join one, or are you saying they shouldn't exist? ... and when you say anti-state, do you mean you would never want to be a part of a state, or are you saying they shouldn't exist?


I don't care if you want a home owners association...however, you may not tell anyone who wants to back out who they can sell their property to...or it isn't theirs. Same for socialist communes, thewy may exist, completely voluntarily. There is no social contract that can be coercive and still allow non-coercion...so you can freely have all the rules you like in the social contract you choose, but it's only enforcable on those who sign the contract.

I can imagine, however, that people could donate their property to a collective, and then forever lose "ownership" rights, while retaining "use" rights. In other words, a home owner's assocation could tell you what to do with your property, not because of location (gang turf by coercion), but by the fact you voluntarily gave over ownership rights, and therefore do not own the property in question. You may live in it, be responsible for all upkeep, etc., just like now...but again, if I buy property within your commune of uniformity, and it wasn't under your property-less home owner's association or other social contract,  then you can't govern me without me first causing harm...your social contract doesn't apply to me, despite me being on your gang turf. 

You could never OWN the property, and still have these things without the State (not government, the State is a coercive social contract visible mostly by gang turf within an area and a monopoly on money, law and land, and violence). In a non-State government (Stateless societies for 80% of human history had governments, government itslef isn't anti-anarchism necessarily), any property you own is yours to use as you wish, period. The conflict is clear: when you invest in property, your claim to non-free market proppeed-up property values are no claim against my right to paint my house some weird color, or to have bad habits in land maintenance. I own it, as you own yours. If you don't like suffering losses in investments (like property), then don't buy it (rent). It's that simple. All investments have inherent risks of loss and gain. Unless you sign away, effectively, your rights to your property of your own free will, no location or jurisdiction can exist to prevent others from acting as they wish with their exclusive property. Anything else is Statism, as violence or the threat of it would be required to establish a gang and gang turf in which to exert it's will. In other words, using the law is how statists coerce us into home owner's associations. It doesn't matter the owner who wants to sell never wanted to be apart of it, or that the new buyer wants nothing to do with the dumb rules that create literally a real estate bubble...all that matters is that you live on gang turf controlled by a gang (in this case the gang turf is the area under rule of the home owner's association, while the gang with the coercion is the courts who support such attacks on property rights.)

Decentralize not to a gang turf, but to the logical end; the individual.

But it is allowed in our anarchist society, just as I described. It's not simply a claim to area that is the difference between a minarchist view and the anarchist view, the difference with the anarchist vs the minarchist society is that in anarchism there are no monopolies on money, social contracts, violence, or land (not physical land, but a land area where a singular statist social contract is enforced as compulsory...like now! And again, this end of the land monopoly doesn't mean we are borderless as a whole, or nation (nation is not a government or State)).

As for the State, I am saying it should not, and cannot, exist in a free society.

Let me define what I mean:

State - a monopoly on violence, money, land (as described above), and social contracts (not the same as law). This is a totally compulsory social contract, all in all.

Minarchy - a voluntary social contract that has WITHIN it monopolies on money, violence, land, and this particular social contract. This is totally a voluntary contract, competition for social contracts is allowed outside of it's particular membership (those who volunteer to follow this social contract).

Government - NOT synonamous with State. This means anything from self government (you governing yourself), to Statist government (hence the confusion, and even rhetorical use of the word in confusing ways by anarchists expressing distatse of the only form of government alive today; Statist government). All government means is a means or mechanism to govern. Anarchist believe anyone who is not harming another, and has the mental and physical ability to govern themselves accordingly, has the RIGHT to govern themselves. No Harm, No Foul. Intent is also considered. So, anarchist government is following just a singular standard of law, natural law, or "Do No Harm". When you harm another, you are causing individual sovereignty to be lost, therefore you are able to be governed by an external force of societies choosing....this applies to self defense as well as court proceedings. WE ARE NOT AGAINST LAW, we are just for ONE law. Now, minarchist government would be a government that governs all those who CHOOSE to sign onto their social contract ONLY. This wouldn't be determined by where you live. I'd be your anarchist neighbor, and you my minarchist neighbor as well...it's totally compatable. I wouldn't ban you from boxing, or a social contract, even though I don't want to be punched in my face. The difference between boxing and assault is the difference between minarchist government and Statist government (no matter how small). I don't wish to ban you from hurting yourself...even through these social contracts that take you beyond a standard of law "Do No Harm". Statist government is obvious...we have it now. It's government that is not optional, a social contract of a compulsory nature. It monopolizes laws by simply having a compulsory social contract...so unless the State is advocating "Do No Harm" by coercion (impossible obviously), then no State can be anarchistic; hence their inverse relationship. Statist government is the most coercive, minarchist government is the less coercive, and anarchism is the least coercive...notice that anarchism and minarchism do not clash, given the definitions. Also notice, no minarchy or anarchy can exist in Statism.

Anarchy - a lack of a social contract, or the choice to NOT engage in any social contract, given you do NOT harm anyone in the process DIRECTLY. It has no monopoly on money (currency competition is the goal), violence (we wish for competition in law enforcement), land (borders are strictly about protections from epidemic disease or collective defense if ATTACKED ONLY; also courts judge by what social contract you opt into, or lack thereof, therefore making law less jurisdictional, more universal, and standardized based on your consent before hand, not based on location and gang turf), or social contracts. Anarchy and minarchy are the same in practice, except one exception...the anarchist will have no social contract, and be self governed unless harm occurs, and when it does it's under the minimum standard of law "Do No Harm", as all social contracts must meet this minimum requirement. The minarchist will conversely opt into a social contract (or more than one, to personalize), but refrain like the anarchist from forcing others into said social contract(s).

So, logically, neither minarchism nor anarchism can exist while there is a State of any kind in a given area. You may have a government, not a State. Anything else rules out the other two non-coercive (or at least minimally coercive, by the principle of "path of least coercion") methods for organizing a society around a cohernet moral theory (I apologize to anarchists for implying Statism is somehow based on a moral theory; it's based on sociopathy).




> How is it that someone who supports protectionism has false notions? Is it OK for them to be protectionist for a jurisdiction that doesn't effect you?


Protectionism is a economic failure, period. I have provided tons of links to evidence and data in other posts, and invited retort; to which I recieved none. That's important, and it's adherents ALL suffer under economic fallacies that I listed earlier in those posts...so essentially no protectionist is operating without false notions. Well, unless they intend to sabotage the economy and trample individual property rights for some socialist "good of the collective" anyway.

As far as the second question, rewfer to my answer on property being relinquished in the home owner's association example. Unless the consumers, whose dollars we are talking about (their property) OPT-IN to this protectionist policy, you cannot have protectionism anywhere without it effectively stripping property owners (consumers here) of their individual rights (especially property). So, in order to do this, like the home owner's assocation, you must all CONSENT to this...or you're advocating gangs and gang turf, monopolies and mercantilism, what we know as "Statism". This is ANTI- free market capitalsit...but it is allowed given consent. You can practice protectionism in your commune or "home owner's association" (notice you don't really own the property...but you don't own it now, you rent it from the government via property taxes), but all property rights must be voluntarily given over to the collective jurisdiction/commune in question. Use, again, may be retained, like now. So, it's possible to do this, but not like today by simply being the strongest gang of violence in the area, therefore through violence or threat thereof, coercing property owners (consumers) to follow your protectionist infringement on their individualist rights against their will. 

This is, again, the difference between minarchism and statism. The problem is, most "minarchists" are just small government statists, so they confuse meanings. Also, most statists think they are "minarchists" by advocating a gang on gang turf, however decentralized, and "jurisdictions" that amount to little more than "move if you don't like it" (a complete violation of individual sovereignty, a concept the classical liberals founded this nation (not to mean government or State) on).

What you want, in the question anyway, is okay, given authority is by those affected ONLY...and all social contract, like every other contract in life, is voluntary...or void if coerced. The moment the authority is derived not from consent, but from area, this becomes a State...even if it's a tiny State with decentralized mechanisms. 

The key word in anarchy and minarchy is CONSENT, CONSENT, CONSENT. The key standard for when this consent is okay to be violated is HARM, HARM, HARM for anarchy, wheras as it's HARM + whatever your social contract says in minarchy.

Hope this clarifies well enough.

Or you could always read a few actual anarchist authors, both socialist and capitalist, and see the overarching moral theory and it's relation to social contracts. Go to Weasker's blog or articel on anarcho-capitalism, he gives a fantastic reading list, and I comment below it with advanced reading on the subject.




> BTW, I still have an open challenge to anyone supporting an absolute anti-state, open border position- after 150+ posts I don't see an argument that hasn't been refuted:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ers-supporters


Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I) (Part 2-3 are linked at the top of the page you are being linked to now)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436

Happy reading! It smashes every fallacy needed to be closed border or reciprocal immigration, anti free market, protectionist. Only open and secure borders are free market capitalist, by definition, and the only economic option that doesn't hurt us all in the long run. And open borders are the only secure borders, as I explain in the 3 part blog.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I'm making a distinction between a State and a *proper* government.


Good. No voluntaryist that I know of rejects voluntary governance. 




> And what if the arbitrators couldn't come to an agreement?  My point is that you can only push the responsibility up the chain for so long; eventually there will need to be a single end point, not unlike the Supreme Court.  This also implies a single set of laws, not multiple, potentially conflicting ones.


_But suppose Brown insists on another appeals judge, and yet another? Couldn't he escape judgment by appealing ad infinitum? Obviously, in any society legal proceedings cannot continue indefinitely; there must be some cutoff point. In the present statist society, where government monopolizes the judicial function, the Supreme Court is arbitrarily designated as the cutoff point. In the libertarian society, there would also have to be an agreed-upon cutoff point, and since there are only two parties to any crime or dispute  the plaintiff and the defendant  it seems most sensible for the legal code to declare that a decision arrived at by any two courts shall be binding. This will cover the situation when both the plaintiff's and the defendant's courts come to the same decision, as well as the situation when an appeals court decides on a disagreement between the two original courts._ For a New Liberty





> Let's take a concrete example.  Say that you think that a fetus is a person, and is therefore entitled to corresponding protection and rights.  And let's say my wife feels that a fetus is a part of the mother, is a potential person and not an actual person, and is therefore not subject to protection under the law, and has no rights.
> 
> Then you hear that my wife is pregnant and is about to have an abortion.  You consider that to be an initiation of force equivalent to murder, and therefore illegal, so you think it's acceptable for someone to step in and use force to restrain the mother and protect the fetus, or to imprison her afterwards if she goes ahead.  She doesn't agree.
> 
> How can this situation be resolved by third party arbitration?  Without an objective law, how can a woman (and her doctor) know in advance what her choices are?  Without knowing her choices, how can she act without fear of possible future retribution?
> 
> Also, would situations like this have to be arbitrated every time they arise?  Re-debating/arbitrating the same issues over and over again?


People who feel strongly one way or the other would live in different areas under different laws and customs. Think of it like you would think of how different states in the U.S. have different laws, except this would be even more decentralized. 

The abortion issue cannot be dealt with by centralized authority. 

The issue is similar to policing the world. Once we quit thinking of everything in terms of central organization, it becomes easier to understand. Even though there are injustices all over the world, it is unrealistic to think it is possible to change peoples values and customs by force. The logic is similar for why we shouldn't search the Amazon Jungle for injustices to prevent or punish. Let people live where their customs and values are common and understand that you can't change people's values by force.

In before: "so murder on a local level is ok?!"

The difference between abortion and murder in this sense is that the vast majority of the human population views outright murder (as in shooting someone in the head for fun) as immoral and wrong. There wouldn't be very many communities where murder is ok. For one, their population would dwindle pretty fast, and secondly, only crazy people would live there so who cares. Also, this sociopathic community would be economically ostracized from the rest of civilization. It would be an isolated economy due to the fact that most people are not crazy, so it's economic development would be relatively poor. 

The abortion issue is not so clear cut, people are so divided on it that it makes any attempt to deal with it on a central level futile. 

People who are either so adamantly pro-choice or anti-abortion that they are willing to resort to violence are a minority. Most people, pro-choice and anti-abortion alike, do not feel strongly enough one way or the other to advocate force (or willing to pay out of their own pocket) to impose their views, and the market would illustrate this fact.

----------


## ProIndividual

> For the record I decided to ignore this thread completely because of the thread title, which basically reads "why are people who are against anarchism so against anarchism?" It'd be cool if we could get some specificity instead of some vague thread where non-anarchists just demand answers in the form of rehashed discussions that have been covered before.


No it doesn't imply that at all. That's like saying a OP titled "why do non-libertarians seem so anti libertarian (not libertarianISM)" means the same as "why are people against libertarianism so against libertarianism". They do NOT mean the same thing, logically.

But obviously you have a poor grip on logic.

It'd be nice if you made a point instead of falsely setting up a strawman.

----------


## AceNZ

> _In the libertarian society, there would also have to be an agreed-upon cutoff point, and since there are only two parties to any crime or dispute — the plaintiff and the defendant — it seems most sensible for the legal code to declare that a decision arrived at by any two courts shall be binding._


I'm arguing against anarchy, not a libertarian society.  In anarchy, there is no legal code, right?  Which means there's no way to enforce a cut-off point, except _perhaps_ contractually.  Thorny issues arise when there is no contract.




> People who feel strongly one way or the other would live in different areas under different laws and customs. Think of it like you would think of how different states in the U.S. have different laws, except this would be even more decentralized.


With anarchy, someone who disagreed with you could move next door, and start trying to enforce their sense of right and wrong on you.  There might be customs, but no laws.




> The abortion issue cannot be dealt with by centralized authority.


Seems to be working in most countries.  People might not agree, but at least they aren't at each other's throats as a result.




> There wouldn't be very many communities where murder is ok.


But it would be OK in some places?  This line of thinking leads me back to the idea that anarchy would quickly devolve into gang warfare.  I just don't see how it could remain stable for any length of time.

----------


## AceNZ

> Minarchy - a voluntary social contract that has WITHIN it monopolies on money, violence, land, and this particular social contract. This is totally a voluntary contract, competition for social contracts is allowed outside of it's particular membership (those who volunteer to follow this social contract).


I entirely reject the concept of social contracts; they are a tool of Collectivists.  That idea attempts to destroy the entire meaning of "contract," which requires a _conscious, purposeful agreement_.

True human rights are non-negotiable; they cannot be taken away by a government (or anyone else), nor can they be given away.  I reject the idea that others have majority rule over me.  My foundation for dealing with other people is that they have the same rights I do, and for the same reason.  If they don't have rights, then neither do I.  There is no "contract," social, voluntary or otherwise. Your consent is not required for a government to be proper. You are bound not by your consent, but by _morality_, to refrain from initiating force.  That's the only thing a proper government should require of you -- and I don't see how enforcement of that requirement is possible with anarchy.

I also do not accept that a proper government would have any control over money, and I believe all land should be privately owned.  A proper government's role should be to protect and defend human rights, including property rights. That does not mean that it has a "monopoly" on land.

----------


## Revolution9

> I agree. If you can kill in self defense, you should vote in self defnse...unless your a pascifist of course (which I'm not).
> 
> More anarchists should look at it this way.
> 
> The common retort I get is "you can't rape in self defense"...but I liken voting to aggression of a less sexual nature...tax season is when I'm raped...lol.
> 
> As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were .....


Fromhttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vi..._archons12.htm
"The Archons were whispered about in texts after the burning of the library at Alexandra with some mention of mysterious beings called Archons. But the powers that be spent 1,300 years cleaning up the records and had written out the Archons from our history.

In 1947, texts were found in clay jars in Nag Hammadi in Egypt and, on these texts was a story of what the Nag Hammadi people, 2,000 years ago, thought the world was about.

The reason the Nag Hammadi texts, which date back 2,100 years (100 BC), are so important is that no-one has been able to put a spin on it [the texts have not been altered, destroyed or omitted as in the Bible], no-one has been able to distort or destroy them which is what theyd really like to do [to keep the information and knowledge from the masses].

Luckily, they survived, were successfully translated and when many people read them, they found a clear and defined discussion of what these Archons are.

The texts had been buried in a deep cave in Egypt, in order to protect the most important information that they had.


Rense: There are 13 codices containing over 50 texts, which is quite a substantial amount of writing.

Weidner: A highly descriptive document of an entirely different world [from the one we know]. People dont realize that, 2,000 years ago, there was a religion on this planet called Gnosticism, which was the biggest religion on earth at the time, was vying with Hinduism. You could go take a university course on the history of religions now and wouldnt even find a mention of Gnosticism.

The Nag Hammadi texts provide a description for what the Gnostics believed. Gnostic is a Greek word meaning knowledge - gnosis. The Gnostics believe that liberation can only be achieved by knowledge, by the consumption and evaluation of reality through knowledge.

The Library at Alexandria was run by Gnostics and they were the first people to collect scrolls and books and assemble this information.

Their culture spread throughout Europe and the Middle East. This was long before the advent of the Western religions outside of Judaism which was mostly concentrated in Israel. Gnostics preached that there was an invasion that occurred about 3,600 BC and, about 1,600 years before the Nag Hammadi texts were buried, they wrote that this invasion was like a virus and, in fact, they were hard pressed to describe it.

The beings that were invading were called Archons.

These Archons had the ability to duplicate reality, to fool us. They were jealous of us because we have an essence of some kind, a soul, that they dont possess, and the Nag Hammadi texts describe the Archons. One looks like a reptile and the other looks like an unformed baby or a fetus. It is partially living and partially non-living and has grey skin and dark, unmoving eyes.

The Archons are duplicating reality so that when we buy into it, when we come to believe that the duplicated, false state reality is the real reality - then they become the victors."


Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I will stick with the Eternal Truth and not The Counterfeit. Anarchism is a counterfeit of true freedom and the reactance of acceptance is*made of consequence through Archonic manipulation of those who come to power under their influence. "They know not what they do."

Rev9

----------


## Vessol

> There's no ethical reason why self-defense in the moment couldn't be carried out by a proxy, such as a body guard or a company that provides similar services.  However, if you wanted to start a company to assassinate people who your customers thought had committed crimes, or to go beat them up after-the-fact, that would not be legal.


That is a wild mis-characterization of what I or any other voluntaryist proposes. What's sad is that I've seen this complete misrepresentation before on these boards. it shows a general lack of the history of law and 'punishment'. For the majority of history, and especially in medieval Iceland and Ireland, law systems were part of the free market and there was no set laws and incarceration imposed of by the State. Rather, there was a system of paying reparations to the victim as decided by a private arbitrator whose reputation depended on his impartialness. 

http://mises.org/daily/1121

No voluntaryist is proposing a company that would assassinate people. They would never support anything that supports the initiation of force. Please stop strawmaning us. 




> There are many options.  I like user fees and voluntary contributions.  Whichever path is chosen, it should be voluntary, with the proviso that if you willingly don't pay, then you can't also make a claim to service.


Then it wouldn't be a government, it would be a company. Please explain to me how they would be any different from a private company if they depend on attracting customers to their services.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Fromhttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vi..._archons12.htm
>  "The Archons were whispered about in texts after the burning of the library at Alexandra with some mention of mysterious beings called Archons. But the powers that be spent 1,300 years cleaning up the records and had written out the Archons from our history.
> 
>  In 1947, texts were found in clay jars in Nag Hammadi in Egypt and, on these texts was a story of what the Nag Hammadi people, 2,000 years ago, thought the world was about.
> 
> The reason the Nag Hammadi texts, which date back 2,100 years (100 BC), are so important is that no-one has been able to put a spin on it [the texts have not been altered, destroyed or omitted as in the Bible], no-one has been able to distort or destroy them which is what they’d really like to do [to keep the information and knowledge from the masses].
> 
>  Luckily, they survived, were successfully translated and when many people read them, they found a clear and defined discussion of what these Archons are.
> 
> ...



And how does a lack of Archons mean something bad? Seems to me those Archons you're describing in some Greek mythological terms ($#@!in' reptiles and fetuses you say...lol) are BAD. So, anything opposed to these INVADERS would be anarchists...without archons.

Also, you're denying all of history after this, when Archons were Greek City-State rulers...that is fact. It's not disputable that archons were regional rulers, with powers much like Kings.

So, how is anarchy bad, or false? You make no sense whatsoever...lol. It's a code of ethics...it says the invader is the problem, not the non-invasive individual in the default of harmless self government. 

Don't put that in your pipe and smoke it, you seem to be smoking too much already.

There is truer a freedom than that which is voluntary...your lack of basis for your moral theory shows. Please, justify to me, without collectivist nonsense, how the invader or ruler can govern you morally and justifiably when you have not invaded or aggressed against another....

...you can't.

So, why are you supporting invasive rulers? Why are you calling anarchism "counterfeit of true freedom"? There is logically no truer freedom than the one you OPT-IN to...all else is tyranny. Read the quotes in my signature.

I mean how silly of a comment was that? It's intellectually lazy.

But please, keep supporting the invading (lol) lizard people and half living fetuses, you seem to think were REAL. That's not history dude, that's mythology...or maybe you're one of these David Icke freaks who think lizard people run the world...lol.

Somehow I think you mean Archons are bad, and somehow anarchists support Archons...not the case at all.

Read some anarchists, stop being a sophist, please. You're trying to find things to discredit us, as opposed to learning and reading, and then making REAL arguments for or against (and there are real arguments, even if I disagree with them).

And lastly...anarchy existed well before the Archons and the State...it was the way humans organized themselves for over 80% of human history. The State did not come into being until the 5-4th Century BC. That's provable by...READING ANARCHISTS AND HISTORY. No one argues anything else. Archeologists have uncovered, time and again, stateless societies from the time previous...but no States are ever found dating before 5th century BC. Obviously, we are the ones (anarchists) trying to return to the noncoercive original organization method of humanity...where wars didn't kill millions, or evenb hundreds of thousands, but instead just thousands or tens of thousands...where atrocities didn't kill 6 million Jews, but killed 10,000 people instead...where decentralization led to all the harms of today, only smaller in effect. It's hard to kill that many people without a penalty of gangs and gang turf laws that FORCE you to fight under threat of death or jail. That never existed in anarchy.

You are so confused, I could go on and on...but I'll just let your comment, and mine, speak for themselves.


Ps. Gnosticism doesn't predate the first Greek Archons in 5-4th century BC city-states. You know, chronology overrules your belief system

----------


## ProIndividual

> I entirely reject the concept of social contracts; they are a tool of Collectivists. That idea attempts to destroy the entire meaning of "contract," which requires a conscious, purposeful agreement.
> 
> True human rights are non-negotiable; they cannot be taken away by a government (or anyone else), nor can they be given away. I reject the idea that others have majority rule over me. My foundation for dealing with other people is that they have the same rights I do, and for the same reason. If they don't have rights, then neither do I. There is no "contract," social, voluntary or otherwise. Your consent is not required for a government to be proper. You are bound not by your consent, but by morality, to refrain from initiating force. That's the only thing a proper government should require of you -- and I don't see how enforcement of that requirement is possible with anarchy.
> 
> I also do not accept that a proper government would have any control over money, and I believe all land should be privately owned. A proper government's role should be to protect and defend human rights, including property rights. That does not mean that it has a "monopoly" on land.


You might be an anarchist, but because of the perversion of today's definition of it, you may not wish to call yourself that. But what you are describing is anarchic, for sure.

I may be mistaken, but I believe you refer to yourself as a minarchist...but if you reject all social contracts (the Constitution is a social contract), then you are an anarchist essentially. Without the social contract, no gang turf can be established, and therefore no gang can run it by violence, or threat therof.

I don't want to tell you what to call yourself...but certainly minarchy requires a social contract. 

Again, minarchists can co-exist with anarchists, whereas the State cannot co-exist with either. Minarchy has a voluntary social contract, but do not force anarchists into them. So, no matter which you are, you are our ally  .


Ps. You mention "morality" vs consent...errrrrr wrong! There is no morality that can coerce another without consent, unless that person has caused or intended a harm previous to the coercion. Your individual sovereignty prevents it. This may be a semantic point, but certainly "consent of the governed" is required for ANY social contract that is moral. This was understood by the man you use in your monicher, Jefferson...the same man I quote in my signature below. Harm is essential to allow such invasive aggression, or it is simply tyranny. No collective gain is an excuse for such aggression, individual rights are sacrosanct, as you say.  A "proper government" is one by consent....the only exception is when harm is intended or caused by the individual you wish to govern.

I am my own "proper government", as I have the ability, and therfore the right, to govern myself, as long as no one else is harmed, or intended to be harmed, in the process.

----------


## ProIndividual

And to Vessol...

...I LOVE your comments. 

To Wesker...

...You rock as well.

To all the other Voluntaryists, anarchists, and REAL minarchists (not to include small government statists)...

...thank you for your help...it is massively appreciated.

Keep up the good fight!


And to small government statists...insofar as we all want Ron Paul elected, you also keep up the good fight...we are not enemies.

----------


## ProIndividual

And one more, for the record...

Do you guys think that Ron wears black and gold ties by coincidence? He is an Austrian economist, aka, anarcho-capitalist. So, the idea he isn't sympathetic to anarchism in general, or doesn't consider himself ancap, is my opinion willfull blindness.

Sure, he is NOT a full blown anarchist...but to be a true free market capitalist, you must at least agree that ANY regulation of the markets beyond harm (or the intention of it) is tyranny...and economically backwards. This is certainly what Austrians believe.

So, you all, if you are free market capitalists anyway (which not all of you are), support anarchy in economics (whether you know it or not). Therefore, you just disagree with us on social and moral theory...and hence why we feel safe in saying our ideas are consistant, plausible, and better overall in a moral and social sense. 

You do not have to agree with us...but we certainly aren't "in the wrong place", or very far off of your beliefs. Even the small government statists resemble us immensely in comparison to most other social and moral theories in our population of America. We all occupy the same area of the philosophical game board. We simply feel that we take the main principles to the logical ends, instead of stopping short of the logical end with small government statism, minarchism, or any other form of philosophy and ethics closely resembling our own.

We get the most scorn because we are the position that cannot be "out-flanked". There is no one smaller government than us, so in order to not feel inconsistant or more authoritarian than us, many will dismiss our beliefs as nonsense, impractical, or without historical merit...

...but generally, this is done without EVER reading any of the writings of anarchists, agorists, voluntaryists, minarchists, etc., etc. (depending on your position philosophically).

Like minarchist or small government statist libertarians, anarchist libertarians (words that are synonymous everywhere in the world but here) arrived at our beliefs through education and reading...not a lack thereof. 

We read Locke and Hobbes, Bastiat and Ricardo, etc., etc...we just happen to disagree on some substantive points. These men are not holier-than-thou, and are NOT beyond criticism. We prefer Spooner, Tucker, Konkin III, etc., etc. when it comes to moral and social theory (although we see their economics as flawed, and criticize them like all Austrians do).

I myslef am not a pure Austrian, or Rothbardian...but variance is cool for us all...this is why anarchists NEVER wish to use laws to seek uniformity. The same cannot be said for many of the fans of our opposing, and yet similar, schools of thought.

----------


## Revolution9

> And how does a lack of Archons mean something bad? Seems to me those Archons you're describing in some Greek mythological terms ($#@!in' reptiles and fetuses you say...lol) are BAD. So, anything opposed to these INVADERS would be anarchists...without archons.<snip banalities and falsities>


I didn't describe anything. You understood nothing in your rush to defend your babble. The description comes from ancient texts. They are the ones describing the two types of entities..long before the modern UFO flaps. Anarchy is an illusion and counterfeit of freedom. I have no interest in it except to stop them from trashing the furniture our grandfathers and their grandfathers put in place for their grandchildrens benefit. Be nice if they woke  up instead of spewing endless dogma about counterfeit freedom.

Rev9

----------


## ProIndividual

> Anarchy is an illusion and counterfeit of freedom


Again you state this as fact, and have nothing to support the assertion other than religious mumbo jumbo, ala...




> The description comes from ancient texts. They are the ones describing the two types of entities..long before the modern UFO flaps.


You are one of these David Icke lizard people believers aren't you? 

Yeah, it's me who is being unreasonable...lol.

----------


## Vessol

> I didn't describe anything. You understood nothing in your rush to defend your babble. The description comes from ancient texts. They are the ones describing the two types of entities..long before the modern UFO flaps. Anarchy is an illusion and counterfeit of freedom. I have no interest in it except to stop them from trashing the furniture our grandfathers and their grandfathers put in place for their grandchildrens benefit. Be nice if they woke  up instead of spewing endless dogma about counterfeit freedom.
> 
> Rev9


Care to elaborate?

You're just stating, you are not trying to propose any logical argument.

----------


## Revolution9

> Care to elaborate?
> 
> You're just stating, you are not trying to propose any logical argument.


Yeah..it was meant to be a set of tacks in the road of this continuously and always the same debate. I stepped in to spread some enlightenment..and now I got some attention This subject, The Archons is not easy to sum up or debate in a post or two...or probably even a millennia of writings..and then you either "know it" through analysis of reality or "you don't know it", but let's see if I can toss out a view of the overall and supplement with some further links.

The Archons are the true enemy. They are an alien intrusion of an inorganic intelligence. They affect us through our minds with illusion by manipulating our perceptions of reality. The Head Archon claims to have created The Universe, or at least this part of it. He is blind and mistook matter for The Creation. There are two types according to ancient texts, a neonate or embryonic like entity with large unmoving eyes and a draconic or reptile like entity with a tail. They envy us for our Divine Soul and feed on our fear. They hate The Creation because they do not understand it. They were called the 'Soul Stealers that came at night' in the old texts and there was prescriptions for dealing with them. This was considered the most important of issues facing Man till The Library of Alexandria was sacked and burned. Their goal is the destruction of Man through debasement by replacing reality with illusion and the trashing of the environment of this planet. They work through "leaders" by affecting them mentally with various self delusions. It is the inhuman force behind the tyrant, genocider and killer. Anarchy is archonic in its very form and dialectic verbiage. It is a counterfeit and illusion of true Divine Ordained freedom.  The Archons are messengers of deception.

The Gnostic Theory of Alien Intrusion by John Nash - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vi..._alien_18v.htm
An Archive of Archon related texts with links in the docs to reference further informations. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vi...en_archons.htm

See also the works of Jacques Vallee, medieval demonology, the Nag Hammadi texts, The Hypostasis of The Archons, Don Juan of Castaneda books telling us about The Enemy giving us its morose and corrupt mind in a stupendous battle maneuver. That oughta keep you busy a while. It is an interesting subject and something to seriously dwell on in many respects.

Best Regards
Rev9

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And one more, for the record...
> 
> Do you guys think that Ron wears black and gold ties by coincidence?  the fans of our opposing, and yet similar, schools of thought.


Oh how funny.  Surely you must be kidding.  All kinds of men of all kinds of political persuasions wear black/gold ties.  

I'm sorry, but this reminds me of when so many people on here absolutely _insisted_ that Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand.  It wasn't true of course.

----------


## AceNZ

> That is a wild mis-characterization of what I or any other voluntaryist proposes.


I've been talking about anarchy, which to me means no laws and no government.




> What's sad is that I've seen this complete misrepresentation before on these boards. it shows a general lack of the history of law and 'punishment'. For the majority of history, and especially in medieval Iceland and Ireland, law systems were part of the free market and there was no set laws and incarceration imposed of by the State. Rather, there was a system of paying reparations to the victim as decided by a private arbitrator whose reputation depended on his impartialness.


I'm OK with reparations and no incarceration (mostly; there are corner cases).  But I do think we need objective laws and a minimal, stripped-to-the-bones government.

Are you advocating a return to medievalism?  In those days, the "private arbitrator" basically *was* the law.  That's not anarchy.




> No voluntaryist is proposing a company that would assassinate people. They would never support anything that supports the initiation of force. Please stop strawmaning us.


I never said you would support it.  But with anarchy, it could be done, right?  And who's to say that assassination is necessarily an initiation of force?  What if the company only killed in retaliation against others who initiated force?




> Then it wouldn't be a government, it would be a company. Please explain to me how they would be any different from a private company if they depend on attracting customers to their services.


It's different because it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of (defensive) force, outside of immediate self-defense type scenarios.  Also, the people who run it would be elected.

----------


## AceNZ

> You might be an anarchist, but because of the perversion of today's definition of it, you may not wish to call yourself that. But what you are describing is anarchic, for sure.


Anarchy means no government and no laws.  I'm not in favor of that at all.  As I said above, what I support is a bare minimum government and bare minimum laws.  I call that minarchism ("min," as in "minimal").




> I may be mistaken, but I believe you refer to yourself as a minarchist...but if you reject all social contracts (the Constitution is a social contract), then *you are an anarchist essentially. Without the social contract, no gang turf can be established, and therefore no gang can run it by violence, or threat therof.*


I disagree.

In anarchy, what's to stop a gang with guns from running things through violence?  They certainly don't need a contract, social or otherwise, to do so. What's your defense?  Another gang?




> I don't want to tell you what to call yourself...but certainly minarchy requires a social contract.


Disagree again.




> Again, minarchists can co-exist with anarchists, whereas the State cannot co-exist with either. Minarchy has a voluntary social contract, but do not force anarchists into them. So, no matter which you are, you are our ally  .


I don't support pure anarchy.  However, you might think of me as an ally in the sense that I would only actively oppose it if it was being proposed for an area where I live -- unlike Collectivism, which I oppose no matter where it appears.  I would also never trade with someone who I knew supported anarchy; too much uncertainty and risk.




> Ps. You mention "morality" vs consent...errrrrr wrong! There is no morality that can coerce another without consent, unless that person has caused or intended a harm previous to the coercion. Your individual sovereignty prevents it.


I did not say that morality will coerce.  I said that it is your morality that binds you to a proper government, not a social contract.




> This may be a semantic point, but certainly "consent of the governed" is required for ANY social contract that is moral.


I reject the entire concept of social contracts, so obviously that includes any required consent.




> A "proper government" is one by consent....the only exception is when harm is intended or caused by the individual you wish to govern.


If a proper government exists, and you are born into it, and therefore have not explicitly consented to it, does that mean the government is no longer proper?

If you are a criminal and decline to give consent to the government, does that mean it's not proper?




> I am my own "proper government", as I have the ability, and therfore the right, to govern myself, as long as no one else is harmed, or intended to be harmed, in the process.


Being your own "government" is fine, as long as you never interact with others.  If/when you do, though, in a civilized society, those interactions require certain standards.  For example, exactly who determines whether you harmed or intended to harm someone else (or whether you violated their property rights)?  You?  What if the other person disagrees? I know, back to third party arbitration -- but then you really aren't governing yourself, right?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Anarchy means no government and no laws.


 Anarchism, strictly defined, means a system with no leader.  Law is a separate issue.  Anarchists have varying opinions on law.

----------


## Revolution9

> Anarchism, strictly defined, means a system with no leader.  Law is a separate issue.  Anarchists have varying opinions on law.


And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to? You do realize what a joke you clowns are with this crap. It is akin to talking back to mommy and daddy except yer frakking adults. I refuse to take any of you seriously. You give me no good reasons at all. Just obfuscation and shuffle rolls around the issue.

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to?


Etymology?




> You do realize what a joke you clowns are with this crap. It is akin to talking back to mommy and daddy except yer frakking adults. I refuse to take any of you seriously. You give me no good reasons at all. Just obfuscation and shuffle rolls around the issue.
> 
> Rev9


LOL

----------


## Deborah K

> Etymology?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL


Are you sure you're not just parroting certain people who consider themselves "authorities" on the subject?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to?* You do realize what a joke you clowns are with this crap. It is akin to talking back to mommy and daddy except yer frakking adults. I refuse to take any of you seriously. You give me no good reasons at all. Just obfuscation and shuffle rolls around the issue.
> 
> Rev9


 Mutually agreed-to authority (viz. a contract-unlike the mythical "social contract" advanced by minarchists).  Where do you get the AUTHORITY to form a government?   I would say you're the one begging to be nannyed like a child (the state taking the paternal role).  I refuse to take you seriously because you rely on inductive reasoning, which is unsound by its very nature.  I've never obfuscated anything here.  Quit your whining and admit you don't know what you're talking about.

----------


## Travlyr

> Mutually agreed-to authority.


At what age?

----------


## Deborah K

> At what age?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> At what age?


 An adult in this society is 18.  At that age, he can choose.  Till then, his parents choose for him.  However, this number is obviously arbitrary, as some people mature faster than others.  In this case, a person younger than 18 would have to legally divorce himself from parental authority.  The mechanism for doing this depends on the time and place.  This is basically the way things worked before the modern State, and humanity did just fine (even better than now, in many ways).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


 You're too impatient, Deb.  :P  I can't attend to every question immediately.  Have patience, little one.

----------


## Travlyr

> An adult in this society is 18.  At that age, he can choose.  Till then, his parents choose for him.  However, this number is obviously arbitrary, as some people mature faster than others.  In this case, a person younger than 18 would have to legally divorce himself from parental authority.  The mechanism for doing this depends on the time and place.  This is basically the way things worked before the modern State, and humanity did just fine (even better than now, in many ways).


Interesting.
And to what authority would someone under 18 appeal in order to get the divorce?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Are you sure you're not just parroting certain people who consider themselves "authorities" on the subject?




Stay thirsty, my friend.

----------


## Deborah K

> Stay thirsty, my friend.


Back at cha, darlin

----------


## Deborah K

> You're too impatient, Deb.  :P  I can't attend to every question immediately.  Have patience, little one.


It's just that a lot of the time, you don't respond at all.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> At what age?


You realize that this problem that you're conjuring is solved by minarchists entirely arbitrarily, and enforced by fiat without regard to individual circumstances, right?

A stateless society will have no one answer to this question, naturally, as there  would be no single authority, per se.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It's just that a lot of the time, you don't respond at all.


Tell us the truth:  You've just been dying to use that toob, haven't you?

----------


## Travlyr

> And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to? You do realize what a joke you clowns are with this crap. It is akin to talking back to mommy and daddy except yer frakking adults. I refuse to take any of you seriously. You give me no good reasons at all. Just obfuscation and shuffle rolls around the issue.
> 
> Rev9


They don't realize how much of a joke they are. I keep trying to help them out. I even repeatedly point them to the true culprits of our tyranny. Over and over again Ron Paul and many others show them who is running things behind the curtain. Can they see it? Some eventually do. But many just hold on to the false idol of liberty with all they've got. It's all they know because they haven't done their homework.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Interesting.
> And to what authority would someone under 18 appeal in order to get the divorce?


 re-read my post.  "The mechanism for doing this depends on the time and place.  This is  basically the way things worked before the modern State, and humanity  did just fine (even better than now, in many ways)."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's just that a lot of the time, you don't respond at all.


 Actually, I do.  It just goes over folks' heads and I have to keep simplifying it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They don't realize how much of a joke they are. I keep trying to help them out. I even repeatedly point them to the true culprits of our tyranny. Over and over again Ron Paul and many others show them who is running things behind the curtain. Can they see it? Some eventually do. But many just hold on to the false idol of liberty with all they've got. It's all they know because they haven't done their homework.


 You're not in much of a position to criticize.  Minarchists have had 220+ years and the best conditions possible (geographic, cultural, etc) to get it right, and still failed.  So far, all the anarchists around here have been pwning you, so I don't know why you think they haven't done their homework.  

How is liberty a "false idol"?  Your desperation is showing.

----------


## Travlyr

> You realize that this problem that you're conjuring is solved by minarchists entirely arbitrarily, and enforced by fiat without regard to individual circumstances, right?


No, that's what the anarchists in charge right now are doing.




> A stateless society will have no one answer to this question, naturally, as there  would be no single authority, per se.


Right, just a bunch of _"who's in charge around here?"_, nonsense. A stateless society has more questions than answers.

But you don't seem to realize that everyone is born into a world of rules. They always have been and always will be. Just because you don't want them written down and organized does not mean they aren't enforcible by whoever claims authority.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, that's what the anarchists in charge right now are doing.


What anarchists in charge?  Are you writing from some other country where anarchists are in charge?





> Right, just a bunch of _"who's in charge around here?"_, nonsense. *A stateless society has more questions than answers.*


 Same could be said of a State-oriented society.  All questions of how things are handled in state-run society are absolutely arbitrary, and more often than not ineffective and harmful.

----------


## Travlyr

> You're not in much of a position to criticize.  Minarchists have had 220+ years and the best conditions possible (geographic, cultural, etc) to get it right, and still failed.  So far, all the anarchists around here have been pwning you, so I don't know why you think they haven't done their homework.  
> 
> How is liberty a "false idol"?  Your desperation is showing.


Desperate? Hardly. Anarchy is the false idol of liberty. 
Honest Sound Money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity.

The rule of law is clearly established. The supreme law of the land is in place. The U.S. government was co-opted in 1913 by international bankers (rules do not apply to them - anarchists) through a nine day conspiracy held at Jekyll Island in 1910. Kicking the anarchists ass along with a return to honest sound money and the rule of law is what will liberate the people.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Desperate? Hardly. Anarchy is the false idol of liberty.* 
> Honest Sound Money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity.
> 
> The rule of law is clearly established. The supreme law of the land is in place. The U.S. government was co-opted in 1913 by international bankers (rules do not apply to them - anarchists) through a nine day conspiracy held at Jekyll Island in 1910. Kicking the anarchists ass along with a return to honest sound money and the rule of law is what will liberate the people.


 Clearly desperate.  You make this wild claim, and fail to prove it.  Anarchists have voluminous evidence to prove that it works.  The US government was co-opted in 1787 by the Federalists (turning the ideals of the signers of the DoI upside down), making the later 1913 coup almost inevitable(Hamilton, a key founder, was a fan of central banking, and would have applauded the Federal Reserve act).

Also, the rule of law is NOT clearly established.  We know very well now that anyone with money and connections to the elites can get away with just about anything.  Only the citizenry is bound by law.  The greatest criminals are empowered by the law.

Involuntary government is the false idol of liberty.  It has its own forms of worship, clergy, hymns, etc.  I like to call it a religion for atheists and secularists.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, that's what the anarchists in charge right now are doing.







> Right, just a bunch of _"who's in charge around here?"_, nonsense. A stateless society has more questions than answers.


It may have more questions, but at least the answers aren't derived arbitrarily, and imposed by fiat.  :thumbs:




> But you don't seem to realize that everyone is born into a world of rules. They always have been and always will be. Just because you don't want them written down and organized does not mean they aren't enforcible by whoever claims authority.


On which day did God say, "let there be rules"?

----------


## Travlyr

> Clearly desperate.  You make this wild claim, and fail to prove it.  Anarchists have voluminous evidence to prove that it works.  The US government was co-opted in 1787 by the Federalists (turning the ideals of the signers of the DoI upside down), making the later 1913 coup almost inevitable(Hamilton, a key founder, was a fan of central banking, and would have applauded the Federal Reserve act).


The Articles of Confederation fell in less than 10 years.  

Ron Paul has been saying since 1971 that honest sound money is the key to liberty. I'll say it until we get it, or until I die... whichever comes first.

Honest Sound Money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> They don't realize how much of a joke they are. I keep trying to help them out. I even repeatedly point them to the true culprits of our tyranny. Over and over again Ron Paul and many others show them who is running things behind the curtain. Can they see it? Some eventually do. But many just hold on to the false idol of liberty with all they've got. It's all they know because they haven't done their homework.


This is very, very funny stuff.  

The state is the instrument by which your so-called "anarchists" tyrannize.  Yet somehow, we need the state - and help me with the logic, here - to protect us from these "anarchists" in control of the state...?

----------


## Travlyr

> It may have more questions, but at least the answers aren't derived arbitrarily, and imposed by fiat.  :thumbs:
> 
> 
> 
> On which day did God say, "let there be rules"?


I use the dictionary when I want to know the meaning of a word. I don't make $#@! up.
Definition of ANARCHIST
1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I use the dictionary when I want to know the meaning of a word. I don't make $#@! up.
> Definition of ANARCHIST
> 1
> : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
> 2
> : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order.

----------


## TheDrakeMan

Many anarchists (and some Libertarians) have become rather pushy and not willing to listen to other people's concerns on things like illegal immigration, America's role in world politics,  and statist intervention into the economy. I'm not saying most Anarchists are like this, but people like the Free Talk Live hosts try to simplify everything.
Caller: Hey I support the war in blah blah blah.
Ian: So you support stealing money from me?
Caller: What?

:P. The problem is some anarchists seem to forget that the average day person has no idea what Libertarianism or Anarchy is all about. You can't just use the against-me argument for literally _everything._ 

With that said I don't mind Anarchists & Ultra-Libertarians. I disagree with a lot of their ideas but they will still fight to limit government. 




> Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?

----------


## Travlyr

> The state is the instrument by which your so-called "anarchists" tyrannize.  Yet somehow, we need the state - and help me with the logic, here - to protect us from these "anarchists" in control of the state...?


Right. It will be the rule of law that returns liberty to people not the lack of it. Destroying the state is undesirable. We don't expect help from anarchists, but we are hoping that you will go somewhere else to spread your false idol garbage. 

Ron Paul is running for president of the United States which was formed by the U.S. Constitution. If you don't want any part of that, then why are you here?

----------


## mczerone

> At what age?


I don't know. Do you suppose you, or your state can know, for all people everywhere in every capacity?  Can you not accept that each individual would need their own "age" of competency?  It matters not how many times the Earth has circled the Sun, but only how the individual's capacity for empathy, reason, and self-interest develop in order to be a legitimate party to certain contracts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *The Articles of Confederation fell in less than 10 years. * 
> 
> Ron Paul has been saying since 1971 that honest sound money is the key to liberty. I'll say it until we get it, or until I die... whichever comes first.
> 
> Honest Sound Money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity.


 Yes.  That's why it was to be amended.  The Federalists ignored their duty like the lawless thugs they were-they threw out the AoC and wrote their own document outlining a highly centralized, tyrannical government.  That same lawlessness and tyranny has prevailed ever since, though sometimes moreso than others.  Get yourself a copy of Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Destroying the state is undesirable.*


 Destroying the State (the most lawless of all groups) is very desirable.  Read the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson clearly said that people have the right to disband a tyrannical government and start a new one that serves their purpose.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't know. Do you suppose you, or your state can know, for all people everywhere in every capacity?  Can you not accept that each individual would need their own "age" of competency?  It matters not how many times the Earth has circled the Sun, but only how the individual's capacity for empathy, reason, and self-interest develop in order to be a legitimate party to certain contracts.


Yes, at birth. We are born into a world of natural laws and existing man made laws. This is what anarchists completely ignore. We are born into an order of society whether written or not, or organized or not. The only difference is that written laws are easier to comprehend than unwritten laws.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Right. It will be the rule of law that returns liberty to people not the lack of it. Destroying the state is undesirable. We don't expect help from anarchists, but we are hoping that you will go somewhere else to spread your false idol garbage. 
> 
> Ron Paul is running for president of the United States which was formed by the U.S. Constitution. If you don't want any part of that, then why are you here?





> Yes, at birth. We are born into a world of natural laws and existing man made laws. This is what anarchists completely ignore. We are born into an order of society whether written or not, or organized or not. The only difference is that written laws are easier to comprehend than unwritten laws.


This is an emotional rather than intellectual opposition to anarchism.  There's no logic or debate here - just dogma.

----------


## Travlyr

> Destroying the State (the most lawless of all groups) is very desirable.  Read the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson clearly said that people have the right to disband a tyrannical government and start a new one that serves their purpose.


BS. Land owners will not be seeking a new deed for their land if Ron Paul becomes president. The States are the most desired organization for the most people, today. Destroying the state is not beneficial to anybody at this time in history ... no matter how hard they try ... we will not help you do it... and we will defend our Oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. Read it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA

----------


## Travlyr

> This is an emotional rather than intellectual opposition to anarchism.  There's no logic or debate here - just dogma.


Words mean things. This ^^^ is dumb as $#@!.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Words mean things. This ^^^ is dumb as $#@!.


lol you're telling me!?

----------


## Travlyr

> lol you're telling me!?


Yes. Words have definitions. You can make stuff up all your life, or you can learn the meaning of words. Your choice.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> BS. Land owners will not be seeking a new deed for their land if Ron Paul becomes president. The States are the most desired organization for the most people, today. Destroying the state is not beneficial to anybody at this time in history ... no matter how hard they try ... we will not help you do it... and we will defend our Oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. Read it.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA


 B.S.?  Here, I'll link you to the DoI so you can re-read it and refresh your memory.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
*The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,*
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one  people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with  another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and  equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle  them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they  should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created  equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable  Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of  Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted  among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these  ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to  institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and  organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to  effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that  Governments long established should not be changed for light and  transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that  mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to  right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the  same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,  it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and  to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the  patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity  which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The  history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated  injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment  of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be  submitted to a candid world.
 	He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
		He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing  importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should  be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend  to them.
		He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large  districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of  Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and  formidable to tyrants only. 
		He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,  uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records,  for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his  measures. 
		He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
		He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause  others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of  Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;  the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of  invasion from without, and convulsions within.
		He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that  purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing  to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the  conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
		He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
		He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
		He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of  Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
		He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
		He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
		He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to  our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to  their Acts of pretended Legislation:
		For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
		For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders  which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
		For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
		For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
		For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
		For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
		For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring  Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging  its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument  for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
		For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
		For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
		He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
		He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 
		He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to  compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with  circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most  barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
		He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas  to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their  friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 
		He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured  to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian  Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction  of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in  the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only  by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act  which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
 Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We  have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to  extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of  the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have  appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured  them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations,  which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.  They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We  must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our  Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in  War, in Peace Friends.
 We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America,  in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the  world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by  Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and  declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free  and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to  the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and  the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and  that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,  conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all  other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for  the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection  of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our  Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes. Words have definitions. You can make stuff up all your life, or you can learn the meaning of words. Your choice.


 Exactly.  You ought to try it.  When you study linguistics, you'll learn that most words have multiple meanings and can have idiomatic meanings in certain contexts.  Anarchy is one such word.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Exactly.  You ought to try it.  When you study linguistics, you'll learn that most words have multiple meanings and can have idiomatic meanings in certain contexts.  Anarchy is one such word.


:thumbs:

The irony is delicious.

----------


## Travlyr

HB, I don't know how Ron Paul or I can pound this into your head. Repetition is all we will try. But it is the counterfeiting cabal of elite rulers that are preventing people from enjoying liberty, peace, and prosperity. 

I post _"Gold, Peace, and Prosperity"_ in my signature for people to read if they want to learn along with a _"A Cross of Gold"_ - a short paper that demonstrates how we can actually achieve it. If anyone really desires liberty, please read them.

----------


## Travlyr

> Exactly.  You ought to try it.  When you study linguistics, you'll learn that most words have multiple meanings and can have idiomatic meanings in certain contexts.  Anarchy is one such word.


Yes, I know. Anarchy also means a false idol.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> HB, I don't know how Ron Paul or I can pound this into your head. Repetition is all we will try. But it is the counterfeiting cabal of elite rulers that are preventing people from enjoying liberty, peace, and prosperity. 
> 
> I post _"Gold, Peace, and Prosperity"_ in my signature for people to read if they want to learn along with a _"A Cross of Gold"_ - a short paper that demonstrates how we can actually achieve it. If anyone really desires liberty, please read them.


I would not contest your position that the banksters are preventing people from enjoying liberty, peace, and prosperity; only that they are the only thing preventing this... 

You seem to suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word, 'liberty'.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, I know. Anarchy also means a false idol.


According to who? (besides you)

----------


## Deborah K

> Exactly.  You ought to try it.  When you study linguistics, you'll learn that most words have multiple meanings and can have idiomatic meanings in certain contexts.  Anarchy is one such word.


One does not need to study linguistics in order to stand for certain principles.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes, I know. Anarchy also means a false idol.


I have never, ever seen the word anarchy defined as, "false idol".  

Again, you're approaching this from dogma, not logic or reason.

----------


## Travlyr

> I would not contest your position that the banksters are preventing people from enjoying liberty, peace, and prosperity; only that they are the only thing preventing this... 
> 
> You seem to suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word, 'liberty'.


No, I understand liberty. I live it. I'm working as hard as I can to help others enjoy it, too.

Definition of LIBERTY
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> HB, I don't know how Ron Paul or I can pound this into your head. Repetition is all we will try. *But it is the counterfeiting cabal of elite rulers that are preventing people from enjoying liberty, peace, and prosperity.* 
> 
> I post _"Gold, Peace, and Prosperity"_ in my signature for people to read if they want to learn along with a _"A Cross of Gold"_ - a short paper that demonstrates how we can actually achieve it. If anyone really desires liberty, please read them.


 I never contested the bolded point.  WTF are you talking about?  I contested your assertion that giving these elite rulers power will fix anything.  I propose getting rid of said cabal altogether-and all of us voluntarily choosing our own lifestyles and style of government.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The state is the instrument by which your so-called "anarchists" tyrannize.  Yet somehow, we need the state - and help me with the logic, here - to protect us from these "anarchists" in control of the state...?






Edit: h/t, Deborah.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> One does not need to study linguistics in order to stand for certain principles.


 True, but irrelevant to the point I made.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, I understand liberty. I live it. I'm working as hard as I can to help others enjoy it, too.
> 
> Definition of LIBERTY
> 1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice


I know it's mad to ask, but how does the state - that entity which enjoys a monopoly of FORCE within a certain geographic region - facilitate this condition?

----------


## Travlyr

> I never contested the bolded point.  WTF are you talking about?  I contested your assertion that giving these elite rulers power will fix anything.  I propose getting rid of said cabal altogether-and all of us voluntarily choosing our own lifestyles and style of government.


Unfortunately, you do not understand that you can have it under the state that is already in place. The State of Arizona has counties, townships, city and town charters that will allow you to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity if you will only participate.

----------


## Travlyr

> I know it's mad to ask, but how does the state - that entity which enjoys a monopoly of FORCE within a certain geographic region - facilitate this condition?


Only by embracing honest sound money.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Unfortunately, you do not understand that you can have it under the state that is already in place. The State of Arizona has counties, townships, city and town charters that will allow you to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity if you will only participate.


And when the government of one of those towns, townships, cities and/or counties passes a (for instance) zoning law with which he disagrees, will they not enforce that law regardless of his opposition?  If he decides to open a business in a zoned-residential area, will not the government forcibly close his business?  Of course.  Under those conditions, then, you're telling me that he is in a state of being free, has the power to do as he pleases, is free from physical restraint and from arbitrary or despotic control?  

If you tell me that, I'll tell you this:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Only by embracing honest sound money.


I can't really tell, but are you suggesting that corrupt or despotic governments don't exist within a commodity-currency regime?  If so, I've got a bridge to sell ya...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Unfortunately, you do not understand that you can have it under the state that is already in place. The State of Arizona has counties, townships, city and town charters that will allow you to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity if you will only participate.


 You realize that a physical state is different than a State, don't you?  There's no doubt that it's possible to achieve liberty in a geographical location (everything else aside).  The issue is dismantling the State (that organization which has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of violence).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And when the government of one of those towns, townships, cities and/or counties passes a (for instance) zoning law with which he disagrees, will they not enforce that law regardless of his opposition?  If he decides to open a business in a zoned-residential area, will not the government forcibly close his business?  Of course.  Under those conditions, then, you're telling me that he is in a state of being free, has the power to do as he pleases, is free from physical restraint and from arbitrary or despotic control?  
> 
> If you tell me that, I'll tell you this:
> 
> War is Peace
> Freedom is Slavery
> Ignorance is Strength


hehe-that's a great point too.  For examples, check out the Tempe smoking ban and all the absurd laws in California (and everywhere else). :Thumbs:

----------


## Travlyr

> And when the government of one of those towns, townships, cities and/or counties passes a (for instance) zoning law with which he disagrees, will they not enforce that law regardless of his opposition?  If he decides to open a business in a zoned-residential area, will not the government forcibly close his business?  Of course.  Under those conditions, then, you're telling me that he is in a state of being free, has the power to do as he pleases, is free from physical restraint and from arbitrary or despotic control?  
> 
> If you tell me that, I'll tell you this:
> 
> War is Peace
> Freedom is Slavery
> Ignorance is Strength


I'm going for the night. If only you will study. Please do. All this is because of the fiat money counterfeiting cabal ... not the organization of the State. 
Read Agenda 21.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm going for the night. If only you will study. Please do. All this is because of the fiat money counterfeiting cabal ... not the organization of the State. 
> Read Agenda 21.


Good night, Travlyr... I'm sorry to say but this, like most of the rest of your posts, is not a reply.  Again, this is dogma.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm going for the night. If only you will study. Please do. All this is because of the fiat money counterfeiting cabal ... not the organization of the State. 
> Read Agenda 21.


 The State helped create and helps maintain the counterfeiting cabal, FYI.  Good night, btw.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The State helped create and helps maintain the counterfeiting cabal, FYI.  Good night, btw.


Indeed.  The counterfeiting cabal are petty thieves without access to the levers of power possessed by the state.

----------


## mczerone

> Yes, at birth. We are born into a world of natural laws and existing man made laws. This is what anarchists completely ignore. We are born into an order of society whether written or not, or organized or not. The only difference is that written laws are easier to comprehend than unwritten laws.


I don't know.  Many youngsters and many adults couldn't tell you what the written law is, even the basic terms of the U.S. Constitution, or how the courts that rule over them will interpret it.

OTOH, most children can recognize basic right and wrongs that the state statutes pervert.  You earned 10 cookies helping your aunt bake?  Obviously you must give 3 to me, because I don't beat you up as much as the bully in the other day care room.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I've been talking about anarchy, which to me means no laws and no government.


No, it doesn't...and I've said as much 50 times on this post! It has one law "do no harm", and it has self government unless harm is intended or committed. How is this a lawless and governmentless society? Or do you still think chaos and disorder and violence are synonymous with spontaneous order (major capitalist principle), voluntary organization, and nonviolence? Oh boy!

I'm not even gonna waste my time further until you at least READ about anarchism before making such nonsense, State school influenced, PC dictionary BS brainwashed, assertions. Thank you.

----------


## ProIndividual

> And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to?


Not from State schools and PC BS dictionaries...but from the ACTUAL anarchist authors.

Sometimes I think to myself, why try? These sheep are never going to bother to READ anything that might conflict with their brainwashing.

WTF!?

----------


## ProIndividual

> I even repeatedly point them to the true culprits of our tyranny.


Tyranny is that action performed by a tyrant, against the will of the person being aggressed against.

Besides reading the quotes in my signature to define it...

...try this:

Anyone who forces you to do something against your will when you are mentally and physically able to govern yourself, and you have not FIRST attempted or succeeded in causing harm to ANOTHER individual or group or their property, is a TYRANT.

So, are you a tyrant? From what you write, yes. And you rationalize it as all tyrants do. You may be less a tyrant than your neighbor, or his neighbor, etc...but you are a tyrant nonetheless.

The true cause of tyranny is the aggression against the sovereign individual who has caused or intended no harm to anyone else but possibly (and optionally) him/herself.

If that doesn't make sense, you have been brainwashed, or are a sadist, or a sociopath (statist). 

Getting it yet?

----------


## ProIndividual

> Ron Paul has been saying since 1971 that honest sound money is the key to liberty.


Except he wants currency competition, which ends the monopoly on capital the anarchists have been railing against since the 1850s. End the Fed is an original anarchist movement, before the Fed even existed. They fought central banks and monetary monopolies before the Civil War. Read some history.

----------


## AceNZ

> No, it doesn't...and I've said as much 50 times on this post! It has one law "do no harm", and it has self government unless harm is intended or committed. How is this a lawless and governmentless society? Or do you still think chaos and disorder and violence are synonymous with spontaneous order (major capitalist principle), voluntary organization, and nonviolence? Oh boy!
> 
> I'm not even gonna waste my time further until you at least READ about anarchism before making such nonsense, State school influenced, PC dictionary BS brainwashed, assertions. Thank you.


I see.  You (and the authors you mentioned) are trying to redefine anarchy.  What you've described is not anarchy in the traditional (dictionary) sense, so we are talking past each other.  (Sounds more like AnCap, if anything).

I am interested in the subject, though, and will definitely read more.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I see.  You (and the authors you mentioned) are trying to redefine anarchy.  What you've described is not anarchy in the traditional (dictionary) sense, so we are talking past each other.  (Sounds more like AnCap, if anything).
> 
> I am interested in the subject, though, and will definitely read more.


 The fellow you're responding to didn't redefine anarchy.  The word anarchy literally means "without a leader".  The English prefix "an-/a-" negates the rest of the word.    For example, "anaerobic" or "asexual".    The suffix "-archy" comes "-arch", meaning "leader".  Isn't grammar and linguistics neat?  

I prefer to use the word "autarchy"(a system of self-rule), which I suggest anarchists here use.  The word "anarchy" is probably hopelessly tarnished by the popular use, misuse, and abuse of it.

----------


## ProIndividual

Celine's Laws:

1. National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity.

Reflecting the paranoia of the Cold War, Celine's First Law focuses around the common idea that to have national security, one must create a secret police. Since internal revolutionaries and external foes would make the secret police a prime target for infiltration, and because the secret police would by necessity have vast powers to blackmail and intimidate other members of the government, another higher set of secret police must be created to monitor the secret police. And an even higher set of secret police must then be created to monitor the higher order of secret police. Repeat ad nauseam.

This seemingly infinite regress goes on until every person in the country is spying on another, or "the funding runs out." And since this paranoid and self monitoring situation inherently makes targets of a nation's own citizens, the average person in the nation is more threatened by the massive secret police complex than by whatever foe they were seeking to protect themselves from. Wilson points out that the Soviet Union, which suffered from this in spades, got to the point that it was terrified of painters and poets who could do little harm to them in reality.

At the same time, given the limitation of funding and scale, the perfect security state never truly emerges, leaving the populace still vulnerable from the original threat while also being threatened by the vast and Orwellian secret police.


2. Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.

Wilson rephrases this himself many times as "communication occurs only between equals." Celine calls this law "a simple statement of the obvious" and refers to the fact that everyone who labors under an authority figure tends to lie to and flatter that authority figure in order to protect themselves either from violence or from deprivation of security (such as losing one's job). In essence, it is usually more in the interests of any worker to tell his boss what he wants to hear, not what is true.

In any hierarchy, every level below the highest carries a subtle burden to see the world in the way their superiors expect it to be seen and to provide feedback to their superiors that their superiors want to hear. In the end, any hierarchical organization supports what its leaders already think is true more than it challenges them to think differently. The levels below the leaders are more interested in keeping their jobs than telling the truth.

Wilson, in Prometheus Rising, uses the example of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Hoover saw communist infiltrators and spies everywhere, and he told his agents to hunt them down. Therefore, FBI agents began seeing and interpreting everything they could as parts of the communist conspiracy. Some even went as far as framing people as communists, making largely baseless arrests and doing everything they could to satisfy Hoover's need to find and drive out the communist conspiracy. The problem is, such a conspiracy never existed in any form. Hoover thought it did, but any agent who dared point out the lack of evidence to Hoover would be at best denied promotions, and at worst labeled a communist himself and lose his job. Any agent who knew the truth would be very careful to hide the fact.

Meanwhile, the FBI was largely ignoring the problem of organized crime (the Mafia), because Hoover insisted that organized crime did not exist on the national scale. Not only does the leader of the hierarchy see what he wants to see, but he also does not see what he does not want to see. Agents who pursued the issue of organized crime were sometimes marginalized within the organization or hounded into retirement.

In the end, Celine states, any hierarchy acts more to conceal the truth from its leaders than it serves to find the truth.


3. An honest politician is a national calamity.

Celine recognizes that the third law seems preposterous from the beginning. While a dishonest politician is interested only in bettering his own lot through abusing the public trust, an honest politician is far more dangerous since he is honestly interested in bettering society through political action, and that means writing and implementing more and more laws.

Celine argues that creating more laws simply creates more criminals. Laws inherently restrict individual freedom, and the explosive rate at which laws are being created means that every citizen in the course of his daily life does not have the research capacity to not violate at least one of the plethora of laws. It is only through honest politicians trying to change the world through laws that true tyranny can come into being through excessive legislation.

Corrupt politicians simply line their own pockets. Honest idealist politicians cripple the people's freedom through enormous amounts of laws. So corrupt politicians are preferable according to Celine, despite the possibility of an honest politician who honestly opposes the formation of new laws (or wants to do away with some).



The exception to rule three is a statesman (like Ron Paul)...a person who wishes to recede laws and regulations, and shrink the State.


Anarchists fundamentally believe the mechanism of power over the non-aggressive individual is the problem, the minarchist and Statist tend to think that the wrong people run the show. It's our assertion as anarchists that minarchists and Statists are naive to think a) the State doesn't attract sociopaths and sadists, b) that it's not the mechanism itself that is the problem, not just the people who run it, and c) that any majority statesman government is likely to exist, or has in fact existed in the past.

We trust ourselves, you trust an institution. We want to stop trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result (the definition of insanity).

IT ISN'T WHO HAS POWER, IT'S THE POWER ITSELF THAT IS TYRANNICAL AND CORRUPTING BY IT'S VERY NATURE. You may disagree, but the burden of proof is on you...we have 2500+ years of failure of the State on our side.


Benjamin Tucker said:

"Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that 'the best government is that which governs least,' and that which governs [the non-invasive individual] least is no government at all." --- Benjamin Tucker

"I build no system. I ask an end to privilege, the abolition of slavery, equality of rights, *and the reign of law*. Justice, nothing else. That is the alpha and omega of my argument. " --- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the public interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. " --- Proudhon

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called ‘The People's Stick.’ " --- Bakunin

"America is just the country that shows how all the written guarantees in the world for freedom are no protection against tyranny and oppression of the worst kind. There the politician has come to be looked upon as the very scum of society." --- Kropotkin

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." --- Goldman

"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." --- Zinn

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." --- Rothbard

_FYI: free market capitalism is capitalism with ZERO State interference (look it up for yourself), hence why Rothbard made the statement._


Civil disobedience, or individual nullification, a school of thought MLKjr and Ghandi credited to American anarchist Henry David Thoreau, simply took state nullification to it's logical end; the individual. It is now a treasured American tradition, who rarely is credited publicly to it's clear inventor, simply because of his self-labeling as an anarchist.

The first abolitionists of slavery were anarchists. The first "free love" movement and feminists were anarchists of both sexes. The first child rights advocates were anarchists. The list goes on and on. Anarchists have always been ahead of the curve on moral and social issues, and always derided and belittled as "extremists" or "naive" in their own times. 

I'll settle for your irrational dislike for us...because in the end, history will prove us right, as it always has.

The State is a "false idol", worshipped through flag and hymn, given human sacrifice in war and peace, squelching dissent as if it were sin, and replacing patriotism with nationalism. It creates self-serving rituals that dull the mind of it's subjects, and worse, dull their morality while sharpening their depravity, sadism, and sociopathy.

Anarchism is NOT a false idol...as it does none of these cultish things. We have no flag to worship, every person is their own soveriegn. We do not sing together, promote uniformity through coercion, deify leaders who have died, or hold such nostalgia for any institution we would gladly lay down our children's lives for it. This is what cults do, and the worship of false idols creates. 

We are the antithesis of "false idol" worshippers...and many of you are our unthinking opposites.

----------


## ProIndividual

> You (and the authors you mentioned) are trying to redefine anarchy.


You are completely brainwashed. How can the ACTUAL source of the definition be overruled by those OBVIOUSLY diametrically opposed to it?

You're right, you're right. The KKK should be able to redefine "the N word" to me "shiny happy people". right?

The State redefined the word...if you actually read history, it has it's own definition previous.

Try reading the following:

The ideas of Antithenes

The words of Diogenes of Sinope

The ideas of Hipparchia

The ideas of Zeno of Citium


These Ancient Greek authors are the OPPOSITION to Plato and Aristotle your schools don't teach you. Plato and Aristotle believed in a goal of a "Utopian State"; the people I list tended to believe these men were insane, and stating a goal of oxymoronic ideals.

In Ancient China:

Loazi and the Toaists of the same period (5th-4th Century BC)


Start in Ancient philosophy, where the city-state tyrants, known as Archons first appeared, and where anarchy (-an is Greek for "without", Archon is Greeks for "ruler") first appeared. 

Then maybe you'll wake up and READ, instead of parroting nonsense you learned in school. School is BS dude, it lies to you alllll the way through.

When you accept the definition of anarchy is not violence, chaos, and disorder, but is non-violence except in self defense, spontaneous order (a major capitalist tenant), and voluntary organization, then maybe we will have an intelligent conversation.

Until then, it's just State propaganda vs truth (I am accurately speaking truth, while you continue to spew BS).

----------


## ProIndividual

> I prefer to use the word "autarchy"(a system of self-rule), which I suggest anarchists here use.


Maybe I should, because dullards can't see through the semantics. But I won't, because I am what I am, and I'm proud of it, and it's history. Sure, some of it is not-so-good...but in comparison to the State, we are golden.

Besides, what will be the result of this intellectual slight of hand when newly recruited autarks discover they are really relabeled anarchists? I don't want them to feel how I did once I realized the word "anarchism" was totally redefined by the State. That very moment is what opened my eyes to the bull$#@! I had been fed since a child. I don't want people to abandon anarchism as I did Statism because intellectual dishonesty and PC BS. It is what it is...and what it is has been propagandized by the State. We need to fight the propaganda, not give into it and play their game. Either they wake up, or they don't. Either way, we're right on the facts. That's good enough for me to sleep at night.

----------


## AceNZ

> You are completely brainwashed.


Oh, come on.

If you're ever planning on communicating with the rest of civilization, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the common meanings of the words you're using.

From dictionary.com, for anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.

This gets back to the original thread topic: why are non-anarchists against anarchists?  In part because the definition above is what nearly all of the people you run into are going to think you mean when you use that word.  What the original users or creators of the word may have meant is immaterial if your goal is communication.  I'm willing to adapt, but most people won't be.

----------


## Seraphim

anarchy=no government, is misleading and false.

No ruler, no IMPOSED structure - sure. No government? That is Statist propaganda and a blantant change in the definition of a word with defined roots that do NOT mean NO GOVERNMENT.

Statism is the result of misunderstanding and FEAR. Those who seek to RULE, use this to sell statist oppression as some sort of positive Godsend.







> Oh, come on.
> 
> If you're ever planning on communicating with the rest of civilization, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the common meanings of the words you're using.
> 
> From dictionary.com, for anarchy:
> 
> 1. a state of society without government or law.
> 
> This gets back to the original thread topic: why are non-anarchists against anarchists?  In part because the definition above is what nearly all of the people you run into are going to think you mean when you use that word.  What the original users or creators of the word may have meant is immaterial if your goal is communication.  I'm willing to adapt, but most people won't be.

----------


## ProIndividual

ACENZ, accept the facts by READING them, or just keep saying you're not brainwashed because a dictionary says so. Please!!

Look up the "N word"...then look it up in a 1930s or previous dictionary ( I have). Words are PC'd up as time goes on.

The original dictionary definition in this country for the "N word" was a person of African descent with large lips, wooly hair, and wide nostrils. This did not include other peoples with black skin, like Aborigines in Australia, or Indians of Asia.

Now, you're PC dictionary says this: 

1. 
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . 
a. 
a black person. 

b. 
a member of any dark-skinned people. 

2. 
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc. 

3. 
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised. 


Notice how they Pc'd up the definition to mean, in meaning 2, "a person of any race"...this is an out-and-out lie. Anyone with a dictionary from the first 160 years of our country would know this by just opening up their older dictionaries. From 1776 until at least 1930ish, the "N word" meant what we all KNOW it really means, and what I stated above. It was a racial classification ONLY!

Stop using PC BS dictionaries for definitions dude...try reading their context when the word came into being historically...there the authors of the periods will define correctly. This is why State schools (and all schools have to meet State requirements) want you to look to dictionaries as an end-all be-all for all meanings of words...because they rig the dictionary...as I've just demonstrated. 

They redefined the "N word" in order to PC it up, and lay cover for racists who use it...and if you can't see that, you're blind.

I'm sorry to be sort of rude, but you don't have to like me for me to be right...and your insulting manner in which you treat my personal philosophy angers me (as it should). Majority opinion of what the word means is irrelevant to what it ACTUALLY means...the crowd is fickle and stupid.

Wikipedia is better than dictionaries, when sourced correctly, as it is not so PC. Look up the "N word" there, you'll see what I mean. Compare to your PC dictionary, go ahead, I dare you. Then do the same for anarchism...and every word you've ever learned. Re-education time!

----------


## ProIndividual

> This gets back to the original thread topic: why are non-anarchists against anarchists?


You're absolutely right, it sure does...it's because you people are intellectually lazy.

People that rely on dictionaries and encyclopedias for definitions and meanings are intellectually lazy. READ THE ACTUAL USE OF THE WORD WHEN IT CAME INTO USAGE, BY THE AUTHORS THAT USED IT.

For Pete's sake!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Maybe I should, because dullards can't see through the semantics. But I won't, because I am what I am, and I'm proud of it, and it's history. Sure, some of it is not-so-good...but in comparison to the State, we are golden.
> 
> Besides, what will be the result of this intellectual slight of hand when newly recruited autarks discover they are really relabeled anarchists? I don't want them to feel how I did once I realized the word "anarchism" was totally redefined by the State. That very moment is what opened my eyes to the bull$#@! I had been fed since a child. I don't want people to abandon anarchism as I did Statism because intellectual dishonesty and PC BS. It is what it is...and what it is has been propagandized by the State. We need to fight the propaganda, not give into it and play their game. Either they wake up, or they don't. Either way, we're right on the facts. That's good enough for me to sleep at night.


This is a great point.  However, as you will notice throughout the threads that discuss anarchism on these boards alone are full of comments that stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "anarchy" due to propaganda, ignorance, and intellectual laziness.  I don't think it's a good thing to dumb down language, but in persuasive speech/writing, it is important to consider the audience.  You and I can use the word and understand it perfectly, but most folks in the US don't understand it.  It's sad, but true.  Such is the life of the rhetorician and intellectual-seemingly endless frustration.

----------


## ProIndividual

> it is important to consider the audience


Yeah, good point I guess. Touche'.

----------


## acptulsa

> ACENZ, accept the facts by READING them, or just keep saying you're not brainwashed because a dictionary says so. Please!!


Damn, dude.  Call the world idiots because people accept dictionary definitions?  And still no civil tongue in your fingers?  And all to stretch out to thirty-five pages a converstation that this forum has seen a million times before?  So nice to have you here.

Where are the civil anarchists of this forum when you need them?

Seems to me this forum is dedicated to advancing the cause of elecing a man who preserves, protects and defends the Constitution, and here we have three hundred fifty posts about how Somalia with three weeks of freedom was better off without a Constitution than this nation, with about two hundred years of freedom before we got lazy enough to ignore it and let them incrementalize us to $#@! was with a Constitution.  Just damn.

Hello lurkers.  This guy ain't all of us.  Hello, general public.  The fact that he has over 170 posts doesn't mean he represents us or Dr. Paul.  Thank you.

We get treated like this and we aren't even the people who call Che Guevara wannabes anarchists.  Damn.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Damn, dude.  Call the world idiots because people accept dictionary definitions?  And still no civil tongue in your fingers?  And all to stretch out to thirty-five pages a converstation that this forum has seen a million times before?  So nice to have you here.
> 
> Where are the civil anarchists of this forum when you need them?
> 
> Seems to me this forum is dedicated to advancing the cause of elecing a man who preserves, protects and defends the Constitution, and here we have three hundred fifty posts about how Somalia with three weeks of freedom was better off without a Constitution than this nation, *with about two hundred years of freedom before we got lazy enough to ignore it and let them incrementalize us to $#@! was with a Constitution*.  Just damn.
> 
> Hello lurkers.  This guy ain't all of us.  Hello, general public.  The fact that he has over 170 posts doesn't mean he represents us or Dr. Paul.  Thank you.
> 
> We get treated like this and we aren't even the people who call Che Guevara wannabes anarchists.  Damn.


A good post, but the bolded above is a gross exaggeration.  The long train of abuses by TPTB against the people began almost from the start(the Federalists' betrayal of the Revolution, turning a free and highly decentralized society into a highly centralized one with a central bank), with brief interludes of advances in liberty scattered throughout.  /end ramble

----------


## acptulsa

> A good post, but the bolded above is a gross exaggeration.  The long train of abuses by TPTB against the people began almost from the start(the Federalists' betrayal of the Revolution, turning a free and highly decentralized society into a highly centralized one with a central bank), with brief interludes of advances in liberty scattered throughout.  /end ramble


Oh, sure.  And at the time, the Constitution permitted slavery too.  Doesn't mean we didn't do better than Somalia, does it?  I still say thank God for the chunk of parchment.

'We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.'--_Thomas Jefferson_

I know old Tommy boy was talking about the amendment process, but seeing the lawlessness rampant after a government falls sure gives the quote a different meaning.  It seems to me we're somebody yet to come's barbarous ancestors still...

----------


## AceNZ

> ACENZ, accept the facts by READING them, or just keep saying you're not brainwashed because a dictionary says so. Please!!


I do believe that one of the most damaging weapons of the Left is an ongoing corruption of the language.  *Many* words today mean something different than what they originally did.  Not quite Newspeak, but sometimes it feels like we're headed in that direction.

However, my point remains: if your goal is communication (and I'm now doubting that it is), then you need to use words in the way that others understand them.  Either that, or at least clearly define your terms very early on.  If that happened in this thread, I missed it.  If you and your buddies in the in-crowd want to revert to old-style English (or Gaelic or whatever), you're welcome to.  Sorry to break it to you, but if you use those words with the rest of the world, we won't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with intellectual laziness or brainwashing.  It is simple social language convention.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do believe that one of the most damaging weapons of the Left is an ongoing corruption of the language.  *Many* words today mean something different than what they originally did.  Not quite Newspeak, but sometimes it feels like we're headed in that direction.
> 
> However, my point remains: if your goal is communication (and I'm now doubting that it is), then you need to use words in the way that others understand them.  Either that, or at least clearly define your terms very early on.  If that happened in this thread, I missed it.  If you and the your buddies in the in-crowd want to revert to old-style English (or Gaelic or whatever), you're welcome to.  Sorry to break it to you, but if you use those words with the rest of the world, we won't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
> 
> This has nothing to do with intellectual laziness or brainwashing.  It is simple social language convention.


I agree, and all the linguists and translators I'm aware of agree as well.  Language is dynamic and constantly changing, so it's important to consider what people _now_ understand about words before using them.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Damn, dude. Call the world idiots because people accept dictionary definitions?


No. I said they're intellectually lazy and brainwashed because of it. 

Idiots cannot learn.

Intellectually lazy people CAN learn, but refuse to.


You tell me which is worse...it's clear I have my own opinion.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I do believe that one of the most damaging weapons of the Left is an ongoing corruption of the language.


Then quit getting your information from sources that have corrupted it.

----------


## acptulsa

> No. I said they're intellectually lazy and brainwashed because of it. 
> 
> Idiots cannot learn.
> 
> Intellectually lazy people CAN learn, but refuse to.
> 
> 
> You tell me which is worse...it's clear I have my own opinion.


Oh, far and away what you're encountering have here is the worst sin of all.  Realism.

No wonder we make you so unhappy.

----------


## Revolution9

> What anarchists in charge?  Are you writing from some other country where anarchists are in charge?


And that sonny boy is the sum total of your ignorance. Now..go take up a cause worth fighting for like freedom and liberty and not the counterfeit illusion you so wickedly defend. And do me a favor. Keep your snide comments to the board and out of my personal panel. I consider such tactics chicken$#@!..and on good authority too..LOL!

 Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Clearly desperate.  You make this wild claim, and fail to prove it.  Anarchists have voluminous evidence to prove that it works.


Absolute piffle. Anarchism worked quite well as a weaponized illusion in the 20th century. Your denial of this encapsulates the desperation you are holding tightly to. Freedom and liberty are NOT anarchy. Anarchy is quite similar to psychopathy in its methods and excuses for behavior.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> 


I didn't watch this crap but if you think a series of LOLcatz styled rebuttals is appropriate it just shows the bankruptcy of your position.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> I don't know. Do you suppose you, or your state can know, for all people everywhere in every capacity?  Can you not accept that each individual would need their own "age" of competency?  It matters not how many times the Earth has circled the Sun, but only how the individual's capacity for empathy, reason, and self-interest develop in order to be a legitimate party to certain contracts.


I guess the first appeal to that status comes from mommy and daddy. Your premise fails hard yet again. Why? It is based on illusion and gifted to YOU by YOUR Master.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Yes.  That's why it was to be amended.  The Federalists ignored their duty like the lawless thugs they were-


Damned bloody handed anarchists!

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Destroying the State (the most lawless of all groups) is very desirable.  Read the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson clearly said that people have the right to disband a tyrannical government and start a new one that serves their purpose.


Reread that to find out how ridiculous this sentiment is. There are twists of logic a contortionist trapeze artist would be proud of but do your argument absurd amounts of damage. Kinda like you wound up hard, swung and knocked yourself out with a right cross to the chin.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> This is an emotional rather than intellectual opposition to anarchism.  There's no logic or debate here - just dogma.


I presume you were born into a TV set then?

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Exactly.  You ought to try it.  When you study linguistics, you'll learn that most words have multiple meanings and can have idiomatic meanings in certain contexts.  Anarchy is one such word.


A classic appeal to authority. So exactly what are you if you ARE NOT an anarchist..just a $#@! dsturber talking back to mommy and daddy like I claimed before when dismissing this claptrap?

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> True, but irrelevant to the point I made.


Your points are basically irrelevant. No win there.

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I didn't watch this crap but if you think a series of LOLcatz styled rebuttals is appropriate it just shows the bankruptcy of your position.
> 
> Rev9


Borrowed from Deborah K.  I thought it was funny.  Apparently unlike yourself, the mere thought of someone having an ideology or philosophy contra to mine does not make me angry at that person.  Rude and/or discourteous posting however, I eventually, unfortunately respond to in kind.  Some of the comments made were so absurd that funny images were really appropriate, and personally entertaining.  

As far as bankruptcy of posititons is concerned - and I realize I'm about to make another point which will garner nothing but more unsubstantiated recitations, like "the anarchists are in charge" - many minarchists take the utilitarian approach to justifying their viewpoint while acknowledging that there is philosophical substance to anarchism, unlike a few here in this thread who seem to be planting their minarchist flag on philosophical grounds, again without substantiating that stand.  

Now there's a position I wouldn't want to try to defend...

----------


## Revolution9

> Good night, Travlyr... I'm sorry to say but this, like most of the rest of your posts, is not a reply.  Again, this is dogma.


Anarchy is pure dogma and incapable of existing in the Universe due to the hierarchical nature of The Universe. Anarchy is an illusion and counterfeit of true freedom.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> No, it doesn't...and I've said as much 50 times on this post! It has one law "do no harm", and it has self government unless harm is intended or committed. How is this a lawless and governmentless society? Or do you still think chaos and disorder and violence are synonymous with spontaneous order (major capitalist principle), voluntary organization, and nonviolence? Oh boy!
> 
> I'm not even gonna waste my time further until you at least READ about anarchism before making such nonsense, State school influenced, PC dictionary BS brainwashed, assertions. Thank you.


And then someone does harm and the whole $#@! in a handbag apparatus of anarchy has no answers...except reversion to authority to deal with transgressions on others FREEDOM..not others anarchy.. Jeesh..you clowns are simply silly with what you think are sound arguments.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Not from State schools and PC BS dictionaries...but from the ACTUAL anarchist authors.
> 
> Sometimes I think to myself, why try? These sheep are never going to bother to READ anything that might conflict with their brainwashing.
> 
> WTF!?


So you must revert to certain authors/authority to get the definition of the state you wish to see constructed..where the rules are those of the anarchic authorities/writers. And of course anything that conflicts with this anarchic authorities brainwashing is..we guessed it..brainwashing. Methinks yer violating Dept of Agroculture hogwashing regulations.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> The true cause of tyranny is the aggression against the sovereign individual who has caused or intended no harm to anyone else but possibly (and optionally) him/herself.



And the proper remedy is liberty and freedom.

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> This is very, very funny stuff.  
> 
> The state is the instrument by which your so-called "anarchists" tyrannize.  Yet somehow, we need the state - and help me with the logic, here - to protect us from these "anarchists" in control of the state...?


Ahem?

----------


## Revolution9

> End the Fed is an original anarchist movement, before the Fed even existed.


And the leader of that movement is the champion of freedom and liberty..not the illusion and counterfeit of anarchy. These constant appeals to authority to bolster your positions is hilarious and shows that the underpinnings of anarchy are a joke..a very serious one to be dealt with appropriately..but a joke none the less.

Rev9

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And then someone does harm and the whole $#@! in a handbag apparatus of anarchy has no answers...except reversion to authority to deal with transgressions on others FREEDOM..not others anarchy.. Jeesh..you clowns are simply silly with what you think are sound arguments.
> 
> Rev9


Anarchists don't presume to dictate to others answers to their perceived problems.  

Reversion to authority?  Are you kidding?  You want a state, for crying out loud... you don't just revert to authority, you practically beg for it!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Slogans... everything you post is just unsubstantiated slogans...

----------


## Revolution9

> Celine's Laws:<snip appeal to authority>


See what I did up there. You anarchists cannot have it both ways.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> You are completely brainwashed. How can the ACTUAL source of the definition be overruled by those OBVIOUSLY diametrically opposed to it?
> 
> You're right, you're right. The KKK should be able to redefine "the N word" to me "shiny happy people". right?
> 
> The State redefined the word...if you actually read history, it has it's own definition previous.
> 
> Try reading the following:
> 
> The ideas of Antithenes
> ...


What a convoluted spaghetti mess of a rebuttal. Yer brainwashed and trying hard not to drown in it.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> ACENZ, accept the facts by READING them, or just keep saying you're not brainwashed because a dictionary says so. Please!!
> 
> Look up the "N word"...then look it up in a 1930s or previous dictionary ( I have). Words are PC'd up as time goes on.


Now you are pulling the race card gambit??? You lose.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> This is a great point.  However, as you will notice throughout the threads that discuss anarchism on these boards alone are full of comments that stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "anarchy" due to propaganda, ignorance, and intellectual laziness.


Yeah.. So get up off your lazy ass and exercise that brain and stop the knee jerk argument with mommy and daddy replete with all sorts of fallacious authority..

rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Anarchists don't presume to dictate to others answers to their perceived problems.  
> 
> Reversion to authority?  Are you kidding?  You want a state, for crying out loud... you don't just revert to authority, you practically beg for it!


Anarchists on this thread have dictated their positions and elucidated the format of their structure. I at least take YOUR words and deal with them. You make up words for me and then proceed to flail at the straw man you have created like a drunken brujo swinging at a tequila filled pinata. I want freedom and liberty to be the underscore pinnings of society. I am here to support RP's campaign. What are you here for? To spit and spew endless crap. Do not expect me to follow your little set of rules and don't put words in my mouth I did not utter and then try to bolster your argument. That is a pure bogus amateur tactic and worthy of scorn.

rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Slogans... everything you post is just unsubstantiated slogans...


I see you have come over from the dark side and agree with freedom lovers that anarchy is just a bunch of godddamned slogans and sloganeering. Not much difference with jingoism if ya ask me. Glad to have you aboard

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

You haven't *responded* to a single point we've made, as far as I can tell... 

Rant and rave all you want...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I see you have come over from the dark side and agree with freedom lovers that anarchy is just a bunch of godddamned slogans and sloganeering. Not much difference with jingoism if ya ask me. Glad to have you aboard
> 
> Rev9


Too funny... Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard... just a bunch of sloganeers.  What was Ron Paul thinking when he cited them in his books!?  

Carry on.  Your anger is misplaced, but comical.

----------


## Travlyr

> Too funny... Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard... just a bunch of sloganeers.  What was Ron Paul thinking when he cited them in his books!?  
> 
> Carry on.  Your anger is misplaced, but comical.


No it's not. It's not anger. You want people to believe your garbage... and we are just pointing out that anarchy is junk political philosophy. 

Seriously, do you actually believe that if we tear-up the U.S. Constitution and disband the State of Nebraska, along with the other 49 states, that you will be more free?

----------


## Travlyr

> I have never, ever seen the word anarchy defined as, "false idol".  
> 
> Again, you're approaching this from dogma, not logic or reason.


If you can make-up meanings to words so can I. Anarchy will not get you anything but chaos. It is a false idol for liberty. 
The rule of law using honest sound money is the way to achieve liberty.

----------


## Revolution9

> Too funny... Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard... just a bunch of sloganeers.  What was Ron Paul thinking when he cited them in his books!?  
> 
> Carry on.  Your anger is misplaced, but comical.


The comical part many have agreed upon. The anger part..nah..I am having a blast riot smacking you folks political philosophy all over the board. It is too easy. As for points not being rebutted. I am not going to waste my time on the plethora of straw men and sychophantic diatribes when a simple metaphorical smack upside the head works for me.

Best Regards
Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

It's comical that you think you've smacked anything around...

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't know.  Many youngsters and many adults couldn't tell you what the written law is, even the basic terms of the U.S. Constitution, or how the courts that rule over them will interpret it.
> 
> OTOH, most children can recognize basic right and wrongs that the state statutes pervert.  You earned 10 cookies helping your aunt bake?  Obviously you must give 3 to me, because I don't beat you up as much as the bully in the other day care room.


It is the job of the parent to teach their children the rules of the society they are born into. As a parent, if you don't like the rules, then you can work to change them. There is an amendment process. If you want to eliminate my State, I'll fight you because I swore an oath to uphold and defend it.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, it doesn't...and I've said as much 50 times on this post! It has one law "do no harm", and it has self government unless harm is intended or committed. How is this a lawless and governmentless society? Or do you still think chaos and disorder and violence are synonymous with spontaneous order (major capitalist principle), voluntary organization, and nonviolence? Oh boy!
> 
> I'm not even gonna waste my time further until you at least READ about anarchism before making such nonsense, State school influenced, PC dictionary BS brainwashed, assertions. Thank you.


No, you are an empty suit with an agenda, and a radio show. 
Anarchy = no ruler. Rules require rulers. Otherwise what is the point in making a rule? You don't make any sense at all.

----------


## Travlyr

> The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours.    People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy.  But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected.  It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war.  They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.
> 
> But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."  I mean, only only has to look at the category you chose to expound upon yourself in to understand that you wanted to make sure this was seen by a maximum number of posters. And of course this is all about you, and not Ron Paul.





> Not from State schools and PC BS dictionaries...but from the ACTUAL anarchist authors.
> 
> Sometimes I think to myself, why try? These sheep are never going to bother to READ anything that might conflict with their brainwashing.
> 
> WTF!?





> Tyranny is that action performed by a tyrant, against the will of the person being aggressed against.
> 
> Besides reading the quotes in my signature to define it...
> 
> ...try this:
> 
> Anyone who forces you to do something against your will when you are mentally and physically able to govern yourself, and you have not FIRST attempted or succeeded in causing harm to ANOTHER individual or group or their property, is a TYRANT.
> 
> So, are you a tyrant? From what you write, yes. And you rationalize it as all tyrants do. You may be less a tyrant than your neighbor, or his neighbor, etc...but you are a tyrant nonetheless.
> ...


It was accurately predicted early on that you wouldn't get it. 
You make-up words and talk $#@!.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If you can make-up meanings to words so can I. Anarchy will not get you anything but chaos. It is a false idol for liberty. 
> The rule of law using honest sound money is the way to achieve liberty.


Anarchy - from the greek - without a ruler.  I'll concede the point that it has taken on varied meanings.  I contend that is a tactic of the left.  I maintain it's original meaning.  

"The rule of law using honest sound money..." is a slogan.  How do you see this - within the context of a state - as liberating?  For reference's sake, from your post:

Definition of LIBERTY
 1 : the quality or state of being free: a : *the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control* d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

Especially the bolded.

----------


## acptulsa

The Constitution does much to protect liberty.  Maybe you don't mind that it also sets up a system of common defense and sets guidelines for free trade within a certain region, and maybe you do.  But the simple fact of the matter is, having something that is designed to protect our natural rights is better than having nothing that protects our natural rights.  Especially if we actually have respect for it.

This isn't philosophical.  It's practical.  And I don't see why someone should come in here and accuse us of being Stalinists because we believe in trying to codify natural rights--and calling *us* rude in the thread title before we even have a chance to disagree.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The Constitution does much to protect liberty.  Maybe you don't mind that it also sets up a system of common defense and sets guidelines for free trade within a certain region, and maybe you do.  But the simple fact of the matter is, having something that is designed to protect our natural rights is better than having nothing that protects our natural rights.  Especially if we actually have respect for it.
> 
> This isn't philosophical.  It's practical.  And I don't see why someone should come in here and accuse us of being Stalinists because we believe in trying to codify natural rights--and calling *us* rude in the thread title before we even have a chance to disagree.


This is a good response.  Thank you.

----------


## Travlyr

> Anarchy - from the greek - without a ruler.  I'll concede the point that it has taken on varied meanings.  I contend that is a tactic of the left.  I maintain it's original meaning.


It is not a tactic of the left. Left/right is political obfuscation. But if you want to play that game, anarchy is the extreme left. It means as you say, "without ruler."  

Analyze that. 
If no ruler, then no one enforces anything because there is nothing to enforce. Make a rule, then a ruler is required because unenforced rules are the same as no rules. Given a rule; Who rules? Either pick someone or don't. If someone is picked, then they are the ruler. If no one is picked then each person is their own ruler. That may be fine with two or three people but when it comes to larger groups, the strongest will dominate. When you get to millions of people it leads to chaos.




> "The rule of law using honest sound money..." is a slogan.  How do you see this - within the context of a state - as liberating?  For reference's sake, from your post:
> 
> Definition of LIBERTY
>  1 : the quality or state of being free: a : *the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control* d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice


Wealth is good for people because wealthy people can enjoy life above and beyond mere subsistence. All wealth is derived from the Earth's natural resources especially when mixed with labor. Land owners can become wealthy through honest efforts. A mechanism for distributing the Earth's resources is handy to maintain order. A proper law abiding State can achieve that goal. It is not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives today.

Laissez-faire free-market capitalism using sound money as basis for trade is honest. Virtually everyone appreciates being treated fairly. It is when one is cheated that the arguments start. Cheating needs an unbiased ruler to sort out who actually cheated and how much. Laws under a constitutional republic is one way to do it, and since that is what we have, I support it in theory and in fact. 

What we have today are cheaters in charge. We need to remove them from power and use honesty in our dealings.

----------


## Travlyr

I just received notice that Anarchy is extreme right. Which proves my point that left/right paradigms are simply obfuscation. Personally, I know my left shoe from my right, but I can never know if I am politically right or left.

----------


## acptulsa

> What we have today are cheaters in charge. We need to remove them from power and use honesty in our dealings.


That's really what makes it sad in a funny sort of way.  We set these structures up because might does not make right, and then we don't make sure the people we give the might to use it for right.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights give us everything we need to make the people we give power to toe the line, and what do we do?

If we can't be bothered to exercise a modicum of due diligence when it's time to vote, no wonder anarchy is so prone to devolve into chaos.  It requires due diligence all the time.

----------


## ProIndividual

I see Rev9 and some others still dogmatically roll in BS, instead of READING something that addresses their concerns or mumbo jumbo definitions. Fine with me, but don't get mad when I say you're intellectually lazy, or downright willfully ignorant.

"I calls 'em like I sees 'em." --- Captain Spaulding

----------


## acptulsa

> I see Rev9 and some others still dogmatically roll in BS, instead of READING something that addresses their concerns or mumbo jumbo definitions. Fine with me, but don't get mad when I say you're intellectually lazy, or downright willfully ignorant.
> 
> "I calls 'em like I sees 'em." --- Captain Spaulding


And I sees this one as the pot calling the kettle black.  Or more like the pot calling the teapot black.

----------


## Revolution9

> Anarchy - from the greek - without a ruler.  I'll concede the point that it has taken on varied meanings.  I contend that is a tactic of the left.  I maintain it's original meaning.  
> 
> "The rule of law using honest sound money..." is a slogan.  How do you see this - within the context of a state - as liberating?  For reference's sake, from your post:
> 
> Definition of LIBERTY
>  1 : the quality or state of being free: a : *the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control* d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
> 
> Especially the bolded.


Anarchism is very arbitrary and uses the same worthless tactics of feminism. It constantly shifts its definition whenever you get it backed into a corner based on its own promulgations. You guys are becoming infamous for winding up and giving yourself a right cross to the jaw by being unaware of the implications of what you shiftily write to back up your illusion.

Rev9

----------


## ProIndividual

> I just received notice that Anarchy is extreme right


Right and left don't exist man, it's a psychopathic fallacy, a black and white fallacy, a either/or fallacy. There are anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists, collectivist anarchists, and individualist anarchists...for every school of thought or economics there is a distinct type of anarchism, or in some cases more. There is anarcho-Christianity even.

When you realize the State made that left/right $#@! up, you'll be on your way to clarity.

A cow enters the shoot at the slaughter house...he can go left or right toward the kill room...a false choice is not choice at all...and he can't go backwards. That's the left/right paradigm.

I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the quote...but:

'The State is the great illusion by which man holds false authority over another in the pursuit of protecting rights.' --- can't remember


Although anarcho-capitalists are the smallest government capitalists possible.

----------


## ProIndividual

> It constantly shifts its definition whenever you get it backed into a corner based on its own promulgations.


No it doesn't...the State does that, hence why you still keep parroting the state's nonsense redefinition...but hey, why go READ anything, right?

Still listening to David Icke?

----------


## ProIndividual

> And I sees this one as the pot calling the kettle black. Or more like the pot calling the teapot black.


I see you're still self righteous and confused.

I'm historically correct on the meaning of anarchism...it isn't my fault you're willfully ignorant because you're too lazy to care.

----------


## Travlyr

> When you realize the State made that left/right $#@! up, you'll be on your way to clarity.


I'm not having any problem with clarity. If you want to do away with my State, then I'm sworn to take-up arms against you. 

I re-read most of this thread this morning and learned that you either don't bother reading what people write, or you cannot learn, or you have an agenda. Most people adjust their thinking when new information comes to light. I hope you are one of them.

----------


## acptulsa

> I see you're still self righteous and confused.
> 
> I'm historically correct on the meaning of anarchism...it isn't my fault you're willfully ignorant because you're too lazy to care.


Link or it didn't happen.

----------


## ProIndividual

It's funny all the anarchists agree what the definition is for the most part, while all the non-anarchists continue to use a definition provably changed by the State over time to sound negative. Who knows what it means more? Us or you guys? It's just juvenile what your doing with semantics here. You want to be lazy about it because that's the only way it fits your argument. If you read up on it, it will immediately become clear, even with the slightest of effort.

Out of the thousands of anarchists authors who have written books and lengthy pamphlets on the subject, you will be hard pressed to find one who defines anarchism as "choas, disorder, lawlessness, and violence"...because unless the author was a nutter or a propagandized fool, 'anarchy'  and 'anarchism' don't mean that.

But you're right...lol...we don't know what our own personal philosophy and code of ethics means. We didn't convert to anarchism from the run of the mill positions many of you hold or anything...lol. You're soooo right, we are the brainwashed willfully ignorant ones... LOL!

Any further response against our definition will be looked down upon as just more drivel. I want intellectual debate, not more dogmatic PC BS.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Link or it didn't happen.


READ BOOKS.

Try Antithenes and the subsequent Cynics, Stoics, and Eastern philosophers like Laozi in China.

Try anything by Spooner, Tucker, Thoreau, Warren (the first self described anarchist, and American), etc., etc.
Try anything by Prouhon (the first self-described anarchist outside of America).
Try Thomas Paine!
Try Rothbard, David Freidman, etc.

Try the Anarcho capitalists like Bob Murphy and Tom Woods from the Mises Institute Austrians, and the RON PAUL campaign.

Try anlmost any damned source of what anarchism is outside your PC State styled dictionaries. 


This isn't complicated...anarchism means spontaneous order (a main tenant in capitalism), voluntary organization, and non-aggression except in instances of direct self defense or if harm is intended immanently. It DOES NOT mean what PC dictionaries and the State schools who taught you to trust them tell you, it DOES NOT mean chaos, disorder, or violence. Any SLIGHT $#@!ING ATTEMPT to look it up for yourself will prove that.

I'm not going to link you, not because I can't, but because the Austrian school of economics is mostly an anarcho capitalist organization...and the fact you don't even realize that makes me ill. I could link you all day, but many anarchists on this forum have those links already available...but you have yet to TRY and look them up for yourself.

And so I scold you for willfull ignroance. And then you attempt to say "link it or it doesn't exist..."

...how about you get off your lazy ass and do it your self. I don't owe an education, you owe educating yourself to those you think you have the right to laud statist, sadist, sociopathic power over...

...PERIOD.

This is the moral theory I have to combat, this is the sense of entitlement. "Link me!"

You have wikipedia, google, and every other resource everyone else does. Go to Amazon and buy some damn books.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's funny all the anarchists agree what the definition is for the most part, while all the non-anarchists continue to use a definition provably changed by the State over time to sound negative. Who knows what it means more?





> As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were Greek regional tyrants, at the dawn of the city-states.





> It means as you say, "without ruler."  
> 
> Analyze that. 
> If no ruler, then no one enforces anything because there is nothing to enforce. Make a rule, then a ruler is required because unenforced rules are the same as no rules. Given a rule; Who rules? Either pick someone or don't. If someone is picked, then they are the ruler. If no one is picked then each person is their own ruler. That may be fine with two or three people but when it comes to larger groups, the strongest will dominate. When you get to millions of people it leads to chaos.


What are you talking about?

----------


## ProIndividual

> If you want to do away with my State, then I'm sworn to take-up arms against you.


And defend the government against the people it is obstensibly therew to make safe....thank you...you just proved why the State is too dangerous to exist, why fools mistake patriotism for nationalism, and why you sir are a sociopath.

----------


## ProIndividual

> What are you talking about?


Umm, facts.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's funny all the anarchists agree what the definition is for the most part, while all the non-anarchists continue to use a definition provably changed by the State over time to sound negative. Who knows what it means more? Us or you guys? It's just juvenile what your doing with semantics here.


Or maybe we're just acknowledging the fact that when we say it, this is the reaction we get 99 44/100% of the time.  Which is hardly a philosophical outlook, we readily admit.  But surely you can admit that the reactions we get when trying to defend your asses isn't exactly funny either...




> You want to be lazy about it because that's the only way it fits your argument. If you read up on it, it will immediately become clear, even with the slightest of effort.


Just because it's clear doesn't mean it will work in the real world.




> Out of the thousands of anarchists authors who have written books and lengthy pamphlets on the subject, you will be hard pressed to find one who defines anarchism as "choas, disorder, lawlessness, and violence"...because unless the author was a nutter or a propagandized fool, 'anarchy'  and 'anarchism' don't mean that.


Sure, and we've all seen it work.  In committees of six or fewer people.




> But you're right...lol...we don't know what our own personal philosophy and code of ethics means. We didn't convert to anarchism from the run of the mill positions many of you hold or anything...lol. You're soooo right, we are the brainwashed willfully ignorant ones... LOL!


Don't bust a gut.  But by all means, decline to participate in what is right up to totalitarianism.




> Any further response against our definition will be looked down upon as just more drivel. I want intellectual debate, not more dogmatic PC BS.


So do we, PI,  so do we.  But, you know, want in one hand and crap in the other, and see which fills up faster...




> And defend the government against the people it is obstensibly therew to make safe....thank you...you just proved why the State is too dangerous to exist, why fools mistake patriotism for nationalism, and why you sir are a sociopath.


...case in point.  He's here to make the sociopaths in charge obey codified law, not to be one himself.  And to say differently is false, and maybe libel.

----------


## ProIndividual

Travlyr I have nothing else to say to you...you just saif you will take up arms against me to protect the State...not the country, nation, or people (which are all synonymous), but the State (a totally separate entity). I don't care what you think you meant by that...look up those words...or better yet, read this you statist, nationalist, anti-patriot sociopath:

Traitors and Patriots: The Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism

traitor - a person who betrays his or her country, cause, friends, etc.; one guilty of treason or treachery

(Notice it doesn't say "state" or "government", as the word "country" above does not mean either of those things. In fact, "country, "nation", "society", and "people" are all synonyms, all meaning basically the same thing...the physical people, their society, culture, and other cohesive identifiers. "State" and "government" often come in conflict with "country" and the like. For this reason, support for your government where it hurts your country is treasonist.)





Patriotism
 is a love and devotion to one's country. It has had different meanings over time and its meaning is highly dependent upon context, geography, and philosophy.


It is a related sentiment to nationalism, but nationalism is not necessarily an inherent part of patriotism.

(Notice again, "country" is the word, not "state" or "government".)

The English term patriot is first attested in the Eliabethan era, via Middle French from Late Latin (6th century) patriota "fellow countryman", ultimately from Greek πατριÏ�της (patriÅ�tÄ“s) "fellow countryman". The abstract noun patriotism appears in the early 18th century.

(Notice again, "countryman"...see the theme?)





Nationalism
 involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. It can also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, or the belief that one state is naturally superior to all other states. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols. Deep emotions are aroused.


Gellner and Breuilly, in Nations and Nationalism, contrast nationalism and patriotism. "If the nobler word 'patriotism' then replaced 'civic/Western nationalism', nationalism as a phenomenon had ceased to exist."

(As you can see, nationalism is not patriotic, it can be opposed to patriotism in fact, as it finds blind allegiance to a government to be preferable to true national interests, the interests of society, the interests of the people, and the interests of the country. A simple example is fascist nationalism, where the nations were effected detrimentally by their governments interests. Secrecy is rarely about true national security, it's usually about government security, and therefore nationalist, not patriotic.)

 A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

-Edward Abbey 











Politics, as a practise, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.
 -Henry Brookes Adams 


And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.
 -Samuel Adams 


If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
 -Samuel Adams 


The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack... These actions apparently arise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals.
 -quote found at the American Library Association 


If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free, Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.
 -Ezra Taft Benson 


The constitutional right of free speech has been declared to be the same in peace and war. In peace, too, men may differ widely as to what loyalty to our country demands, and an intolerant majority, swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone in the future, as it has been in the past, to stamp as disloyal opinions with which it disagrees.
 -Justice Louis D. Brandeis 


If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom.
 -Tom Braun 


Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
 -Henry Steele Commager 


The republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it.
 -Elmer Davis 


They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
 -Eugene Debs 


But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
 -Declaration of Independence 


Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
 -Albert Einstein 


Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine.
 -Dwight D. Eisenhower 


They [the founders] proclaimed to all the world the revolutionary doctrine of the divine rights of the common man. That doctrine has ever since been the heart of the American faith.
 -Dwight D. Eisenhower 


Let me write the songs of a nation - I don't care who writes its laws.
 -Andrew Fletcher 


Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
 -Ben Franklin 


The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.
 -Elbridge Gerry 


None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
 -Johann Wolfgang von Geothe 


To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.
 -G. Edward Griffin 


I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
 -Nathan Hale 


From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.
 -Frederich August von Hayek 


Love your country, but never trust its government
 -Robert A. Heinlein 


Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
 -Patrick Henry




The following quotes are from Mark Twain:

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"- with his mouth."

"Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest."

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about."

"We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter -- exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place -- the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan."

"The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice -- and always has been."

"[Patriotism] ...is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a longline of successive "owners" who each in turn, as "patriots" with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of "robbers" who came to steal it and did -- and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn."

"...the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it."




Dude, you make me sick.

----------


## Travlyr

> And defend the government against the people it is obstensibly therew to make safe....thank you...you just proved why the State is too dangerous to exist, why fools mistake patriotism for nationalism, and why you sir are a sociopath.


I will defend my property.

----------


## ProIndividual

acptulsa, not one good point yet.


But you might go read eventually, and quit wasting your time here convincing me I don't know what anarchy means.

----------


## Travlyr

> acptulsa, not one good point yet.


He has made several great points. Just because you don't have the capacity to read or understand anything is not his fault.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I will defend my property.


The State isn't private property loon.

----------


## ClayTrainor



----------


## ProIndividual

> He has made several great points.


Only if you're a statist whackjob who doesn't know what anarchy means and keeps rambling on about BS he knows nothing about, obviously. READ people, it's the most patriotic thing you can do.

----------


## ProIndividual

Exactly Clay.

----------


## acptulsa

Thank God you're not a minarchist, PI.  I'd hate to have you using insult in place of argument and associated with me all along.

----------


## Travlyr

> 


Is that ^^^^  why anarchists don't bring any intellect to the discussion?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Is that ^^^^  why anarchists don't bring any intellect to the discussion?


I've  destroyed your arguments in countless other threads, no need to continue beating my head against the wall.

----------


## Travlyr

> I've  destroyed your arguments in countless other threads, no need to continue beating my head against the wall.


Only in your own mind. You cannot even answer some simple questions.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Only in your own mind. You cannot even answer some simple questions.


Only in your own mind. You cannot even answer some simple questions.

----------


## Travlyr

> Only in your own mind. You cannot even answer some simple questions.


Do you want to destroy the U.S. Constitution and the State of Hawaii along with the other 49 States?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> A classic appeal to authority. So exactly what are you if you ARE NOT an anarchist..just a $#@! dsturber talking back to mommy and daddy like I claimed before when dismissing this claptrap?
> 
> Rev9


Appeal to authority?   I get the feeling you don't even know what that means (as well as most of the other nonsense you've been talking on this thread).  I'm a Voluntaryist.  I've explained this numerous times on these boards.  I'm not a "$#@! disturber".  Your desperation to insult me and twist my words tells me you have nothing intelligent to say.  I'll leave you to find someone with more patience to sit and walk you through concepts like a child so you might understand them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is that ^^^^  why anarchists don't bring any intellect to the discussion?


 Aside from me, the anarchists are the ones bringing intellect to the discussion.   You've checked yours at the door, sadly.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Do you want to destroy the U.S. Constitution and the State of Hawaii along with the other 49 States?


No, If the state is to exist (which it does today), I think it should be bound by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  I just happen to think this is utopian and unrealistic.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

----------


## ProIndividual

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...53#post3387353

Zombie: "Anarchy doesn't mean voluntary organization, spontaneous order, and non-aggression except in cases of direct self defense or immanent threat...it means disorder, chaos, and violence because the PC dictionary and my State school teachers told me so."

Me: "MOOOOooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn chaossss, dis-or-derrrrr, VIOooo-lenccccceee!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!"

----------


## acptulsa

> Zombie: "Anarchy doesn't mean voluntary organization, spontaneous order, and non-aggression except in cases of direct self defense or immanent threat...it means disorder, chaos, and violence because the PC dictionary and my State school teachers told me so."


What did you pull that out of?  Oh, wait, never mind.  That would be TMI.

I don't know what possessed you to come here of all places to try to make an-caps look bad by substituting insults for rational discussion, but I have enough an-caps here that I consider friends to resent it.

----------


## CCTelander

> No, If the state is to exist (which it does today), I think it should be bound by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  I just happen to think this is utopian and unrealistic.
> 
> "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner


Exactly.

The CONstitution is either an abject failure, or, more likely, it was intended to produce the governmental monstrosity it actually HAS produced.

But hey, it makes a great excuse to continue to use violence and brutality against usually innocent people.

----------


## Travlyr

> Zombie: "Anarchy doesn't mean voluntary organization, spontaneous order, and non-aggression except in cases of direct self defense or immanent threat...it means disorder, chaos, and violence because the PC dictionary and my State school teachers told me so."


We used your definition of Anarchy "without ruler" to destroy your argument.




> It means as you say, "without ruler."
> 
> Analyze that.
> If no ruler, then no one enforces anything because there is nothing to enforce. Make a rule, then a ruler is required because unenforced rules are the same as no rules. Given a rule; Who rules? Either pick someone or don't. If someone is picked, then they are the ruler. If no one is picked then each person is their own ruler. That may be fine with two or three people but when it comes to larger groups, the strongest will dominate. When you get to millions of people it leads to chaos.


Ron Paul is running for president of the United States of America which was formed by the Constitution. If you don't support that, then why are you here?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We used your definition of Anarchy "without ruler" to destroy your argument.


You didn't "destroy" anything.  I'm not even an anarchist and I can see you don't have a good argument against their points.

----------


## Travlyr

> You didn't "destroy" anything.  I'm not even an anarchist and I can see you don't have a good argument against their points.


Then refute it.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, If the state is to exist (which it does today), I think it should be bound by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  I just happen to think this is utopian and unrealistic.


Ron Paul has been, and still is, working hard to restrict government to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I fully support his effort, and I am convinced that most land owners will as well. Utopia is for the afterlife.




> "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner


Lysander Spooner may impress you, but he doesn't do that for me.

----------


## ProIndividual

> What did you pull that out of? Oh, wait, never mind. That would be TMI.
> 
> I don't know what possessed you to come here of all places to try to make an-caps look bad by substituting insults for rational discussion, but I have enough an-caps here that I consider friends to resent it.


Where did I get that from? How about read the thread dude. This has been the assertion for a load of this thread...the Zombies among us keep asserting nonsense like I wrote. I find it funny you think it's insulting all of a sudden, but slandering our philosophy and code of ethics was perfectly kosher. Seems to me someone is a hypocrite or a self righteous A hole.

I'm not an anarcho capitalist first of all, although I am a free market anarchist. Second of all, I'm not making them look bad by explaining every point more than once only to continuously have the same fallacious $#@! spewed back me because no one wants to learn the answers to their questions, or to read things that prove them wrong, all they want to do is claim anarchy means things it blatantly does not, and parrot BS from PC sources that are biased (and we explained how and why). Third of all...

...for a guy who hasn't made a good point, except to bandwagon with the other ill-informed statists, you sure are indignant. Here's an idea...why don't you take your offense taken, and your indignance, and take them on a little trip to a library, where you can find books by anarchists, and read what the $#@! they stood for...? k?

Self righteous indignation doesn't become you...at least not when you're dead wrong, siding with other dead wrong people, and refusing to go read what we tell you will answer your questions/concerns/fallacies.

And I've said it once, I'll say it 100 times more...

...you do not have to like me, for me to be right.

What's more important? Your ego? Or being educated?


For too many,unfortunately, I already know the answer.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Then refute it.


 See posts 310 and 211 in this thread.  I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't remember it.

----------


## Travlyr

> As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were Greek regional tyrants, at the dawn of the city-states.





> It means as you say, "without ruler."
> 
> Analyze that.
> If no ruler, then no one enforces anything because there is nothing to enforce. Make a rule, then a ruler is required because unenforced rules are the same as no rules. Given a rule; Who rules? Either pick someone or don't. If someone is picked, then they are the ruler. If no one is picked then each person is their own ruler. That may be fine with two or three people but when it comes to larger groups, the strongest will dominate. When you get to millions of people it leads to chaos.





> See posts 310 and 211 in this thread.  I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't remember it.


In other words, you don't know how to refute it.



> Like many words, anarchy has layers of meaning.  It can also mean "without a ruler". (the prefix an- meaning "without", the root word "archy" meaning "a system of rulership")  Ben Franklin himself used the word this way on occasion.  You are unfortunately underestimating the complex nuances of the English language.  This same principle applies to languages related to English, such as Russian (which features a few dozen prefixes that alter the root word, such as без-).





> Exactly.  You ought to try it.  When you study linguistics, you'll learn that most words have multiple meanings and can have idiomatic meanings in certain contexts.  Anarchy is one such word.


Ron Paul is not going to eliminate any States. No matter how hard you guys try to paint him as an anarchist, a President Ron Paul will be using the U.S. Constitution as his guide to rule.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In other words, you don't know how to refute it.


I do know how to refute it, and did.  Quit playing dumb.  If this is all you've got, I'm done with you.  I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. 





> Ron Paul is not going to eliminate any States. No matter how hard you guys try to paint him as an anarchist, a President Ron Paul will be using the U.S. Constitution as his guide to rule.


I do know how to refute it, and did.  Quit playing dumb.  If you're addressing me, I never referred to RP as an anarchist.  I don't even consider myself an anarchist.

----------


## Travlyr

> As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were Greek regional tyrants, at the dawn of the city-states.





> It means as you say, "without ruler."
> 
> Analyze that.
> If no ruler, then no one enforces anything because there is nothing to enforce. Make a rule, then a ruler is required because unenforced rules are the same as no rules. Given a rule; Who rules? Either pick someone or don't. If someone is picked, then they are the ruler. If no one is picked then each person is their own ruler. That may be fine with two or three people but when it comes to larger groups, the strongest will dominate. When you get to millions of people it leads to chaos.


This does not refute that ^^^       I used his definition. 



> Like many words, anarchy has layers of meaning.  It can also mean "without a ruler". (the prefix an- meaning "without", the root word "archy" meaning "a system of rulership")  Ben Franklin himself used the word this way on occasion.  You are unfortunately underestimating the complex nuances of the English language.  This same principle applies to languages related to English, such as Russian (which features a few dozen prefixes that alter the root word, such as без-).





> Exactly.  You ought to try it.  When you study linguistics, you'll learn that most words have multiple meanings and can have idiomatic meanings in certain contexts.  Anarchy is one such word.


To the media who may login.
To the visitors who may login.
To the forum members who may login.

Ron Paul is not going to eliminate any States.
A President Ron Paul will be using the U.S. Constitution as his guide to rule.

----------


## mczerone

> Ron Paul is not going to eliminate any States.
> A President Ron Paul will be using the U.S. Constitution as his guide to rule.


The U.S. Constitution, if it has any meaning at all, is a document MEANT TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVT.  The President, according to this constitution, is the "chief executive" OF THE GOVT.

Anarchists can support RP because he understand that the president is NOT a ruler of the people, but of the govt, and the Federal govt is not the ruler of the states or people, but a central organization to represent and defend those states and people as against external forces.

And you again use the slur "utopian" against those who just wish to be left alone while you're the one claiming in essence that "everything will be better if everyone is subject to a single system that I devise."  Anarchists are not utopians, but those who claim any single system "works best" are.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And you again use the slur "utopian" against those who just wish to be left alone while you're the one claiming in essence that "everything will be better if everyone is subject to a single system that I devise."  Anarchists are not utopians, but those who claim any single system "works best" are.


qft, and +rep

----------


## Travlyr

Clay Trainor posted the utopian slur. I was simply responding to it.



> No, If the state is to exist (which it does today), I think it should be bound by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  I just happen to think this is utopian and unrealistic.





> And you again use the slur "utopian" against those who just wish to be left alone while you're the one claiming in essence that "everything will be better if everyone is subject to a single system that I devise."  Anarchists are not utopians, but those who claim any single system "works best" are.


I did not devise any system. I was born into the current system. It is not my fault that you were born into it too. Destroying the State will not set you free. A civil war would break out, and I do not wish to experience that.

Like Ron Paul, I will work within the system peacefully as long as I can to effect the necessary changes. I will not sit idly by and let anarchists paint Ron Paul as something he is not.

Many things will be better when we successfully stop the counterfeiting cabal in power today. I make no claim that everything will be better.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And defend the government against the people it is obstensibly therew to make safe....thank you...you just proved why the State is too dangerous to exist, why fools mistake patriotism for nationalism, and why you sir are a sociopath.


What he's saying is if you deny that he has a shared right to deny your individual liberty, he'll seek your death.   This is statism.

----------


## Travlyr

> What he's saying is if you deny that he has a shared right to deny your individual liberty, he'll seek your death.   This is statism.


Nothing but bull$#@!. Really? How did you get that out of I will defend my property?
Which is it? Intellectually deficient? Or Intellectually dishonest?

----------


## ProIndividual

So everyone can quit saying they are unclear on the historical meaning of anarchism in America, or elsewhere:

Individualism: America's Anarchism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39641

Individualism: America's Anarchism II

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39642


This is probably the best defense I ever made personally of anarchism and anarchy:

Re: Does Nullification Lead to Anarchy?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39997


Further reading:

Thomas Paine in Support of Anarchism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40794


Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436


Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part II)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41442


Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part III)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41450


And the following was posted earlier today as a blog, but I will reprint it here in order to get a concise agreement of what anarchism is (generally), and I will see if other anarchists or voluntaryists, or what have you, even agree with it, and if so, based on what source that can back it up (I gave plenty in my links):


Anarchism, Minarchism, Small Government Statism, and Statism Generally 

0 Comments

by 
ProIndividual

on Today at 09:09 AM (88 Views) 



It is my belief that the State draws it's authority from the following areas:

1. The monopoly on social contracts (within a certain area only one standard of law is accepted)
 2. The monopoly on violence (the liscence for force to enforce the statist standard of law within the area)
 3. The monopoly on capital (having only one accepted currency with no competition allowed)
 4. The monopoly on collective defense (using the statist law to compel or conscript someone to fight in a war(s))
 5. The monopoly on intelligence (secrecy for the sake of the State, not for the sake of defense directly)

It is my belief Minarchy draws it's authorities from the following areas:

1. Consent of the governed (explicit consent of the adult, or implied consent on behalf of a child by a parent; the monopoly on social contracts does not exist except possibly for consentual members and their children)
 2. Popular Sovereignty (a system of elections or voting whether democratic, republican, or parlimentary in nature which govern the individuals compromised)
 3. One or more of the statist monopolies without geographic considerations, other than the monopoly on social contracts except possibly for consentual members and their children (monopolies will exist by consent only, location and jurisdiction are irrelevant to contractual agreement)
 4. The ability to maintain stability (not becoming decentralized to anarchism or centralized into statism; State stability is not expected and Anarchism is ordered spontaneously making stability utopian and unrealistic)

It is my belief the Small Government State draws it's authorities from the following areas:

1. Some combination of authorites from the State and Minarchy (the monopoly on social contract and geographic area must be present, but various disclusions from the State authorities and monopolies while having various inclusions from the Minarchy authorities and monopolies)
 2. The ability to maintain stability (not becoming a decentralized Minarchy or a further centralized State)

It is my belief Anarchy draws it's authorities from the following areas:

1. Sovereignty of the individual (natural rights by natural law, or utilitarianism, or possibly rational egoism derived boundries of the individual not subject to border, boundry, statist law, regulation, or other form of aggression or invasion)
 2. Ethics (a moral or ethical code summed up in natural law, utilitarianism, rational egoism, the non-aggression axiom, or any other code that denies individuals or collectives the inherent authority to invade individuals or collectives on any pretense except to respond to intent of aggression, or invasion itself, when the individual is mentally and physically capable of governing themselves)
 3. Those affected only (when collective decisions must be made by groups to avoid conflict, aggression, or invasion, only those affected may decide unless consent is given otherwise, preventing the tyranny of the ballot box; the voting dilemma)

*State* - a form of collective government where one or more of the above State authorities are in place; compulsory government
*Statism* - the belief collective government in one or more of the above State authorities is a preferable manner to organize society
*Minarchy* - a form of collective government where geographic area is irrelevant to it's Minarchist authorities but they are preferable to organize society; voluntary government
*Minarchism* - the belief collective government in one or more of the above Minarchist authorities is a preferable manner to organize society
*Small Government State* - a form of collective government where one or more of the Statist and Minarchist authorities are in place simultaneously; compulsory government with geographic and social contract monopolies, but may disclude varying Statist authorities and their monopolies, while including varying Minarchist authorities and their monopolies
*Small Government Statism* - the belief collective government in one or more of the Statist and Minarchist authorities simultaneously is preferable to organize society
*Anarchy* - a form of individualist government where geographic area is irrelevant to it's authorities, authorities are derived from those effected only, and society is organized voluntarily without any coercive monopolies; self government
*Anarchism* - the belief individualist government, or self government, in one or more of the above Anarchist authorities is preferable to organize society

It is my belief that Statism (including Small Government Statism) cannot exist simultaneously with Minarchism or Anarchism. It is my belief Anarchism and Minarchism can co-exist, given neither holds a monopoly on social contracts, and Anarchism would not aggress against voluntary contracts present in Minarchy. Essentially, the State is the great monopolizer and aggressor, while the Small Government State is the lesser monopolizer and aggressor. The Minarchy is non-agressive social contract, however detrimental and abusive, while the Anarchy is non-aggressive without any social contract.

All of these things can have borders for defense and to prevent epidemic disease, but the function and governance of these borders varies. The State would have closed borders. The Small Government State would have moderately closed and moderately open borders. The Minarchy would have open borders with collective government securing them. The Anarchy would have open borders with individualist or a private collective securing them. The Anarchy's borders are largely determined by it's Statist neighbors, as the Anarchy itself isn't bothered with them other than defense and disease, as they are not consequential to the free market.

Trade is very similar. The State would have high tariffs and protectionism. The Small Government State would have moderate tariffs and some protectionism. The Minarchy would have free trade with optional restrictions for their social contract's adherents. The Anarchy would have free trade with no restrictions beyond intent of harm or harm directly.

Stability is handled differntly for each type of society. The State will never expect stability, and will just hold power as long as possible in between violent revolutions, which are viewed as cyclical. The Small Government State will be volatile, but will operate under the delusion of stability inspite of evidence of incrimental loss of control to either the State or the Minarchy. The Minarchy will be less volatile and more stable due to it's voluntary nature, but will incrimentally creep toward Anarchy or the Small Government State, but will not do so under any delusions, instead viewing the transition as natural or beneficial (a good example would be the transition from the pretty well Minarchist society under the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America to the Small Government State under the more centralized Constitution of the United states of America). The Anarchy is the least volatile and most stable society, as it is the most voluntary and least restrictive, but there is never a promise of stability or a delusion of control, instead spontaneous order and the markets are embraced leading to an overall irreverance for stability, believing it to be a utopian dream and not at all realistic.

Economics is another issue. The State will be the most centrally controlled and commanded economy with heavy regulations. The Small Government State will be moderately centrally controlled and commanded with moderate regulations. The Minarchy will be minimally centrally controlled and commanded with low regulation, only by the consent of those governed. The Anarchy will not be centrally controlled or commanded with no regulations, a completely voluntary and diverse economy.

I'll add more later.


Benjamin Tucker wrote: 

"[T]here are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The Anarchists] never have claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow authority. . . .As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always, say the Anarchists. No use of force except against the invader; . . . . "

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Nothing but bull$#@!. Really? How did you get that out of I will defend my property?
> Which is it? Intellectually deficient? Or Intellectually dishonest?


You have said more than once that you will take up arms against those who would depose your beloved state.  The state is an instrument by which some segment of society may dictate to the whole of society as they see fit.  Thus, you deny his right to individual liberty.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You have said more than once that you will take up arms against those who would depose your beloved state.  The state is an instrument by which some segment of society may dictate to the whole of society as they see fit. * Thus, you deny his right to individual liberty.*


This is an important point.  Jefferson made it very clear in the Declaration of Independence that individuals have the right to divorce themselves from tyrannical or unjust governments.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Like Ron Paul, I will work within the system peacefully as long as I can to effect the necessary changes. I will not sit idly by and let anarchists paint Ron Paul as something he is not.


Then tell his campaign site to quit using articles by anarchists, like Murray Rothbard, David Freidman, today's Tom Woods and Bob Murphy.

Seems to me he embraces us, it's you who have a problem.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Pro Individual:

You seem desperate to convince people that Dr. Paul is an Ancap.  The simple fact is that he is not and he has clearly stated that in a recent interview.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3250881

You have also posted links to your _personal_ blog on the C4L website.  That does nothing more than show that you are over there trying to push the same agenda that you are pushing here.  The C4L does not promote anarchy and yes, I know that for a FACT.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist, his campaign is not about anarchy and the C4L does not promote anarchy.  

While I realize that this forum is seen by some anarchists as providing low hanging fruit for conversion purposes (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8184.aspx), we are in the middle of an election cycle.  So, please have some class and go try to convert some Neo-cons or Progressives, why don't ya.

----------


## ProIndividual

> You seem desperate to convince people that Dr. Paul is an Ancap.


No. I told you already on another post, he is not an ancap.

So take your strawman and shove up your rear for the second time.





> You have also posted links to your personal blog on the C4L website.


Which is all sourced to the original material elsewhere...IF you bother to read.





> Ron Paul is not an anarchist, his campaign is not about anarchy and the C4L does not promote anarchy.




Again, strawman...and again, he has onsite contributors to front homepage articles such as the deceased Murray Rothbard, the deceased David Freidman, men like Lew Rockwell, and Tom Woods, and Bob Murphy.

Quit denying reality. He is quite cozy with ancaps...and again, it's you who have the phobia and false sense of what he is and isn't (and what he does and does not stand for).


But I would actually know that since I've been a member there for quite a while and actually READ the articles.




DAMN it must suck to called on your delusional BS!





> have some class


You might want to take your own advice.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No. I told you already on another post, he is not an ancap.
> 
> So take your strawman and shove up your rear for the second time.


If you said that, I must have missed it.  There is no reason to be so crude. 

Was that before or after you posted a picture of his tie as some evidence that he was an Ancap, or mentioned that there were some Ancaps in both his campaign and in C4L as some kind of supportive evidence of, I guess.... nothing.  Because you know he is not an Ancap.  

Yes, he has some friends who are Ancaps.  No one is contesting that.  What do you think it proves to keep saying it over and over again?  I have some friends who are Ancaps too.  Some of them are on this forum.  That does not make ME an Ancap, however.

But, back to the issue at hand.  What are you doing over here, pitching anarchy and attempting to tie it to Ron Paul, when he has clearly said he is not an Ancap?  I ask, because we are trying to win an election and actually promote Ron Paul's platform.  Which does not include anarchy.  No offense or anything.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then tell his campaign site to quit using articles by anarchists, like Murray Rothbard, David Freidman, today's Tom Woods and Bob Murphy.
> 
> Seems to me he embraces us, it's you who have a problem.


*He embraces Austrian economics.*  That appears to be where you are having the issue.  Anarchists do not own Austrian economics, yet that seems to be what you are thinking.

----------


## Travlyr

> You have said more than once that you will take up arms against those who would depose your beloved state.  The state is an instrument by which some segment of society may dictate to the whole of society as they see fit.  Thus, you deny his right to individual liberty.


I'll take this response as meaning that you are intellectually deficient.
Property owners across America have deeds to their property surveyed and recorded as public records in county clerk's offices. Destruction of the State would deny property owners their right to property. Expect civil war to break out if anarchists try it.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Saving....


Saving what? Something that is true, and I've said 15 times elsewhere...?

I'll tell you like I used to tell people that stared in the ol' neighborhood..."Take a picture, it'll last longer."

----------


## ProIndividual

> He embraces Austrian economics. That appears to be where you are having the issue.


This is where YOU are having an issue, not me and the facts.

Those Austrians that contribute to Campaign for Liberty, his PAC site, are ANARCHISTS.

You may not like that, but i neamed several of them...and it's not disputable. He pals around with anarchists, get over it...we aren't the devil dude. Wake up. Facts are facts...Ron doesn't hate anarchists, he doesn't discourage them, and he even lets some (a significant proportion of his posters) post articles on his PAC site. That seems to me to conflict with your fairytale Ron Paul who doesn't agree with anarchists on policies like Ending the Fed (this was movement in the 1850s by anarchists to end all central banking and to allow what Ron Paul often calls for, currency competition), or zero taxes being the best taxes, etc., etc.

You have to stop thinking he's your personal hero or representative...he represents a lot of us.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'll take this response as meaning that you are intellectually deficient.
> Property owners across America have deeds to their property surveyed and recorded as public records in county clerk's offices. Destruction of the State would deny property owners their right to property. Expect civil war to break out if anarchists try it.


 I'll take this response as meaning you are either intellectually dishonest, intellectually deficient, or both.

The government only has any say over public land (unless they make a tyrannical land grab using a facade like "eminent domain").  The absence of the state (the government) would likely result in a return to a rational, sustainable system such as homesteading.  Remember, in the western frontier during the expansion period, the government had no role in settlers' land, but the settlers worked out a system of land/real estate ownership long before incorporation into the union.  

An American Experiment In Anarcho Capitalism: The Not so Wild West.

Only a few centuries earlier, the Puritan settlers gave up collective ownership of property because it was totally unsustainable-just like our current system of quasi-socialist property.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'll take this response as meaning you are either intellectually dishonest, intellectually deficient, or both.
> 
> The government only has any say over public land (unless they make a tyrannical land grab using a facade like "eminent domain").  The absence of the state (the government) would likely result in a return to a rational, sustainable system such as homesteading.  Remember, in the western frontier during the expansion period, the government had no role in settlers' land, but the settlers worked out a system of land/real estate ownership long before incorporation into the union.  
> 
> An American Experiment In Anarcho Capitalism: The Not so Wild West.
> 
> Only a few centuries earlier, the Puritan settlers gave up collective ownership of property because it was totally unsustainable-just like our current system of quasi-socialist property.


This ^^^ is simple minded, not well thought out or researched, and will alienate property owners from Ron Paul. Nice work.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This iswhere YOU are having an issue, not me and the facts.
> 
> Those Austrians that contribute to Campaign for Liberty, his PAC site, are ANARCHISTS.


Some are.  Some aren't.  I have no issue with that.  Why would I?  But, they are not promoting anarchy.  If they were, the article would not be used.




> You may not like that, but i neamed several of them...and it's not disputable. He pals around with anarchists, get over it...we aren't the devil dude. Wake up. Facts are facts...Ron doesn't hate anarchists, he doesn't discourage them, and he even lets some (a significant proportion of his posters) post articles on his PAC site. That seems to me to conflict with your fairytale Ron Paul who doesn't agree with anarchists on policies like Ending the Fed (this was movement in the 1850s by anarchists to end all central banking and to allow what Ron Paul often calls for, currency competition), or zero taxes being the best taxes, etc., etc.


Who said Ron Paul hated anarchists?  Certainly not I.   

You seem to think that anarchists are unable to discuss anything that isn't about anarchy.  Tom Woods does it frequently.




> You have to stop thinking he's your personal hero or representative...he represents a lot of us.


I didn't say he didn't.  Did I?  I was talking about is his own platform.  It is not one of anarchy.  You keep trying to cram that square peg in a round hole and claim that it is.

Note:  And please stop it with this collectivistic grouping of all anarchists into one neat little package.  There are a large number of Ancaps who are quite able to participate in this campaign without piggybacking off of it to promote their own personal agenda.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This ^^^ is simple minded, not well thought out or researched, and will alienate property owners from Ron Paul. Nice work.


 Simple minded?  BS.  Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's simple minded.   Why would it alienate property owners?  It's about the merits of private property.  (Oh, that's right...you didn't bother to actually _read_ it  If you had, you would realize that it was written by a National Fellow at the Hoover Institute-not exactly a place for intellectual slouches-and that it was proofread by Rothbard, et. al.)

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'll take this response as meaning you are either intellectually dishonest, intellectually deficient, or both.
> 
> The government only has any say over public land (unless they make a tyrannical land grab using a facade like "eminent domain").  The absence of the state (the government) would likely result in a return to a rational, sustainable system such as homesteading.  Remember, in the western frontier during the expansion period, the government had no role in settlers' land, but the settlers worked out a system of land/real estate ownership long before incorporation into the union.  
> 
> An American Experiment In Anarcho Capitalism: The Not so Wild West.
> 
> Only a few centuries earlier, the Puritan settlers gave up collective ownership of property because it was totally unsustainable-just like our current system of quasi-socialist property.


Dude, the "Wild West" elected Sheriffs.

And HB, for someone who claims not to be an anarchist, you sure do post a lot of articles about the subject and give high-fives to a lot of posts about anarchy; including ones that claim Dr. Paul is one.  What's up with that?  If you are an Ancap, or an anarchist of another flavor, at least stand tall and claim it.

----------


## ProIndividual

> You seem desperate to convince people that Dr. Paul is an Ancap.


and then you say:




> There is no reason to be so crude.




Well since I NEVER asserted he was an anarcho capitalist, but that he wore a black and gold tie, which is the colors of the ancap flag and the Austrian school, overall....I'd say it's crude to make assertions that are baseless. Also, you called the effort I'm NOT making "desperate"...and this wasn't meant to be insulting?

Everything you've said to me today has been condescending and offensive.....but at least you didn't say "stick your strwman up your rear", right?

PC BS isn't gonna win this...if you small government statists insist on belittling us and our beliefs, expect more of the same...we don't do it to you.



And again, you say something like 'his platform doesn't include anarchy'...except all of those men that work for his campaign that he allows to publish articles on his homepage. His campaign does include anarchy, libertarianism is itself sometimes used synonymously with anarchism....and it includes IDEAS of anarchists both directly, and for people like me, indirectly.

Why do you want to separate from us so badly? What is with this cover-up? It's obvious YOU have a problem, that his PAC never had with me, or the more distinguished contributors.

The sooner you stop asserting we have nothing to do with Ron Paul, the sooner we can quit talking about it. But you will NOT assert lies, and think I won't call you on it....Ron Paul has, and does, embrace the anarchist community. He is not an anarchist, but understands our economics, our moral theory, and our ethics therefore. He disagrees on social theory and some particulars of policy changes that shrink the State most effectively.

I can tell you honestly...there is very little difference in today's America, that is filled with big government statists, between anarchists of a free market persuasion and small government statists, let alone minarchists. To see a wide divide between us is to ignore the 95% of issues (or more) that we agree on.

So, let's stop telling me things that aren't true, and we can discuss something other than my philosophy, code of ethics, moral and social theories, etc., etc...and start talking about how to unwind the State....how far we unwind it will be largely irrlelevant, as none of us want speedy change that causes instability in the social fabric or violent overthrow. In our lifetimes, we'll be lucky to get to a point of a minimal watchman State for us to ever find practical disagreement again.

Don't be so put off by our label...it's just a word, and it doesn't mean anything close to what most of you think it means.

----------


## Travlyr

I know several property owners. They will not support Ron Paul if they have any hint that anarchy is right around the corner. It is no wonder the media is biased against him. What is your agenda?

I already know what the West was like and don't need any more reading assignments from anarchists or their supporters.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Dude, the "Wild West" elected Sheriffs.
> 
> And HB, for someone who claims not to be an anarchist, you sure do post a lot of articles about the subject and give high-fives to a lot of posts about anarchy; including ones that claim Dr. Paul is one.  What's up with that?  If you are an Ancap, at least stand tall and claim it.


The Wild West at the period the article describes did not elect Sheriffs.  I've never given "high fives" to posts that claim RP is an anarchist.  He's not.  I only post articles on the subject of anarchy when it is relevant to the topic(like this thread) and I give anarchists credit where it's due.  You know very well that my position is Voluntaryist-every individual can choose to be governed any way they desire, and everyone has the right to resist government he doesn't like when it encroaches upon him.  IOW, I can live very harmoniously with you and everyone else-so long as our interactions are voluntary and peaceful.  I link to the Voluntaryist Manifesto in my sig for your reading pleasure, and if you have any specific questions, I'll answer them ASAP.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *
> I already know what the West was like and don't need any more reading assignments from anarchists or their supporters.*


 Obviously you don't know what the West was like, or I wouldn't have to correct you.  My agenda is individual liberty for all-what's yours?

----------


## Travlyr

> Obviously you don't know what the West was like, or I wouldn't have to correct you.


My great great uncle wrote a book about his experience trekking to California and back during the gold rush. You didn't correct anything.

----------


## Travlyr

> My agenda is individual liberty for all-what's yours?


My agenda is liberty, peace, and prosperity using honest sound money for all as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul

----------


## TheDrakeMan

Based on the evidence, I would say that Ron Paul is an Anarcho-Capitalist or extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs. This still doesn't mean I agree with Anarchy or extreme Libertarianism.

----------


## ProIndividual

> But, they are not promoting anarchy.


And either am I. I'm defending facts...like anarchism's definition that so many claim fallaciously means something it doesn't, and I've gotten wide agreement here with all the anarchists and voluntaryists. And other falsehoods too, like Ron doesn't associate with, agree with, or include anarchists in his political team, contributors, and friends.

Once we get past that, I'm shutting up about it instantly.

This whole thread proves the point of my OP...that non-anarchists have some kind of phobia or PC problem, or whatever, that Ron himself doesn't have with us. Most of it is because most people misdefine the meaning of anarchism, and others because they sooooo fear the word might scare off new voters, they fail to realize we also are donating money and planning voting for Ron (and do online, not that it counts for much). We are Ron Paul fans! We are Ron Paul backers! We just happen to of a different thought pattern.

I'd much rather be treated like the liberals we convert....at least then there is a sense of patience and superficial welcoming. For us it's just derisiveness....go back and count how many posters said "they're lost", or "crazy", or "extreme", or "hurting the campaign"....all that for just stating facts about popularly held myths people seem to want to cling to. 

We don't want you all to convert...we want mutual respect for out point of view, and the ability to point out facts in our defense without being attacked as all those things I listed. All we are doing is defending ourselves from the onslaught of usual nonsense thrown at us concerning meanings of words and actual structure of the advocated society.

We are not violent, lawless, disorderly, or chaotic. We want LAW, usually just one, natural law, or the non-aggression axiom, or if you like, "Do No Harm". 

When this simple set of facts is disputed, as it usually is, we feel the need to defend ourselves. We know what PC dictionaries and State schools teach....but that's not scholarly evidence we are wrong....and we provide many many sources to say we are right. I can point to books and authors if you personally would like me to.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My great great uncle wrote a book about his experience trekking to California and back during the gold rush.


An appeal to authority, and doesn't prove anything about _your_ knowledge or lack thereof.




> You didn't correct anything.


I did. You wrote-_"This ^^^ is simple minded, not well thought out or researched, and will alienate property owners from Ron Paul. Nice work.  "_  It was factually incorrect, and I corrected you.  You're welcome.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My agenda is liberty, peace, and prosperity using honest sound money for all as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul


Then you'll have no problem leaving Voluntaryists to themselves and paying for your own government.  Excellent.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Based on the evidence, I would say that Ron Paul is an Anarcho-Capitalist or extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs. This still doesn't mean I agree with Anarchy or extreme Libertarianism.


Ron Paul states very clearly in this interview that he is NOT an anarchist.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3250881

----------


## ProIndividual

> Based on the evidence, I would say that Ron Paul is an Anarcho-Capitalist or extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs. This still doesn't mean I agree with Anarchy or extreme Libertarianism.


Fair enough.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then you'll have no problem leaving Voluntaryists to themselves and paying for your own government.  Excellent.


I suggest you practice what you preach and stop availing yourself of anything paid for with taxpayer money.  

Talk is cheap.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Fair enough.


Hardly, when Ron Paul has clearly stated that he is NOT an Anarchist.

----------


## ProIndividual

> My agenda is liberty, peace, and prosperity using honest sound money for all as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul


I agree completely...now if you kindly wouldn't shoot me over the State, that'd be nice 

I'm joking with you now man, but 4 real...anarchists are always hung after the revolution...that statement was a little disheartening from our historical point of view...lol.

----------


## Travlyr

> An appeal to authority, and doesn't prove anything about _your_ knowledge or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> I did. You wrote-_"This ^^^ is simple minded, not well thought out or researched, and will alienate property owners from Ron Paul. Nice work.  "_  It was factually incorrect, and I corrected you.  You're welcome.


It was not factually incorrect. There is no reason whatsoever for any property owner to be an anarchist. I'm sure they will not vote for Ron Paul if they believe he is. That is millions of voters.

----------


## ProIndividual

you say: 



> .
>  Hardly, when Ron Paul has clearly stated that he is NOT an Anarchist.


but he said




> or extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs


You clearly have a problem...that qualifier is true....so this isn't me...it's in your head man. Good Luck with that.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I already know what the West was like and don't need any more reading assignments from anarchists or their supporters.


The myth of the old west...we have same crime rates and death rates accounted for population today. What has caused recent decreases in crime is rising standard of living.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You clearly have a problem...that qualifier is true....so this isn't me...it's in your head man. Good Luck with that.


Let's not reinvent history, shall we?

He also said this...



> Based on the evidence, I would say that Ron Paul is an Anarcho-Capitalist or extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs.


And it was that untruth that I was commenting on.  Someone had to; you certainly didn't refute it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I link to the Voluntaryist Manifesto in my sig for your reading pleasure, and if you have any specific questions, I'll answer them ASAP.


Once upon a time, I might have done that.  That was before I came to this forum.  A select few Anarchists on this site so repulsed me with their constant labeling of Dr. Paul as an anarchist, their attacking of new people who didn't share their views, the insults and belittlement towards anyone who wouldn't read their many volumes of links and the attempted use of this forum and Dr. Paul's campaign to promote anarchy.  

As I have told you before, my Mother was a delegate for Goldwater when he ran for President.  I talked to a friend of hers a couple of years ago who worked with her on that campaign.  She told me about the anarchists who tried to capitalize on the Goldwater campaign too.  By that, I mean, those anarchists who joined up not to try to get the man elected, but to use it to piggyback off of to push anarchy.  Certainly that was not all of the anarchists; it most likely was just a fraction.  But, the behavior of those few was disgusting.

I see the same thing going on in this election cycle.  Just as it went on in the last one.  It is disgusting too.

Note:  This technique may work to recruit a few people.  But, do not lose sight of those people who you completely alienate and piss off royally, with the use of these tactics.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I suggest you practice what you preach and stop availing yourself of anything paid for with taxpayer money.  
> 
> Talk is cheap.


When there is an alternative, I'll take it.  I already avoid taxpayer subsidized things as much as possible, but in our current reality, we can't avoid things like government roads because they are forced upon us.  I already avail myself of shopping online to avoid paying sales taxes to the government and I don't use public libraries unless I have to, for a few examples.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Based on the evidence, I would say that Ron Paul is an Anarcho-Capitalist _or_ *extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs.* 
> 
> 
> 
> And it was that untruth that I was commenting on. Someone had to; you certainly didn't refute it



You can't be serious. I highlight the word "OR", as it doesn't mean "AND". See logically, the statement is true, because he is "extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs". He is very sympathetic to our beliefs, hence all the contributors to his PAC site, and his neck ties, and his affinity for certain ancaps who seem to be personal friends of his. It's clear he is quite sympathetic, if nothing else. Anyone familiar with logic would read that sentence as true. The fact you throw it out our because the word "OR" didn't separate Ron's name far enough from "dirty dirty anarchy, ewwww!!!" shows you have a mental issue beyond even anarchism and it's connotation...you may have a learning disability or are just possibly hopelessly illogical.

For the second time, good luck with that skippy.


Therefore, when I said "fair enough", it was fair enough. Wowza!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Once upon a time, I might have done that.  That was before I came to this forum.  A select few of Anarchists on this site so repulsed me with their constant labeling of Dr. Paul as an anarchist, their attacking of new people who didn't share their views, and the insults and belittlement towards anyone who wouldn't read their many volumes of links.
> 
> As I have told you before, my Mother was a delegate for Goldwater when he ran for President.  I talked to a friend of hers a couple of years ago who worked with her on that campaign.  She told me about the anarchists who tried to capitalize on the Goldwater campaign too.  By that, I mean, those anarchists who joined up not to try to get the man elected, but to use it to piggyback off of to push anarchy.  Certainly that was not all of the anarchists; it most likely was just a fraction.  But, the behavior of those few was disgusting.
> 
> I see the same thing going on in this election cycle.  Just as it went on in the last one.  It is disgusting too.
> 
> Note:  This technique may work to recruit a few people.  But, do not lose sight of those people who you completely alienate and piss off royally, with the use of these tactics.


Huh?  You must have me confused with an anarchist you were talking with earlier.  There's nothing anarchistic about the Voluntaryist Manifesto.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When there is an alternative, I'll take it.  I already avoid taxpayer subsidized things as much as possible, but in our current reality, we can't avoid things like government roads because they are forced upon us.  I already avail myself of shopping online to avoid paying sales taxes to the government and I don't use public libraries unless I have to, for a few examples.


Build your own road.  Isn't that what you preach in voluntaryism?

When is someone "forced" to use a public library?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Huh?  You must have me confused with an anarchist you were talking with earlier.  There's nothing anarchistic about the Voluntaryist Manifesto.


You must have me confused with someone who hasn't been around here since almost the very beginning of this forum.

----------


## Travlyr

> The myth of the old west...we have same crime rates and death rates accounted for population today. What has caused recent decreases in crime is rising standard of living.


Sure dude. My uncle tells of the time that they hung an innocent man and it so freaked them out that they let the guilty man go free. Yeah. Anarchy all the way. To hell with property owners... we don't need them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Build your own road.  Isn't that what you preach in voluntaryism?
> 
> When is someone "forced" to use a public library?


Yes, we talk about building private roads in voluntaryist circles.  We also talk about privatizing existing ones.  Noone is forced to use a public library, but they are forced to pay for them.  I mentioned it because it is a government service I avoid.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You must have me confused with someone who hasn't been around here since almost the very beginning of this forum.


 What do you mean?  I'm not an anarchist, and the Voluntaryist Manifesto isn't either.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> you have a mental issue beyond even anarchism and it's connotation...you may have a learning disability or are just possibly hopelessly illogical.


If you are unable to argue your point without stooping to insults, then you clearly have no argument at all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It was not factually incorrect. There is no reason whatsoever for any property owner to be an anarchist. I'm sure they will not vote for Ron Paul if they believe he is. That is millions of voters.


You also claimed that "_This ^^^ is simple minded, not well thought out or researched,_" which is absolutely false.  That was what I was referring to-I should have bolded it, sorry.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What do you mean?  I'm not an anarchist, and the Voluntaryist Manifesto isn't either.


You know very well what I mean, heavenlyboy.

----------


## Deborah K

> You can't be serious. I highlight the word "OR", as it doesn't mean "AND". See logically, the statement is true, because he is "extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs". He is very sympathetic to our beliefs, hence all the contributors to his PAC site, and his neck ties, and his affinity for certain ancaps who seem to be personal friends of his. It's clear he is quite sympathetic, if nothing else. Anyone familiar with logic would read that sentence as true. The fact you throw it out our because the word "OR" didn't separate Ron's name far enough from "dirty dirty anarchy, ewwww!!!" shows you have a mental issue beyond even anarchism and it's connotation...*you may have a learning disability or are just possibly hopelessly illogical.*For the second time, good luck with that skippy.
> 
> 
> Therefore, when I said "fair enough", it was fair enough. Wowza!


And your self importance makes me want to puke.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sure dude. My uncle tells of the time that they hung an innocent man and it so freaked them out that they let the guilty man go free. Yeah. Anarchy all the way. *To hell with property owners... we don't need them.*


 Irrelevant to the issue, but feel free to keep smacking that strawman around.

----------


## Travlyr

> You also claimed that "_This ^^^ is simple minded, not well thought out or researched,_" which is absolutely false.  That was what I was referring to-I should have bolded it, sorry.


Alienating millions of property owners during election season is political suicide... and dumb. Why are you guys doing it?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Alienating millions of property owners during election season is political suicide... and dumb. Why are you guys doing it?


 We are in the philosophy sub-forum, FYI.  We discuss these kinds of issues here.  It's not "dumb", as this discussion isn't public.

----------


## Deborah K

> We are in the philosophy sub-forum, FYI.  We discuss these kinds of issues here.  It's not "dumb", as this discussion isn't public.


As if the opposition can't get a membership and use this tripe against Ron Paul.

----------


## Travlyr

> We are in the philosophy sub-forum, FYI.  We discuss these kinds of issues here.  It's not "dumb", as this discussion isn't public.


lol. sheesh. ProIndividual has made his position publicly known at Campaign For Liberty. That is dumb. The media will run with it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As if the opposition can't get a membership and use this tripe against Ron Paul.


Interesting thought.  What would they do with a bunch of posts by anonymous people who have no formal association with the campaign or RP?  Fabricate stories?  They already do that.

----------


## ProIndividual

> My uncle tells of the time that they hung an innocent man


I've buried more than one of childhood friends, and because of guns...I'm not anti-gun, and innocent people die everyday extra legally (without courts, etc.). 13,000 people are murdered by guns alone in the U.S... We killed the same number of civilians in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan over the last 10 years (130,000 in 10yrs). There are 50,000 annual violent deaths in the USA...it's relatively the same as it always was. Notice also...blacks were lynched in existing statism...the system didn't work for them any better than you assert the old west worked for settlers. Settlers who by the way resisted the heavy hand of outside law once they were accepted as states in the Union. They set up that law precisely because they were ignoring laws...there were always uneforcanble laws about settling further west no matter our border positions early on.  Wherever the line was, people that thought a little like us just habitually stepped over those lines and homesteaded. After a time, a real economy would boom in certain areas and law would be required to stop aggression against persons or property and highway robbery in the rural areas between towns. Since there wasn't much of an existing State to help them, and the U.S. didn't try, they pay for and elect their law enforcenement...and the best part...it was so local and private that they could fire cruel cops! Wyatt Earp was fired for pistol whipping too many tourists one time. This could never happen today, we can't even get public/private partnerships to allow competition for the dang contract let alone just private cops. And again, notice who paid for the cops...the business owners....they also dug up or otherwise drug roads through the frontier as well. Taxes largely were unheard of as business did what they had to, which was a little more expensive, in the absece of being able to lobby the government so it could kick back a road project, so the business could steal taxpayer dollars to build cheaper roads for his business.

Look, it wasn't as bad as they say, the crime stats prove it...and crime rates today fall slowly over time, and have been for some years now, because our standard of living rose. Personally I'd rather live in the old west type setting...but i already live on a dirt road/gravel road, and our town voted out all the local town cops....we have a county sheriff who comes if called, and State highway patrol who come an hour out of their way just to show they control us regardless of their jurisdiction, and I'm sure State Police if called. We got rid of them for writing us tickets for years and DUI checkpointing us, letting us illegally pay our way out of DUIs so it wouldn't be turned over to the state bmv for suspended liscence, etc...and we had like no crime. So, we voted them out. Everyone for 80 miles knows we did it, it was in the paper. No crime raise. Why? Cause we can legally kill someone tryin' to steal our car if it's on our property in my state (Castle Law). More guns=less crime...that's why the old west was largely safer...

...and if your hip to math...do a game theory analysis of two people in a dispute with guns, one with one without a gun, and neither with guns but instead knives. Make one a man and one a woman. When you do the analysis and weight the averages, you'll see two people with guns (especially if they know the other person is armed) are LEAST likely to conflict. True when they do, it ends in death or maiming...but it so reduces the probability of it happening that it becomes a choice between a pretty decent chance of getting seriously to mildly injured, to a very remote chance of anything happening at all coupled with slight risk of maiming and rarer yet chance of death. The old west worked so well for this country, hence rapid expansion, that it had whole myths spring up around it. 

Most people don't know that Wyatt Earp and his brothers were less lawmen than pimps and bullies though....that's doesn't sell books back East, cowboy.

----------


## Travlyr

> Interesting thought.  What would they do with a bunch of posts by anonymous people who have no formal association with the campaign or RP?  Fabricate stories?  They already do that.


Or they may link to RPF and when the property owners sign up, login, and see that anarchists want to do away with the State... run away.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Interesting thought.  What would they do with a bunch of posts by anonymous people who have no formal association with the campaign or RP?


Remember the post by Bryan reminding us that we are Ron Paul's ambassadors?  What we do and say rubs off on Ron Paul, whether we like it or not.  Have you not read or encountered people in real life who won't even listen to anything about Ron Paul because they were so turned off by some of the supporters?   




> Fabricate stories?  They already do that.


They don't need to fabricate stories, when there are enough real incidences to choose from.

----------


## ProIndividual

> And your self importance makes me want to puke.


I really don't give a damn...I was totally right too. Truth hurts.

----------


## Travlyr

> Taxes largely were unheard of as business did what they had to, which was a little more expensive, in the absence of being able to lobby the government so it could kick back a road project, so the business could steal taxpayer dollars to build cheaper roads for his business.
> 
> Look, it wasn't as bad as they say, the crime stats prove it...and crime rates today fall slowly over time, and have been for some years now, because our standard of living rose. 
> 
> Most people don't know that Wyatt Earp and his brothers were less lawmen than pimps and bullies though....that's doesn't sell books back East, cowboy.


I understand this stuff. My great great Uncle was quite vivid with his book. 

Anarchy does not have any property ownership details/plans in place at the present time to replace the current system. People who own their houses, business properties, and land will not support modern day anarchy. It is much better to tell the truth ... that Ron Paul will support the U.S. Constitution and rule accordingly.

----------


## Deborah K

> Interesting thought.  What would they do with a bunch of posts by anonymous people who have no formal association with the campaign or RP?  Fabricate stories?  They already do that.


As you may know, we're trying to launch a grassroots Ad campaign.  If it is successful, eventually the media will discover that the Ads were developed here.  On top of that, Politico has already been here asking for interviews with members.  That turned out to be a fiasco on the forums, if you may recall, and sent this place into damage control.  If Ron gains a lot of traction this time around, the opposition is going to do whatever it takes to bring him down.  "A bunch of posts by anonymous people" - with tens of thousands of posts who have been here for years!  Established members.  It is foolhearty to believe that an established forum that is already getting publicity could not be used to damage Ron.  Why purposefully give them the fodder to do so?

----------


## ProIndividual

> As if the opposition can't get a membership and use this tripe against Ron Paul


Your so right...the anarchists will cause RP to lose...wtf?

Okay, so you must mean Bob Murphy, Thomas Woods, Lew Rockwell, you know, the guys that write for his PAC campaign for liberty...front page articles on the homepage! Or maybe you mean the dead one's Ron admires like David Freidman or Austrian vet Murry Rothbard ancap Esquire...

This notion he's ashamed of us is the logical error I was pointing out when I called him illgoical. Welcome to that club.

The problem is in your head, and this continues for as long as we forced to defend ourselves. Ron Paul 2012...even if you hate me saying it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Have you not read or encountered people in real life who won't even listen to anything about Ron Paul because they were so turned off by some of the supporters?


 Yes, but I've only heard people complaining about some of the supporters because of what they do in real life (such as heckling Hannity).  But, I don't listen to news or any MSM very much.  Thanks for mentioning it.  Much appreciated.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I really don't give a damn...I was totally right too. Truth hurts.


You may want to start caring and clean up your act a bit, because insults like you were dishing out, are very much against forum guidelines.

What you said to me just rolls off my back, but the next person you hurl them at may not see it the same way.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As you may know, we're trying to launch a grassroots Ad campaign.  If it is successful, eventually the media will discover that the Ads were developed here.  On top of that, Politico has already been here asking for interviews with members.  That turned out to be a fiasco on the forums, if you may recall, and sent this place into damage control.  If Ron gains a lot of traction this time around, the opposition is going to do whatever it takes to bring him down.  "A bunch of posts by anonymous people" - with tens of thousands of posts who have been here for years!  Established members.  It is foolhearty to believe that an established forum that is already getting publicity could not be used to damage Ron.  Why purposefully give them the fodder to do so?


I stand corrected.  Thanks for taking the time to write that.

----------


## Deborah K

> I really don't give a damn...I was totally right too. Truth hurts.


Posted by someone who's only been here a couple of months.  Liberty Eagle has more credibility, rationale, knowledge, and political experience than you could ever hope for!  She lives in the real world, you live in the world of philosophical theory.  Keep your self righteous condescensions to yourself!

----------


## ProIndividual

> lol. sheesh. ProIndividual has made his position publicly known at Campaign For Liberty. That is dumb. The media will run with it.


Except I'm not the only one, just like here...quit being a scared soccer mom. This was over quite a span of time...and guess what, the campaign was WELL aware of my articles (they often put them on the homepage where member posts went), including those about anarchism (like the one I linked on Individualism and the one on Nullification...the latter was angry reply to this type of frivilous misdefinition of anarchy we see here...and somehow, i got widely praised for it! Almost nothing negative. The PAC never asked me keep it down, or never suspended my account....

The problem is yours, not Ron Paul's...he welcomes us...get over yourselves.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Anarchy does not have any property ownership details/plans in place at the present time to replace the current system.


says you...the court system largely doesn't change.

----------


## ProIndividual

> You may want to start caring and clean up your act a bit, because insults like you were dishing out, are very much against forum guidelines.


w/e dude...I'm right and you say that because your in the opposition...your not a nonbias arbitar. My" insults" are not insults, they' re observations....and any rational person reading this thread would see that.

Once again, you do not have to like me for me to be right.



Apparently pointing out blatant illogical arguments is against the rules...great...lol.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, but I've only heard people complaining about some of the supporters because of what they do in real life (such as heckling Hannity).  But, I don't listen to news or any MSM very much.  Thanks for mentioning it.  Much appreciated.


It happens from the internet too, hb.  Don't you remember in the last election when several people had spent weeks (and their last dime) putting together a nice booth for the largest event in Alabama for the year.  It was the annual Peanut Festival and everyone goes to it.  A pastor and his family picked up some literature about Ron Paul.  He liked what he read and was going to talk to his congregation about the good doctor.  Note: Alabama is in the middle of the Bible belt.  Well, apparently, he sent his son to the internet to find out some more.  The son found RPFs and when he did, he ran into a number of Christian-bashing threads.  The son left without saying a word, reported back to his father and the pastor returned all the literature to the booth.  

The woman whose family worked so hard on this event came to the forums and told us what all had happened.  She was livid.

Luckily now, we have the Religion subforum to move those threads.  However, one only need spend 5 or 10 minutes to register and both this Philosophy forum, Hot Topics and the Religion forum are right there for the reading.

----------


## Travlyr

> The problem is yours, not Ron Paul's...he welcomes us...get over yourselves.


You are not doing any Ron Paul campaign donors any justice. Why undermine his campaign because you don't get it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Except I'm not the only one, just like here...quit being a scared soccer mom. This was over quite a span of time...and guess what, the campaign was WELL aware of my articles (they often put them on the homepage where member posts went), including those about anarchism


if they did that, I assure you it was an oversight.

----------


## ProIndividual

This thread stops when you attackers stop invading....sound like any of the rest of my posts? This thread dies if the opposition goes away....but yet you post and post and argue and rant, and all the while you blame ONLY us for the 500+ posts on this thread...

Whatever you say guys, whatever you say.

----------


## ProIndividual

> if they did that, I assure you it was an oversight.


No 'fantasy land man', it wasn't. It happened a lot. Again, they aren't afraid like you soccer moms. Get over this...go away, the thread ends...if not I'll sit here and school ya somemore.

I assure you, your condescension is no more ethical than my "insults" (logical observations).

----------


## Travlyr

> This thread stops when you attackers stop invading....sound like any of the rest of my posts? This thread dies if the opposition goes away....but yet you post and post and argue and rant, and all the while you blame ONLY us for the 500+ posts on this thread...
> 
> Whatever you say guys, whatever you say.


You are not nearly as smart as you think you are. We will be defending Dr. Ron Paul _"The Champion of the Constitution"_ throughout his campaign.
Anarchists need to see if they can get out of third grade.

----------


## ProIndividual

> You are not nearly as smart as you think you are. We will be defending Dr. Ron Paul "The Champion of the Constitution" throughout his campaign.
>  Anarchists need to see if they can get out of third grade.



How many more posts before it's your fault?




> Anarchists need to see if they can get out of third grade



Right, because I say "illogical" or "learning disability", I'm violating one of the soccer moms interpretation of the rules....but when you do it in so many words, well that's just plus rep. Rep it up. Rep Rep Repppppy.



You soak in hypocrasy as you continue to post.

----------


## robert68

> ... Or maybe you mean the dead one's Ron admires like David Freidman or Austrian vet Murry Rothbard ancap Esquire...


Did you mean this David Friedman... because he seems quite alive at his blog?

----------


## Travlyr

> How many more posts before it's your fault?


I've read Ron Paul's books. I've watched his videos. I understand the difference between central banking and honest sound money. I understand that if Ron Paul becomes president of the United States that the healing begins. His presidency is not the be all end all, but it is a step in the right direction.

Anarchy is a step in the wrong direction. Get over yourself and help us achieve some victories.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You are not nearly as smart as you think you are. We will be defending Dr. Ron Paul _"The Champion of the Constitution"_ throughout his campaign.
> *Anarchists need to see if they can get out of third grade*.


If you're trying to persuade them, insulting them isn't going to work (especially considering they're a lot more sophisticated than you are on average).

----------


## ProIndividual

> Did you mean this David Friedman... because he's still posting at his blog?


I did mean him...I didn't realize he was alive....thanks for the correction, totally my mistake. But he does write articles for Campaign for Liberty.....I just thought he Rothbard and a few others were deceased...obviously I let the gray fool me...lol.

Nice catch.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Anarchy is a step in the wrong direction


Another step toward permanent hypocrasy...this thread ends whenever you want it to...just stop posting...lol.


(a step toward smaller government is a step toward anarchy, logically...you see me as your enemy, when we want the same thing 95% of the time, you just can't get over the 5%.)

----------


## Travlyr

> If you're trying to persuade them, insulting them isn't going to work (especially considering they're a lot more sophisticated than you are on average).


Is this sophisticated in your feeble mind?



> And defend the government against the people it is obstensibly therew to make safe....thank you...you just proved why the State is too dangerous to exist, why fools mistake patriotism for nationalism, and why you sir are a sociopath.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Is this sophisticated in your feeble mind?



"Moooooaaaaan, I can't stop poooostiiinnggggggggg!''

If you stop, the thread dies...if you keep attacking we'll keep defending ourselves....this is just like real life...lol.





> And defend the government against the people it is obstensibly therew to make safe....thank you...you just proved why the State is too dangerous to exist, why fools mistake patriotism for nationalism, and why you sir are a sociopath.



Notice this was in response to you saying you would KILL me over the State...and I'm breaking rules and being ruuude...how dare I!

And since that was the context, I stick by the badly worded thought. You are saying that you should kill for the State which obstensibly makes me safe from just such a thing...chicka chicka say what?

You did just show why the State is too dangerous to exist, and why fools mistake patriotism for nationalism. And just may be a sociopath, because you appear to be sticking by the ridiculous notion, and feel no remorse for having thought, let alone saying it.

Which runs offf more RP supporters...your death threats, or my code of ethics....hmmmm. Ponder that while you continue to keep the thread alive, and continue to assert violent rhetoric is correct for this campaign....chicka chicka say what?

----------


## Travlyr

> "Moooooaaaaan, I can't stop poooostiiinnggggggggg!''
> 
> If you stop, the thread dies...if you keep attacking we'll keep defending ourselves....this is just like real life...lol.


I do not really care if the thread dies. The more people who understand that anarchists do not offer a viable solution for property ownership... the better.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I do not really care if the thread dies. The more people who understand that anarchists do not offer a viable solution for property ownership... the better.



Then from now on the thread is your fault...cowboy.


and your soooo right my non-reading friend...we don't at all advocate for rule of law or a legal system...LOL...wtf are u smoking? We have natural justice systems, almost exactly like our court system now, just a few tweeks. The idea we wouldnt just do that is insane...the idea you keep posting when I make you look silly is insane...the idea anarchists are for no law is insane....this whole thread is full of less than sane things...most of it from your side.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is this sophisticated* in your feeble mind?*


   Ah, petty insults-the resort of the man with no argument, little imagination, and/or little intellect.  My comment had nothing to do with ProIndividual.  I'm not a fan of his.  How you're putting that toward an argument that I have a "feeble mind" indicates a feeble mind on your part.  I suggest sticking to things you know something about and bailing out of this anarchy debate.

----------


## ProIndividual

I'll let you "win" (and that's the only way your going to) since you think "winning" is getting the last word (juvenile)....have your last word.

But we totally showed what kind of people you certain few were...the exact people I was describing came back time and again to insult and provoke debate through condescension and inuendo, if not outright authoritative statements that were patently spin and untrue. Then you blame the thread's 'dangerous nature for the campaign' on us...lol. You made a pseudo death threat...I just said "illogical" and "learning disability" (which I stand by, based on observation). This is proof positive those who are claiming to be for liberty are ready to snuff it out as soon as it interferes with there little vision of "coercive freedom". God forbid anyone ask to be left alone...you might call them an "extremist", or a "loon", or "dangerous to the campaign"...even though I showed over and over the OFFICIAL campaign works directly with them all the time...and they are Doctors of Economics and History at some of the best free market schools and institutes in the nation!

But go ahead, get your last word, or 100 words for all I care...I've tired of defeating your arguments so soundly that you have to keep coming back new sophistic and ambiguous fallacies to attack my beliefs, or even just my very existance on these forums if I at all want talk about something to the left of Dennis Kucincih and to the right of Ron Paul (not that left/right even exist, but for your sake you see), as if that makes me any more extreme than his very own crew at Campaign for Liberty, CPAC, etc., etc.

Stop acting like our good ideas are yours, and then $#@! on us as soon as you co-opt them, and realize you can marginalize us again wherever we newly disagree with you based on the redrawing of your fragile ideological borders.

End the Fed, currency comeptition as Ron calls for...Ron Paul 2012...smaller government is aiding my cause whether you like it or not Mr. "I'll shoot you over the State, even though it ain't my private property and you're who they State is supposed to protect...but every sociopath likes a good killin' that ain't in self defense or defense of his country (the people)." Ain't that right? Our ideas make you think of killin'....but we're the bad publicity for RP...right.


And if you don't get the last word cuz you think that's better...GOOD...lol.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do not really care if the thread dies. The more people who understand that anarchists do not offer a viable solution for property ownership... the better.


 Read this and this and you will be aware that anarchists do offer a viable solution for property ownership (and this reading is only an intro to the subject).

----------


## mczerone

> I do not really care if the thread dies. The more people who understand that anarchists do not offer a viable solution for property ownership... the better.


_Your_ definition of anarchists don't offer a viable solution.  No one here is one of your anarchists.  I might use "anarchist" to define myself to someone who is willing to have a conversation about what I believe and why, but you do not wish to have this conversation.

I'm not here to defend those ideas you call anarchism.  What the OP meant by anarchism was not what you or others are fighting against, but anyone who calls themselves and anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist are lumped together with the vile image you have in your mind of "anarchy".

I think we have finally pinpointed the answer to the OP's question: non-anarchists are so anti-anarchists because they don't distinguish the property-rights based, peace loving, sound money advocating anarchists who think that the U.S. Constitution should be followed by the government that we do have from the you-can't-tell-me-not-to-blow-your-house-up anarchist they met in the 70's.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> _Your_ definition of anarchists don't offer a viable solution.  No one here is one of your anarchists.  I might use "anarchist" to define myself to someone who is willing to have a conversation about what I believe and why, but you do not wish to have this conversation.
> 
> I'm not here to defend those ideas you call anarchism.  What the OP meant by anarchism was not what you or others are fighting against, but anyone who calls themselves and anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist are lumped together with the vile image you have in your mind of "anarchy".
> 
> I think we have finally pinpointed the answer to the OP's question: non-anarchists are so anti-anarchists because they don't distinguish the property-rights based, peace loving, sound money advocating anarchists who think that the U.S. Constitution should be followed by the government that we do have from the you-can't-tell-me-not-to-blow-your-house-up anarchist they met in the 70's.


 IOU 1 +rep when I get more ammo.

----------


## Revolution9

> _Your_ definition of anarchists don't offer a viable solution.  No one here is one of your anarchists.  I might use "anarchist" to define myself to someone who is willing to have a conversation about what I believe and why, but you do not wish to have this conversation.
> 
> I'm not here to defend those ideas you call anarchism.  What the OP meant by anarchism was not what you or others are fighting against, but anyone who calls themselves and anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist are lumped together with the vile image you have in your mind of "anarchy".
> 
> I think we have finally pinpointed the answer to the OP's question: non-anarchists are so anti-anarchists because they don't distinguish the property-rights based, peace loving, sound money advocating anarchists who think that the U.S. Constitution should be followed by the government that we do have from the you-can't-tell-me-not-to-blow-your-house-up anarchist they met in the 70's.



The trip of the trigger here is your argument falls flat on its face when the shifting definition is defined. Sound money necessarily is issued by and regulated for the people by an "authority". Or do we just draw up stick figures on paper and that works, or hire a grfx artist, and whatever is used by necessity has to be able to purchase here and buy there using the same currency. So sound money by its nature cannot be anarchical and has to be a part of a system of community or of greater society. Once two people agree on a rule then the definition of anarchy fogs up like the glass on a blue light district jack booth.  So the answer to the OP's question is many see anarchism for the illusion and counterfeit it is of real freedom and liberty...and they are on a Ron Paul forum where their intellectual dishonesty and mind game fudging gambit gets a severe drubbing every time it rears it ugly head trying to confuse and abscond with the less seasoned intellects who may peruse this forum in the interests of getting Ron Paul elected or understanding his platform prior to offering support.

Furthermore real anarchists are tools of central bankers. You self professed bunch are a gaggle of psuedo-intellectual babbling wannabes.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## mczerone

> The trip of the trigger here is your argument falls flat on its face when the shifting definition is defined. Sound money necessarily is issued by and regulated for the people by an "authority". Or do we just draw up stick figures on paper and that works, or hire a grfx artist, and whatever is used by necessity has to be able to purchase here and buy there using the same currency. So sound money by its nature cannot be anarchical and has to be a part of a system of community or of greater society. Once two people agree on a rule then the definition of anarchy fogs up like the glass on a blue light district jack booth.  So the answer to the OP's question is many see anarchism for the illusion and counterfeit it is of real freedom and liberty...and they are on a Ron Paul forum where their intellectual dishonesty and mind game fudging gambit gets a severe drubbing every time it rears it ugly head trying to confuse and abscond with the less seasoned intellects who may peruse this forum in the interests of getting Ron Paul elected or understanding his platform prior to offering support.
> 
> Furthermore real anarchists are tools of central bankers. You self professed bunch are a gaggle of psuedo-intellectual babbling wannabes.
> 
> HTH
> Rev9


Takes one to know one?

If you seriously believe that there needs to be a central authority on money, why are YOU supporting Ron Paul, who explicitly supports ANARCHY IN MONEY in allowing competing currencies distinct from govt authority?

Buried in your poetic response is an intense vitriol.  RP does not show such disdain for the self-identified anarcho-capitalists who support him and work in the highest levels of his official campaigns, so what is keeping you from following his example?  Perhaps my assessment in the post you quoted is more apt than you realize.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Question for the non-anarchists...

I believe it should be legal for anyone to do anything they want, provided only that they not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.

At what point does this stop being true, for you?

----------


## AceNZ

> Question for the non-anarchists...
> 
> I believe it should be legal for anyone to do anything they want, provided only that they not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.
> 
> At what point does this stop being true, for you?


I'm not an anarchist, and I agree with you.

I can't think of a point where it stops being true for me.  However, there are corner cases -- situations where two people might each legitimately think that another initiated force against them, for example -- which is where courts come in.  There are also a number of subtleties in terms of exactly what constitutes an initiation of force.  For example, I would include fraud in that category.  That's where the need for objective law enters the picture.

----------


## Revolution9

> Question for the non-anarchists...
> 
> I believe it should be legal for anyone to do anything they want, provided only that they not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.
> 
> At what point does this stop being true, for you?


Another bogus fallacy. As soon as murder, mayhem or theft gets committed the whole ball of wax of anarchy has to get tossed as the prosecution forms. I can see so many instance where this perfect little utopia of illusion called anarchy breaks down. It is not robust as it cannot stand any disruption to its on paper format without reverting to another political paradigm to handle the problem. It assumes the existence of no psychopaths and bases its call for stability on proper morals, which are derived from the good of The Divine Creator..not some anarchists lower fundament. It cannot exist without expropriating from other political forms to handle anything out of the ordinary that arises in community. IOW..it is a bogus and counterfeit illusion of freedom and liberty and contains no answers worth having in its core philosophy. It is for spoiled brats.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Takes one to know one?
> 
> If you seriously believe that there needs to be a central authority on money, why are YOU supporting Ron Paul, who explicitly supports ANARCHY IN MONEY in allowing competing currencies distinct from govt authority?.


Authority..not central authority. Authority implies authorship. The coiner or printer of money would have authorship of it. There has to be an authority who decides what the value is in redemption for the issued currency. Otherwise it has no value. The users of the currency also authorize it every time they use it to transact. Next straw man....?

BTW, the disdain I am showing is for the clowns who clog up this board with half baked miasma sure to turn off a segment of the populace who don't want to listen to endless caveats and digest halfwit political shufflings about anarchy when they bloody well know they seen them thar anarchist types busting windows and setting cars on fire. Now you clowns will tell me they aren't anarchists..they were sent in to discredit them.. Yeah by the central bankers who they are tools of.

You all fail hard and are mere followers of illusion trying to convince any and all that that mirage just over the horizon is real and there is life sustaining water there when it is a salted puddle of alkaline.

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The trip of the trigger here is your argument falls flat on its face when the shifting definition is defined. Sound money necessarily is issued by and regulated for the people by an "authority".


Not only is this patently false, it is also a blatant misrepresentation of Ron Paul's position on sound money.  Ron Paul has time and again stated that money, like all other commodities should be subject to and decided upon by the free market.  

Again, what you are saying is in direct contravention to what Ron Paul says about money.




> So the answer to the OP's question is many see anarchism for the illusion and counterfeit it is of real freedom and liberty...and they are on a Ron Paul forum where their intellectual dishonesty and mind game fudging gambit gets a severe drubbing every time it rears it ugly head


Is that right?  I've yet to see it, myself. 




> trying to confuse and abscond with the less seasoned intellects who may peruse this forum in the interests of getting Ron Paul elected or understanding his platform prior to offering support.


You misrepresented Ron Paul yourself in this very post... at least be consistent with your stated mission and withdraw your comment regarding money.  




> Furthermore real anarchists are tools of central bankers.


This is a purposeful misrepresentation.  To all those reading this forum considering adopting an anarchist philosophy, ours is nothing more than the logical conclusion of the concept of individual liberty.  We are not banksters, nor do we support banksters.  We merely philosophically see that the individual is the largest legitimate political entity, and that ANY implementation of coercive or physical force against an individual is immoral... it's kind of like being, "a little bit pregnant".  If it is wrong to aggress against the individual, then the degree to which an individual is aggressed against is inconsequential.  It IS wrong and immoral, every time.  Even a small state (government) must encroach in some way or another on an individual.  (Parenthetically, here, I must agree with HB that I am a Voluntaryist, in that I find nothing wrong with a group of individuals coalescing under a government of their own free will... but I find it unlikely to occur, and I personally wouldn't have anything to do with it.    :P )

Some folks here are trying to paint us as dangerous to private property.  That is, in my opinion, richly ironic.  In order for a state to exist, it MUST claim sovereignty over a physical region... and if you live in that region, that means that your property is claimed by that state.  In other words, you do not own it.  You can see this in practice today, every time you send your rent check - sorry - I mean your property taxes to the state.  You can see this every time you have to ask for permission - sorry - I mean apply for a permit to build a certain structure on "your" property.  In some municipalities, you can see this every time the government insists on inspecting your source of drinking water.

Some have said that anarchism doesn't provide solutions to property ownership.  Those folks who settled the West of this country might beg to differ; furthermore, modern anarchists have laid out potential solutions to this question in detail, and links in this thread have been provided if you are interested.  But the bottomline is, we do not know what solutions a free people might arrive at for this and many other questions.  That's kind of the point... there are roughly six billion people on this planet, not one of them truly free at the moment - imagine the potential if they were but allowed - freed - to develop solutions to perceived problems.  Surely amidst the six billion humans on this planet one or more of them might have THE answer to some of these questions!  And surely the rest of us should be allowed - free - to choose from the many ideas that these free people conceive!  Statists of all stripes would have you believe that only a select few may determine how certain problems in the world may be resolved.  Ask yourself what sense that makes?  Are these people possessing of certain powers that you do not have?  Of course not - and that is the observable truth of individual sovereignty.   God (in my case) or nature created each of us, equally.  There are none in possession of extra-human abilities.  Therefore, what right do rulers have to rule?  

There are those who say we willfully or not do damage to Dr. Paul's campaign.  I say that I actively support his campaign, like many others who espouse a similar philosophy.  Ron freely associates with folks who advocate - even on a single issue - individual liberty.  For reference, see Lew Rockwell, Dennis Kucinich (war), Barney Frank (drug laws).  Campaign for Liberty often features articles by anarcho-capitalists like Bob Murphy and Tom Woods.  These are folks who do not entirely espouse the principles that Ron states openly he holds.  Ron is a man of principle - he does not obfuscate the positions of others, and he does not run away from them.  He does make false representations about Tom Woods when Tom speaks on his behalf.  He does not try to claim that Tom is a "tool of the central bankers".  Ron has integrity, unlike some here who claim to represent his campaign.  

Folks who would do war with we who espouse an anarchist philosophy stand in direct opposition to positions that Ron openly takes.   

If someone asks me where Ron stands on foreign policy (for instance), I'll tell them where Ron stands.  And if they ask me where I stand, I'll tell them where I stand.  I do not misrepresent, and I do not dissemble.

My views are not violent - they are the opposite of violence, in fact.  My views are not dangerous - they are the direct opposite of danger, in fact.  My views are well considered, and have evolved.  I began political awareness as a socialist, in college.  As I got older, I became a "centrist" - muddy water, lacking philosophical grounding.  I found Ron's campaign and became more of a minarchist, and libertarian, until finally embracing the logical conclusion of individual sovereignty.  That's all, quite simply.  And I resent being painted as something I am not.  




> You self professed bunch are a gaggle of psuedo-intellectual babbling wannabes.


You have said nothing of substance in this thread.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Question for the non-anarchists...
> 
> I believe it should be legal for anyone to do anything they want, provided only that they not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.
> 
> At what point does this stop being true, for you?


Well stated.  Unfortunately, you can expect this to go unaddressed.  I've posed this observation/question 3 times in this thread:




> The state is the instrument by which your so-called "anarchists" tyrannize. Yet somehow, we need the state - and *help me with the logic, here* - to protect us from these "anarchists" in control of the state...?


:crickets:

----------


## Revolution9

> Not only is this patently false, it is also a blatant misrepresentation of Ron Paul's position on sound money.  Ron Paul has time and again stated that money, like all other commodities should be subject to and decided upon by the free market.


It is a proper reasoning of how money is issued. If the issuer/author of said money cannot back his currency with any authority...i.e. the ability to redeem the currency... then the free market will reject it. It places no restriction on the number of issuers of authorized currency. What good is a currency nobody accepts? What gives a currency acceptibility and transportability? Authority that it can be redeemed at value. This is no different than what RP says.

I still maintain anarchy is a bankrupt political philosophy based on an illusion of freedom and liberty and fails the test quickly when any untowards issue such as abrogation of anothers free will through violence or theft for example is perpetrated. Immediately it has to resort to other political paradigms to deal with the disruption. On papar it sounds magnanimous. In reality it does not work. Hence why I state categorically it is a counterfeit and illusion.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> You have said nothing of substance in this thread.


Here is what the substance of what i am saying is. Anarchy is a counterfeit and illusion of true freedom and liberty. And the kiddies are miffed I refuse to play the stupid game of getting corraled down a dead end alley by conforming to the anarchists preferred debate structure. It is better to stand back and mock than take this crap seriously. They are simply intellectual trollers wanting a platform so they can work out their arguing with mommy and daddy issues. 

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

But I thought the issue of currency was where the argument for anarchy "fell flat" on it's face?  

You may repeat your little sayings over and over, but there is nothing of substance to them.

----------


## angelatc

> If you're trying to persuade them, insulting them isn't going to work (especially considering they're a lot more sophisticated than you are on average).


You seem to be confusing arrogance with sophistication.

----------


## angelatc

> I think we have finally pinpointed the answer to the OP's question: non-anarchists are so anti-anarchists because they don't distinguish the property-rights based, peace loving, sound money advocating anarchists who think that the U.S. Constitution should be followed by the government that we do have from the you-can't-tell-me-not-to-blow-your-house-up anarchist they met in the 70's.


Nope.

The definition is only an issue in your minds.  We who live in the real world know that using that word drives people away, and therefore it has no legitimate role in the movement.  It really is that simple.

----------


## acptulsa

> Nope.
> 
> The definition is only an issue in your minds.  We who live in the real world know that using that word drives people away, and therefore it has no legitimate role in the movement.  It really is that simple.


It really is that simple to me, anyway.  That and the fact that I agree with ancaps to such a degree that I hate to see certain ones like the OP driving the flies away with his vinegar.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You seem to be confusing arrogance with sophistication.


 Nope.

----------


## Seraphim

> Nope.
> 
> The definition is only an issue in your minds.  We who live in the real world know that using that word drives people away, and therefore it has no legitimate role in the movement.  It really is that simple.


Usually I like your posts, but that is just not a valid argument.

You argue that somehow "anarchists" have a different definition of the word, when in reality most people have a HIGHLY convoluted understanding of the word.

Society has systematically bred a condition of FEAR, a PAVLOVIAN RESPONSE, to the word.

The same way Pavlov's dogs salivated when the little bell clicker went off, most people begin to feel FEAR when they hear the word ANARCHY. Fear based on misunderstanding and falsehoods is not rational fear - it is irrational and counter productive. 

That alone is telling. Any rational person knows that fear is the single greatest obstacle in relation to cognitive abilities, reason and problem solving.

The following are definitions of societal framework as per Immanuel Kant (I am inclined to agree):

A) Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B) Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
*C) Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)*
D) Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)

The sad fact is that what people associate to ANARCHY is, in fact, BARBARISM. They are in no way related.

The problems that arise in society, everything from scarcity to agressive acts of violence can be solved through the market place. THIS INCLUDES LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Sadly, we as a species, in a cyclical and INEVITABLE manner always destroy our own society because we frame our society with a loaded gun and tell the younger generation: "If you don't like it, you can always move to a country where it's worse!". 

These instances are COMMON, and sadly represent role reversal. The youngster asks the pertinent questions (and voices reasonable concerns) and the elder resorts to childish, intellectually brain dead nonsense. That is, in relation to THIS PARTICULAR concept. 

The voluntary society and/or voluntary state is a BREEDING GROUND for moral consistency and the rise of Church related solutions to societies ills. 

An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. 

The State is liken to the pound of cure, except that the cure is RADIATION. 

Yay, a deathly sick, vomitting, lifeless society...FOR ZE GRETA GOOD!

Too much crime? Write in a law and irradiate the mundanes with coersive power. 

I think it's time for the solutions to our problems to come from reason and MORAL CONSISTENCY.

Good luck finding moral consitency among statist oriented solutions. You'll be looking for a lifetime.

----------


## Deborah K

> Nope.
> 
> The definition is only an issue in your minds.  We who live in the real world know that using that word drives people away, and therefore it has no legitimate role in the movement.  It really is that simple.


+rep when I get my powers back.

----------


## Deborah K

> Usually I like your posts, but that is just not a valid argument.
> 
> You argue that somehow "anarchists" have a different definition of the word, when in reality most people have a HIGHLY convoluted understanding of the word.
> 
> Society has systematically bred a condition of FEAR, a PAVLOVIAN RESPONSE, to the word.
> 
> The same way Pavlov's dogs salivated when the little bell clicker went off, most people begin to feel FEAR when they hear the word ANARCHY. Fear based on misunderstanding and falsehoods is not rational fear - it is irrational and counter productive. 
> 
> That alone is telling. Any rational person knows that fear is the single greatest obstacle in relation to cognitive abilities, reason and problem solving.
> ...


You're missing Angel's point.  It doesn't matter how much you theorize on the subject.  Like it or not, the reality is that your views in the real word are on the fringe this election cycle.  There are many of us in this forum fighting HARD to get Ron elected and we see the conversion process that many anarchists use this forum for as nothing more than a muddying of the waters.  You can have your views, that isn't the issue.  It's the bashing of the Constitution and Christianity on this forum that we're against, and that comes mostly from your corner.  Got it?

----------


## Seraphim

I've never bashed the Constitution or Christianity. Never.

Additionally, Ron Paul is on the fringe as well - so that is a baseless argument.

Lastly, I speak of the real world. Cause and effect. I am not theorizing some utopia. Utopians are dumb (even when they are smart).

I am merely pointing out the practical consequences of a system that has built in passive aggressive violence.




> You're missing Angel's point.  It doesn't matter how much you theorize on the subject.  Like it or not, the reality is that your views in the real word are on the fringe this election cycle.  There are many of us in this forum fighting HARD to get Ron elected and we see the conversion process that many anarchists use this forum for as nothing more than a muddying of the waters.  You can have your views, that isn't the issue.  It's the bashing of the Constitution and Christianity on this forum that we're against, and that comes mostly from your corner.  Got it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I've never bashed the Constitution or Christianity. Never.
> 
> Additionally, Ron Paul is on the fringe as well - so that is a baseless argument.
> 
> Lastly, I speak of the real world. Cause and effect. I am not theorizing some utopia. Utopians are dumb (even when they are smart).
> 
> I am merely pointing out the practical consequences of a system that has built in passive aggressive violence.


I'm confused.  Were you somehow thinking this campaign's purpose was to change the American people's view of anarchists?

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm confused.  Were you somehow thinking this campaign's purpose was to change the American people's view of anarchists?


They're voluntaryists.  They volunteered the campaign to do this thing.

----------


## Seraphim

**Sigh**

I thought the point of the movement was to get a man (Ron Paul) elected by having CONCIOUS and UNDERSTANDING voters.

Understanding the nature of reality and understanding that the marketplace is where freedom and prosperity are achieved is crucial to getting Ron Paul elected.

What's the point in getting Ron Paul elected if the general populace doesn't understand the fundemental principles he believes in?

Ron Paul, The Constitution, CLASSICAL Americanism in general are VERY VERY close to anarchism. It is undeniable truth that said things/people are MARKET anarchists.

Voluntarist and An-caps are a very powerful ally for this movement. Don't let a few jackass weeds convince you of anything different.




> I'm confused.  Were you somehow thinking this campaign's purpose was to change the American people's view of anarchists?

----------


## acptulsa

> **Sigh**
> 
> I thought the point of the movement was to get a man (Ron Paul) elected by having CONCIOUS and UNDERSTANDING voters.
> 
> Understanding the nature of reality and understanding that the marketplace is where freedom and prosperity are achieved is crucial to getting Ron Paul elected.
> 
> What's the point in getting Ron Paul elected if the general populace doesn't understand the fundemental principles he believes in?
> 
> Ron Paul, The Constitution, CLASSICAL Americanism in general are VERY VERY close to anarchism. It is undeniable truth that said things/people are MARKET anarchists.
> ...


Agreed.  But you must admit it would be helpful if we stopped bumping a thread started by a Constitution-basher.

----------


## CCTelander

> And your self importance makes me want to puke.


And your willingness to have, or at least allow, innocent people to be beaten, incarcerated, or even murdered because they disagree with your political philosophy makes me want to puke.

At least his self-importance will never result in innocent people being killed, brutalized, or thrown in a cage like an animal.

----------


## acptulsa

> And your willingness to have, or at least allow, innocent people to be beaten, incarcerated, or even murdered because they disagree with your political philosophy makes me want to puke.
> 
> At least his self-importance will never result in innocent people being killed, brutalized, or thrown in a cage like an animal.


Do you not see how this feels like Constitution-bashing?  The Constitution isn't designed to allow this crap.  It tries to prevent it.  And it truly has done more to prevent it over the last two hundred years than nothing would have done.

----------


## Seraphim

Yeah, I'm not quite sure why bashing the US Constitution can be deemed productive.

It's in no way perfect, but it can be amended and is the best framework for government ever devised (as of yet).

I do think the natural progression of humanity will be voluntarily funded governance, but that cannot and will not happen over night. Nor does that mean ALL past or present implementations of social structure should be scrapped.

With that being said, how can we get better if we are not willing to ruthlessly deconstruct our own philosophies and societal structures?

How can society progress if we are unwilling to deconstruct our own preconceived notions?

A peaceful society is only possible when the individuals within it are at peace within themselves and their own hearts. It is not possible to be at peace when your own actions, direct or indirect, cause injustice for others.

I'm not in the business of rationalizing socialized stealing and flawed practical solutions for "fixing" society. That does not grant me inner peace.

The same way tyranny takes time to erode freedom, freedom takes time to erode tyranny. 




> Agreed.  But you must admit it would be helpful if we stopped bumping a thread started by a Constitution-basher.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> **Sigh**
> 
> I thought the point of the movement was to get a man (Ron Paul) elected by having CONCIOUS and UNDERSTANDING voters.
> 
> Understanding the nature of reality and understanding that the marketplace is where freedom and prosperity are achieved is crucial to getting Ron Paul elected.
> 
> What's the point in getting Ron Paul elected if the general populace doesn't understand the fundemental principles he believes in?


Here's the issue, right here.  You are thinking this campaign should be focused more on education, than winning.  There was much the same argument when Rand was running for the Senate.  Rand focused on winning; NOW he is educating, AFTER he won and he has the platform to do it.  At the same time, he is doing all that one man in the Senate can do to stop bad legislation.  If he had lost, his voice would have been silenced.  

Do not lose sight of the fact that a President Paul can immediately get us out of all the wars we are in and stop another one from starting.  He can also issue an Executive Order that would neuter all those that came before.  And do not forget his veto pen.  These things, plus his bully pulpit and the huge onslaught of libertarians and traditional conservatives that would immediately start running for office all over this country, would have an immeasurable impact on the status quo.  I can think of numerous situations where the first and only goal of winning an office would be to shut it down and fire myself.  Can't you?  lol.  Don't minimize what a Paul presidency could do.




> Ron Paul, The Constitution, CLASSICAL Americanism in general are VERY VERY close to anarchism. It is undeniable truth that said things/people are MARKET anarchists.


Yes, and traditional conservative is very very close to it also.  But, you know what?  This is not about selling anarchy to the American public.  It is about getting a man elected.  




> Voluntarist and An-caps are a very powerful ally for this movement. Don't let a few jackass weeds convince you of anything different.


I know they are.  But, our task right now is to reach out to Republicans, understand what keeps them awake at night and convince them Ron Paul is the answer.

We are not going to convince them to read 10 volumes from the Mises Institute.  Right now, we just need their votes.

----------


## Seraphim

And what happens when the voters who cast their ballot for Ron Paul feel betrayed by yet another politician because they did not understand his positions?

That's exponentially worse.




> Here's the issue, right here.  You are thinking this campaign should be focused more on education, than winning.  There was much the same argument when Rand was running for the Senate.  Rand focused on winning; NOW he is educating, AFTER he won and he has the platform to do it.  At the same time, he is doing all that one man in the Senate can do to stop bad legislation.  If he had lost, his voice would have been silenced.  
> 
> 
> Yes, and traditional conservative is very very close to it also.  But, you know what?  This is not about selling anarchy to the American public.  It is about getting a man elected.  
> 
> 
> 
> I know they are.  But, our task right now is to reach out to Republicans, understand what keeps them awake at night and convince them Ron Paul is the answer.
> 
> We are not going to convince them to read 10 volumes from the Mises Institute.  Right now, we just need their votes.

----------


## mczerone

> Nope.
> 
> The definition is only an issue in your minds.  We who live in the real world know that using that word drives people away, and therefore it has no legitimate role in the movement.  It really is that simple.


Fine.  Then we're VOLUNTARYISTS.  It's really that simple.  Now what problem do you have with that political philosophy that doesn't have to do with misunderstandings over bomb throwing and chaos?

You know what? The word libertarian drives people away, should that have a "legitimate role" in the movement?  What about "Constitution", as when many people hear that RP is a Constitutionalist, they figure he wants to reinstitute slavery and that he "just doesn't get" the complexity of modern governance.

So what words do we have left? Freedom?  You're selfish.  Non-interventionist? You're blind to the realities of the global market.  Christian? You're anti-science and intolerant. Tolerant? You're anti-Christian. "Follower of Ron Paul"? You're in a cult. "Follower of ideas"? You're an ideologue. Conservative? You're a _conservative_. Classical Liberal? You're a _Liberal_.

So what P.C. terms can exist in this movement that "don't drive people away"?

P.S. Thanks for proving my point that the anti-anarchist sentiment comes from an ignorance of what that term means to us, and instead is fueled by collectivizing us with people who obviously aren't the same type of "anarchist" that we are.  Which is why I tend to use "voluntaryist" in general political conversations to avoid confusion.  I thought most people here would understand, but I guess even here I'll need to use some "less scary" term as a shorthand for my beliefs.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> P.S. Thanks for proving my point that the anti-anarchist sentiment comes from *an ignorance of what that term means to us*, and instead is fueled by collectivizing us with people who obviously aren't the same type of "anarchist" that we are.  Which is why I tend to use "voluntaryist" in general political conversations to avoid confusion.  I thought most people here would understand, but I guess even here I'll need to use some "less scary" term as a shorthand for my beliefs.


It doesn't matter what the term means to US.  It matters what the term means to REPUBLICAN VOTERS.

----------


## Deborah K

> And your willingness to have, or at least allow, innocent people to be beaten, incarcerated, or even murdered because they disagree with your political philosophy makes me want to puke.
> 
> At least his self-importance will never result in innocent people being killed, brutalized, or thrown in a cage like an animal.


Jumping me without knowing my views.  Okey dokey.  Ok, let's start with you providing evidence, by way of my posting history, for your accusations.  Look, genius, just because I'm not an anarchist doesn't mean I'm a statist.  Try thinking a little less puritanical.

----------


## Dr.3D

I was going to stay out of this thread, but the more I think about it, I feel perhaps the thread title is flawed.

Maybe there should there be a thread titled, "*Why do anarchists seem to be so against Ron Paul winning this election?*"

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And what happens when the voters who cast their ballot for Ron Paul feel betrayed by yet another politician because they did not understand his positions?
> 
> That's exponentially worse.


I am a traditional conservative.  His positions are nearly identical with what traditional conservatives always believed in.

Are you thinking he is going to be able to cede part of the U.S. to anarchists for them to start their perfect society, or what?  

What do you think he would do that would freak them out?

Paul will do what Reagan only talked about.  That is not scary to conservatives.  Big government Republicans won't like it, but then again, they'll never vote for Ron Paul anyway.

----------


## mczerone

> Do you not see how this feels like Constitution-bashing?  The Constitution isn't designed to allow this crap.  *It tries to prevent it.*  And it truly has done more to prevent it over the last two hundred years than nothing would have done.


A signed parchment has no motive power.  It can "try" nothing. It can "do" nothing.  Only people can do things.  And, again, looking to Spooner: The U.S. Constitution was either designed to give us the govt we have today, or IT WAS POWERLESS to stop the govt we have today from coming about.

The second half of your claim is just wishful thinking, IMO.  If "nothing" had been done, there wouldn't have been a Washington D.C., there wouldn't have been national wars, there wouldn't have been a national income tax.  There wouldn't have been a Civil War.

What would have happened?  I Don't Know.  But you guessing that things would have been worse is just as valid of a guess as me guessing that things would have been better.

So to close, in our current state of affairs, I recognize that limiting the power of the govt to the Constitution would be a vast improvement.  But "it" does no limiting.  We have to demand that someone is elected to a position to impose the Constitution on the rest of the apparatus.

And unless we want our great-grandchildren to end up with another out of control monopoly govt, changes need to occur in the system.

----------


## Deborah K

> Fine.  Then we're VOLUNTARYISTS.  It's really that simple.  Now what problem do you have with that political philosophy that doesn't have to do with misunderstandings over bomb throwing and chaos?
> 
> You know what? The word libertarian drives people away, should that have a "legitimate role" in the movement?  What about "Constitution", as when many people hear that RP is a Constitutionalist, they figure he wants to reinstitute slavery and that he "just doesn't get" the complexity of modern governance.
> 
> So what words do we have left? Freedom?  You're selfish.  Non-interventionist? You're blind to the realities of the global market.  Christian? You're anti-science and intolerant. Tolerant? You're anti-Christian. "Follower of Ron Paul"? You're in a cult. "Follower of ideas"? You're an ideologue. Conservative? You're a _conservative_. Classical Liberal? You're a _Liberal_.
> 
> So what P.C. terms can exist in this movement that "don't drive people away"?
> 
> P.S. Thanks for proving my point that the anti-anarchist sentiment comes from an ignorance of what that term means to us, and instead is fueled by collectivizing us with people who obviously aren't the same type of "anarchist" that we are.  Which is why I tend to use "voluntaryist" in general political conversations to avoid confusion.  I thought most people here would understand, but I guess even here I'll need to use some "less scary" term as a shorthand for my beliefs.


Why are you still arguing philosophy when the real issue here is strategy?  The goal is to get him elected.  It has already been clearly stated why the anarchist, et al. position will be grossly misunderstood if it is brought to light that bashing of the constitution and christianity is acceptable on a forum that bears his name.  This is the issue.  

If you are in the anarchy corner, and haven't done any of the bashing, then you shouldn't be offended.

----------


## Seraphim

Right.

But in order for those voters to cast their ballots for Ron Paul, they need to be....EDUCATED...about his views, ethics etc.

Let's be realistic here, most Americans are still in La La land. The chances of RP winning are still quite low (Ruh roh, is that blasphemy?)...but IF he loses, all is not lost. That is apparent in many ways.

The diffusion of our beliefs is accelerating very rapidly. Win or lose - things are changing.

I'd much rather have a wave of CONGRESSIONAL leaders and SENATE leaders who believe in free markets and small government, rather than just a President and a few house leaders.

With that being said, I think Ron Paul's Presidential run will surprise even us with it's power. And that's if he LOSES. If he wins - the sky is the limit.







> I am a traditional conservative.  His positions are nearly identical with what traditional conservatives always believed in.
> 
> Are you thinking he is going to be able to cede part of the U.S. to anarchists for them to start their perfect society, or what?  
> 
> What do you think he would do that would freak them out?
> 
> Paul will do what Reagan only talked about.  That is not scary to conservatives.  Big government Republicans won't like it, but then again, they'll never vote for Ron Paul anyway.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Fine.  Then we're VOLUNTARYISTS.  It's really that simple.  Now what problem do you have with that political philosophy that doesn't have to do with misunderstandings over bomb throwing and chaos?
> 
> You know what? The word libertarian drives people away, should that have a "legitimate role" in the movement?  What about "Constitution", as when many people hear that RP is a Constitutionalist, they figure he wants to reinstitute slavery and that he "just doesn't get" the complexity of modern governance.
> 
> So what words do we have left? Freedom?  You're selfish.  Non-interventionist? You're blind to the realities of the global market.  Christian? You're anti-science and intolerant. Tolerant? You're anti-Christian. "Follower of Ron Paul"? You're in a cult. "Follower of ideas"? You're an ideologue. Conservative? You're a _conservative_. Classical Liberal? You're a _Liberal_.
> 
> So what P.C. terms can exist in this movement that "don't drive people away"?
> 
> P.S. Thanks for proving my point that the anti-anarchist sentiment comes from an ignorance of what that term means to us, and instead is fueled by collectivizing us with people who obviously aren't the same type of "anarchist" that we are.  Which is why I tend to use "voluntaryist" in general political conversations to avoid confusion.  I thought most people here would understand, but I guess even here I'll need to use some "less scary" term as a shorthand for my beliefs.


Please do not use Voluntaryism as a substitute for anarchism.  They are not the same at all.  If you want a "less scary" word, use Autarchism.

----------


## Deborah K

> Please do not use Voluntaryism as a substitute for anarchism.  They are not the same at all.  If you want a "less scary" word, use Autarchism.


It matters not what label you give yourself.  Just asking for the bashing of Ron's values to cease and desist.

----------


## mczerone

> It doesn't matter what the term means to US.  It matters what the term means to REPUBLICAN VOTERS.


Cool.  Then nobody here should call themselves or be called a classical liberal, anything non-"Christian", non-interventionist, anything related to the word libertarian, etc.

So ASIDE FROM THE TERM USED, why are the non-voluntaryists so anti-voluntaryist?

----------


## acptulsa

> The second half of your claim is just wishful thinking, IMO.  If "nothing" had been done, there wouldn't have been a Washington D.C., there wouldn't have been national wars, there wouldn't have been a national income tax.  There wouldn't have been a Civil War.


Talk about wishful thinking.

You have to be smart enough to know you're twisting my words.  Of course something would have been done.  It was the Eighteenth Century.  Something would have been done.  Hell, the pilgrims came over to escape the tyranny of The Crown, then pledged themselves right back to it before they stepped off of the boat just out of fear of lawlessness.

Either our leaders are limited in power or not.  But nature abhors a vacuum.  Someone will lead.  Humans love direction.  I'd love our leaders to be limited to basically nothing in the way of coercive authority as much as you.  That is, in fact, why I'm a Constitutionalist.  Unfortunately, psychopaths exist and they tend to be slick enough to be followed.

Once upon a time, the people knew the Constitution and used it as a litmus test to measure their leaders.  I remember.  And this was a more free nation at that time.  And that's my practical experience.  So, give me a break, huh?  The Constitution set up authority, yes.  But there was going to be authority assumed in any case.  At least it did serve to limit and hobble that authority for a time.  And I still haven't seen anyone say anything to convince me that this was a bad thing.

Was it powerless to prevent creeping tyranny?  It's still retarding the growth.  If you don't see how, you're intentionally blind, or maybe just not as experienced as me.  But psychos will try to advance tyranny with authority or without it.  The Constitution has done much less to spur it on than to retard it.  Period.

Powerless to stop tyranny?  It sure served as a speed bump.  Why do you think the psychos are working so hard to discredit it?  Because they like the authority it gives them, or because they figure they can assume that authority and more without it?  Be real.  The Constitution has been the speed bumps in the road to tyranny for 235 years.  And if we get Ron Paul elected, then the Constitution will have stopped it dead in its tracks.

----------


## Seraphim

Great post - this is exactly why, despite my being more An-cap/Voluntaryist than anything else, I cannot being myself to rip on the Constitution of the USA. A proper understanding of the Constitution DOES provide a very good litmus test for us to judge the fitness of a person to lead.

I do have a few things I would want to amend or remove (14th and 16th amendments...)...but that is neither here nor there.

I love that the Founders specifically outlined that the Constitution is to be amended and never to have anything erased. The scars of society should be there for all to see and to learn from.




> Talk about wishful thinking.
> 
> You have to be smart enough to know you're twisting my words.  Of course something would have been done.  It was the Eighteenth Century.  Something would have been done.  Hell, the pilgrims came over to escape the tyranny of The Crown, then pledged themselves right back to it before they stepped off of the boat just out of fear of lawlessness.
> 
> Either our leaders are limited in power or not.  But nature abhors a vacuum.  Someone will lead.  Humans love direction.  I'd love our leaders to be limited to basically nothing in the way of coercive authority as much as you.  That is, in fact, why I'm a Constitutionalist.  Unfortunately, psychopaths exist and they tend to be slick enough to be followed.
> 
> Once upon a time, the people knew the Constitution and used it as a litmus test to measure their leaders.  I remember.  And this was a more free nation at that time.  And that's my practical experience.  So, give me a break, huh?  The Constitution set up authority, yes.  But there was going to be authority assumed in any case.  At least it did serve to limit and hobble that authority for a time.  And I still haven't seen anyone say anything to convince me that this was a bad thing.
> 
> Was it powerless to prevent creeping tyranny?  It's still retarding the growth.  If you don't see how, you're intentionally blind, or maybe just not as experienced as me.  But psychos will try to advance tyranny with authority or without it.  The Constitution has done much less to spur it on than to retard it.  Period.
> ...

----------


## acptulsa

> They're voluntaryists.  They volunteered the campaign to do this thing.


You didn't have to negrep me, HB.  I know there's a difference.  It was a _joke,_ man--one that wouldn't have worked any other way...

Sheesh.  Thank you very much for balancing this character out, Seraphim.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Cool.  Then nobody here should call themselves or be called a classical liberal, anything non-"Christian", non-interventionist, anything related to the word libertarian, etc.
> 
> So ASIDE FROM THE TERM USED, why are the non-voluntaryists so anti-voluntaryist?


Non-interventionism is part of Dr. Paul's platform, as I recall.  He has also called himself a Christian, etc.

This really isn't difficult is it?  We are trying to win an election.  People bashing Christianity and the Constitution and who are identified as Ron Paul supporters, can indeed be very harmful to winning Republican votes.

----------


## mczerone

> Why are you still arguing philosophy when the real issue here is strategy?  The goal is to get him elected.  It has already been clearly stated why the anarchist, et al. position will be grossly misunderstood if it is brought to light that bashing of the constitution and christianity is acceptable on a forum that bears his name.  This is the issue.  
> 
> If you are in the anarchy corner, and haven't done any of the bashing, then you shouldn't be offended.


The problem is, I don't know who HAS "bashed" the U.S. Constitution, in your opinion. Do I bash the Constitution when I say that a better one could exist?  Or that the very idea of a monopoly state is antithetical to peace and prosperity?  Or that the 16th Amendment should be repealed?

Do I bash the U.S. Constitution when I claim that it obviously doesn't stop the Congress, President, Courts, or Agencies from doing unconstitutional things?

We're in the political philosophy sub-forum, so we're arguing philosophy.  

Strategically, would you rather stifle conversation and exclude people who aren't "typical GOP voters", or would you rather maintain the "big tent" strategy of welcoming help from all stripes that see a Ron Paul Presidency as a good thing?  It seems to me that the former "purity test" method is what killed the GOP and the Libertarian Party.

I guess I'm offended because I can't dare be myself here, even though I advocate nothing but allowing others to peacefully be themselves.  I'm offended because "christianity" has nothing to do with Paul's run for the presidency (What if he wasn't Christian, but held the same political beliefs? Would you still support him if he subscribed to a Native American religion, or Judaism, or Hinduism?).  

I'm offended because if I try to call myself anything but an anarchist (e.g. Ancap, voluntaryist, autarchist, paciphile, ad nauseum), certain posters (who have been in this thread) knee-jerk and call me an anarchist.  So if I try to simply say "anarchist", then the same and other posters can't get past their idea of lawlessness and violence, and the image it portrays to the outside community.

----------


## acptulsa

Well, mczerone, I hope I haven't offended you.  I thought I was careful (voluntarily, I might add) to direct most of my less polite comments directly at the OP, who I mainly got peeved with for being rude and, imo, arrogant.

----------


## mczerone

> Non-interventionism is part of Dr. Paul's platform.


Your point was that we shouldn't be using any word that GOP voters don't like.  Non-interventionism seems to be one of those words.

So it's okay if Ron Paul does it?  Then what about him having self-identified Ancaps associated with his campaign? Wouldn't that show by example that the grassroots shouldn't shun those Ancaps and the like from their midst?

----------


## mczerone

> Well, mczerone, I hope I haven't offended you.  I thought I was careful (voluntarily, I might add) to direct most of my less polite comments directly at the OP, who I mainly got peeved with for being rude and, imo, arrogant.


I've agreed and disagreed with you in the past, and I can honestly say I've never been offended by you.

I've been more offended by some of the posters "on my side" in this thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The problem is, I don't know who HAS "bashed" the U.S. Constitution, in your opinion. Do I bash the Constitution when I say that a better one could exist?  Or that the very idea of a monopoly state is antithetical to peace and prosperity?  Or that the 16th Amendment should be repealed?
> 
> Do I bash the U.S. Constitution when I claim that it obviously doesn't stop the Congress, President, Courts, or Agencies from doing unconstitutional things?
> 
> We're in the political philosophy sub-forum, so we're arguing philosophy.  
> 
> Strategically, would you rather stifle conversation and exclude people who aren't "typical GOP voters", or would you rather maintain the "big tent" strategy of welcoming help from all stripes that see a Ron Paul Presidency as a good thing?  It seems to me that the former "purity test" method is what killed the GOP and the Libertarian Party.
> 
> I guess I'm offended because I can't dare be myself here, even though I advocate nothing but allowing others to peacefully be themselves.  I'm offended because "christianity" has nothing to do with Paul's run for the presidency (What if he wasn't Christian, but held the same political beliefs? Would you still support him if he subscribed to a Native American religion, or Judaism, or Hinduism?).  
> ...


Dude, the majority of the Republican voters are Christians.  They also think they support the Constitution and hold it dear.  Thus, if a Republican who is trying to find out more about Ron Paul comes to a site bearing his name and sees incessant Christian-bashing and Constitution-bashing posts, do you think they will be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?

Note:  By the way, did you see Ron Paul's Statement of Faith that the campaign recently released?  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3384228

By the way, what killed the GOP is neo-conservatism; or at least the conservative movement.

----------


## mczerone

> Dude, the majority of the Republican voters are Christians.  They also think they support the Constitution and hold it dear.  Thus, if a Republican who is trying to find out more about Ron Paul comes to a site bearing his name and sees incessant Christian-bashing and Constitution-bashing posts, do you think they will be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?


And this goes back to: what is "bashing"?

I'm not a Christian (though I appreciate the teachings attributed to Jesus).  Should I be limited in talking about my religious beliefs, and how I think many contemporary Christians have strayed from the teachings they profess to follow?  Where is the line?  Should I never post about being non-christian?  Should I only do so if I include a disclaimer saying how great the Baptist or Lutheran Churches are, even though I might not truly think so?

I don't think anyone on this forum agrees with the 16th Amendment.  Is EVERYONE bashing the U.S. Constitution?  What if I disagree with the legitimacy of tariffs or the idea of granting patents and copyrights?  I've said before that limiting the govt to its constitution as it exists would be a great improvement over the current state of affairs. But I wouldn't stop there, and neither would anyone else on the forums.  We all want slightly more than just following the U.S. Constitution (repealing or adding some amendments), so are we all bashing the Constitution as it currently exists?

----------


## LibertyEagle

Mczerone, come on.  You know as well as I do that there is a huge difference between talking about some tweaks to the Constitution and people incessantly quoting Spooner that it isn't worthy of existing, and the like.  As far as faith goes, you will do whatever you want, but you also know that the more you insult Christians and Christianity, however deserving of an insult one may be, you are going to alienate voters.  I would hope that during the scope of this election cycle that we all could remember that we are Ron Paul's ambassadors.  What we do impacts his chances of getting the Republican nomination, whether we like it or not.

----------


## Deborah K

> The problem is, I don't know who HAS "bashed" the U.S. Constitution, in your opinion. Do I bash the Constitution when I say that a better one could exist?  Or that the very idea of a monopoly state is antithetical to peace and prosperity?  Or that the 16th Amendment should be repealed?
> 
> Do I bash the U.S. Constitution when I claim that it obviously doesn't stop the Congress, President, Courts, or Agencies from doing unconstitutional things?
> 
> We're in the political philosophy sub-forum, so we're arguing philosophy.  
> 
> Strategically, would you rather stifle conversation and exclude people who aren't "typical GOP voters", or would you rather maintain the "big tent" strategy of welcoming help from all stripes that see a Ron Paul Presidency as a good thing?  It seems to me that the former "purity test" method is what killed the GOP and the Libertarian Party.
> 
> I guess I'm offended because I can't dare be myself here, even though I advocate nothing but allowing others to peacefully be themselves.  I'm offended because "christianity" has nothing to do with Paul's run for the presidency (What if he wasn't Christian, but held the same political beliefs? Would you still support him if he subscribed to a Native American religion, or Judaism, or Hinduism?).  
> ...


Good grief.  I realize we're in a philosophy sub-forum, but the issue that has been brought up in this thread is the affect that a certain mindset has on new members, or worse the opposition during an election year.  And you've been here long enough to know that incessant bashing of RPs values is becoming the norm around here.  Again, the problem I have, along with other members, is the negative impression, as well as the fodder, the bashing gives to the opposition.   This isn't about you.  It's about winning an election.

----------


## mczerone

> Mczerone, come on.  You know as well as I do that there is a huge difference between talking about some tweaks to the Constitution and people incessantly quoting Spooner that it isn't worthy of existing, and the like.  As far as faith goes, you will do whatever you want, but you also know that the more you insult Christians and Christianity, however deserving of an insult one may be, you are going to alienate voters.  I would hope that during the scope of this election cycle that we all could remember that we are Ron Paul's ambassadors.  What we do impacts his chances of getting the Republican nomination, whether we like it or not.


You avoided my question: where, in your opinion, is the line between healthy discussion and "bashing"?

Quoting Spooner is over the line?  What if I devised a reasonable amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limited the current govt to non-aggressive action and allowed other govts more regulatory power, be they states or private associations?  Would that make an "Ancap" system less objectionable?

And I don't think I have ever or would ever "insult Christians and Christianity", because I know that all members of these collective groups don't advocate violence or hatred.  If I have any problem with anyone, its because they've personally exhibited these behaviors and not because they belong to any religious group.

Indeed we are all Ron Paul's ambassadors, especially when we post here.  So do we show tolerance an acceptance of people that have different opinions or do we make a rigid definition of "who's allowed" to be an active part of these forums?

As acptulsa pointed out, and I entirely agree, the U.S. Constitution has served as a speedbump against tyranny.  But are you denying that a better written constitution could have been a bigger speedbump, or that a different system _could_ have avoided tyranny altogether?  If you don't like how things are today, it is irresponsible to demand that we just "hit the reset button" and go back to the original workings of the govt under its constitution - for then our descendents will have to go through this same crap 
once the tyranny has overcome the speedbump.

----------


## Revolution9

> And this goes back to: what is "bashing"?


You are being a willful brat. Just like I said most of you anarchist styled clowns are simply working out your soiled diaper to mommy and daddy. You don't care who you offend nor how. You are self centered ego trippers and that is the core of anarchy. And judging by the willful actions of the anarchists on this thread I would like to throw you all on an island with a few cams to follow the action whilst your little anarchic society broke down and you were at each others throats the moment  the goodies ran out.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> You avoided my question: where, in your opinion, is the line between healthy discussion and "bashing"?


Anarchists cannot have a healthy discussion. They are in the same realm as feminists. Both counterfeit doctrines and much like Satanism is based around the inflation of ego needs with disregard for community, tradition and morals. That and they just gotta shove it down yer throat whether you want to digest it or not. Then they make all this hoopla about violating the individual. Bull$#@! and horse bananas.

Rev9

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You are being a *willful brat*. Just like I said most of you anarchist styled *clowns* are simply working out your soiled diaper to mommy and daddy. You don't care who you offend nor how.* You are self centered ego trippers* and that is the core of anarchy.


Ad-hominem.




> And judging by the willful actions of the anarchists on this thread I would like to throw you all on an island with a few cams to follow the action whilst your little anarchic society broke down and you were at each others throats the moment  the goodies ran out.

----------


## mczerone

Are Rev's last two comments ban-able?  Seriously, you're just calling me names, including "anarchist", when we resolved to put that term to bed a few pages ago.

It sounds exactly like the crap Hannity and his brain-dead supporters would spew out at all of us generally.

----------


## angelatc

> It doesn't matter what the term means to US.  It matters what the term means to REPUBLICAN VOTERS.


Thank you. It can't get much simpler than this.  It doesn't matter what the term means to us. What matters is the effect that the term has on people who aren't us.

----------


## angelatc

> Cool.  Then nobody here should call themselves or be called a classical liberal, anything non-"Christian", non-interventionist, anything related to the word libertarian, etc.
> 
> So ASIDE FROM THE TERM USED, why are the non-voluntaryists so anti-voluntaryist?


You can't make us tell you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You can't make us tell you.


chicken!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You avoided my question: where, in your opinion, is the line between healthy discussion and "bashing"?
> 
> Quoting Spooner is over the line?  What if I devised a reasonable amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limited the current govt to non-aggressive action and allowed other govts more regulatory power, be they states or private associations?  Would that make an "Ancap" system less objectionable?
> 
> And I don't think I have ever or would ever "insult Christians and Christianity", because I know that all members of these collective groups don't advocate violence or hatred.  If I have any problem with anyone, its because they've personally exhibited these behaviors and not because they belong to any religious group.
> 
> Indeed we are all Ron Paul's ambassadors, especially when we post here.  So do we show tolerance an acceptance of people that have different opinions or do we make a rigid definition of "who's allowed" to be an active part of these forums?
> 
> As acptulsa pointed out, and I entirely agree, the U.S. Constitution has served as a speedbump against tyranny.  But are you denying that a better written constitution could have been a bigger speedbump, or that a different system _could_ have avoided tyranny altogether?  If you don't like how things are today, it is irresponsible to demand that we just "hit the reset button" and go back to the original workings of the govt under its constitution - for then our descendents will have to go through this same crap 
> once the tyranny has overcome the speedbump.


I think you are misunderstanding.  I have no problem with you.  You are my brother in liberty.  This is all about trying to win this election.  That's all.  We are just asking to please not bash the things that Ron Paul is promoting.  Things like the Constitution and Christianity.  Is that too much to ask?

I think you know what bashing the Constitution is.  Suggesting that it be thrown out is bashing.  Suggesting that it is a worthless POS is bashing.  Come on, dude.  You are a smart man.  You know what we are talking about.

----------


## Revolution9

> Are Rev's last two comments ban-able?  Seriously, you're just calling me names, including "anarchist", when we resolved to put that term to bed a few pages ago.
> 
> It sounds exactly like the crap Hannity and his brain-dead supporters would spew out at all of us generally.


 I didn't wade through all the sure-to-be-utter-redundancy. I woke up and the thread was expanded by almost 20 pages. That indicates I got all your panties in a bunch with a few other who hammered home the true nature of the anarchic political philosophy and its implications. Now I see that the I am ban-able meme comes blowing across the thread. Ya know what..this makes me chuckle because it shows how weak your political philosophy is. Someone like me trots along, well within his liberty and freedom to spout off against this anarchic BS and your philosophy pushes your mental world to see it would be better off if I just shut up and was removed from the society you were in the midst of. You fail and are pwned by your own utterances.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman. 

With Voluntarism, the logical inconsistancies are largely gone. There are no contradictory beliefs about how the income tax is immoral, but a sales tax or tariff tax is ok. There are no pet issues. There isn't the belief that many other Libertarians have that the Austrian School of economics is right on all but one pet issue, where it just so happens that the random libertarian and the government knows more than all Austrian economists. There are no excuses for advocating government coercion with voluntarism.

----------


## Revolution9

> Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman. 
> 
> With Voluntarism, the logical inconsistancies are largely gone.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDWcgnEPdEo

Make mine freedom. In that realm I don't have to live under the despotic reign of illusory, irresponsible, uncooperative and incompetent regimes and isms. If you haven't seen this cartoon film yet it is worth a view. It gives you a graphic illustration of what the anarchists are trying to pull.

Rev9

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDWcgnEPdEo
> 
> Make mine freedom. In that realm I don't have to live under the despotic reign of illusory, irresponsible, uncooperative and incompetent regimes and isms. If you haven't seen this cartoon film yet it is worth a view. It gives you a graphic illustration of what the anarchists are trying to pull.
> 
> Rev9


Ah, I've seen that propaganda film before.  It's far shallower than any anarchist literature I've read.  Its absurd ultra-patriotism always makes me lol.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDWcgnEPdEo
> 
> Make mine freedom. In that realm I don't have to live under the despotic reign of illusory, irresponsible, uncooperative and incompetent regimes and isms. If you haven't seen this cartoon film yet it is worth a view. It gives you a graphic illustration of what the anarchists are trying to pull.
> 
> Rev9


That film makes a case against communism and in favor of freedom, capitalism, and voluntary transaction. We have none of those things right now. Propaganda or not, I'll say that's actually a pretty good case for freedom. But what does that have to do with anarcho-capitalism?

----------


## ProIndividual

I see the statists haven't abandoned the thread, which they claim hurts RP just by being here. I have repeatedly told you statists...all you have to do is stop posting on this thread, and we'll stop defending ourselves against your statist rants and slander against our philosophy and code of ethics.

But you keep on posting...and slandering.

You refuse any source that conflcits with your BS statism, and just keep repeating the same nonsense we answered in the first 200 posts of this thread. 

If you want the thread to end, stop coming here to attack us and our point of view with nonsense propaganda models and informal logical flallacies (my favorite fallacy has been "but most people agree with us"...it's the one offered most, and has the least credibility...argumentum ad populum, "appeal to the masses, opinion, or vote"...it's been disqualified from rational debate since Ancient Greece. Another good one is "but da founders said...", argumentum ad antiquitum, "appeal to tradition".)

Also, someone asked:




> Question for the non-anarchists...
> 
> I believe it should be legal for anyone to do anything they want, provided only that they not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.
> 
> At what point does this stop being true, for you?


It doesn't. We are for non-aggression always...including when your favorite COLLECTIVE, the government, puts a gun to our head and says "move from your private property to another gang's gang turf OR pay me now, OR go to prison." Unlike anyone else, we are consistant that all aggression, including that of our (go ahead cue the anthem, wave the flag, sign your kids up to die for some BS nostalgia, invoke the name of slave holders who fought for freedom) government is WRONG morally, ethically, economically, and philosophically.

I've linked stuff over and over in this thread...none of you will read it...so, no more links. Just understand, if you read those links and references (I know, reading is so HARD), you'd realize that anarchy is the opposite of lawlessness, chaos, disorder, coercion, and violence.

But you won't read them...you'll keep asking leading questions because you think anarchy means something it doesn't...like most of the uneducated statists that keep coming to this thread to bash something they don't understand, and refuse to understand.

We fear what we don't understand, we hate what we fear.

So, I'll leave the statists to their continued slander and bashing...and maybe if we're lucky, another death threat directed from a statist to an anarchist, over preserving the very State that is obstensibly, according you all, there to protect me from YOU. Sadly, when the State is run by sociopaths and dogmatist born followers, it hardly does what you claim...it is used as an excuse, as it was here, to justify murder and pillage.

I'm going to quote the same quote AGAIN, and hope eventually the logic of it sinks in for at least of you.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Keep up the anarchist-bashing slander, full of intellectual holes and BS. You just help us with every post on this thread, to keep this thread alive so others will see it...and how illogical YOU (statists) are.

We couldn't ask for a better recruitment poster than the nonsense you attackers and invaders keep posting.


Ron Paul 2012...even though you hate us, WE ARE A PART OF THIS CAMPAIGN, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, AS EVIDENCED BY RON'S FREE ASSOCIATION WITH ANARCHO CAPITALISTS (contributors to Campaign for Liberty, front page home page articles, include ancaps Dr. Robert Murphy, Dr. Thomas E. Woods, David Freidman, and deceased ancaps like Murray Rothbard, etc.)

RP clearly has less a problem with this whole "anarchy" thing than you do, statists. (But all these posts that decry the so-called negative nature of anarchism are really about YOU, aren't they?)

Stop invading and insulting, the thread ends...but you are compelled by some psychological problem to keep posting nonsense that calls for a defense on our part, over and over again. (BTW, being civil and condescending doesn't equal a non-insult. Mutual respect goes a long way...and as many of you noticed, I do NOT mind reciprocating either respect or disrespect.)


"[T]here are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The Anarchists] never have claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow authority. . . .As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always, say the Anarchists. No use of force except against the invader; . . . . " 

I won't likely respond to those quoting me.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman. 
> 
> With Voluntarism, the logical inconsistancies are largely gone. There are no contradictory beliefs about how the income tax is immoral, but a sales tax or tariff tax is ok. There are no pet issues. There isn't the belief that many other Libertarians have that the Austrian School of economics is right on all but one pet issue, where it just so happens that the random libertarian and the government knows more than all Austrian economists. There are no excuses for advocating government coercion with voluntarism.


Good for you!  And thanks for looking past all the empty rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims made by some in this thread.  

I take no offense to minarchism, really.  I understand adopting that viewpoint from a practical point of view; it's just not a logically consistent viewpoint, philosophically.  

I posted this earlier in the thread for someone like you:




> To all those reading this forum considering adopting an anarchist philosophy, ours is nothing more than the logical conclusion of the concept of individual liberty. We are not banksters, nor do we support banksters. We merely philosophically see that the individual is the largest legitimate political entity, and that ANY implementation of coercive or physical force against an individual is immoral... it's kind of like being, "a little bit pregnant". If it is wrong to aggress against the individual, then the degree to which an individual is aggressed against is inconsequential. It IS wrong and immoral, every time. Even a small state (government) must encroach in some way or another on an individual. (Parenthetically, here, I must agree with HB that I am a Voluntaryist, in that I find nothing wrong with a group of individuals coalescing under a government of their own free will... but I find it unlikely to occur, and I personally wouldn't have anything to do with it. :P )
> 
> Some folks here are trying to paint us as dangerous to private property. That is, in my opinion, richly ironic. In order for a state to exist, it MUST claim sovereignty over a physical region... and if you live in that region, that means that your property is claimed by that state. In other words, you do not own it. You can see this in practice today, every time you send your rent check - sorry - I mean your property taxes to the state. You can see this every time you have to ask for permission - sorry - I mean apply for a permit to build a certain structure on "your" property. In some municipalities, you can see this every time the government insists on inspecting your source of drinking water.
> 
> Some have said that anarchism doesn't provide solutions to property ownership. Those folks who settled the West of this country might beg to differ; furthermore, modern anarchists have laid out potential solutions to this question in detail, and links in this thread have been provided if you are interested. But the bottomline is, we do not know what solutions a free people might arrive at for this and many other questions. That's kind of the point... there are roughly six billion people on this planet, not one of them truly free at the moment - imagine the potential if they were but allowed - freed - to develop solutions to perceived problems. Surely amidst the six billion humans on this planet one or more of them might have THE answer to some of these questions! And surely the rest of us should be allowed - free - to choose from the many ideas that these free people conceive! Statists of all stripes would have you believe that only a select few may determine how certain problems in the world may be resolved. Ask yourself what sense that makes? Are these people possessing of certain powers that you do not have? Of course not - and that is the observable truth of individual sovereignty. God (in my case) or nature created each of us, equally. There are none in possession of extra-human abilities. Therefore, what right do rulers have to rule? 
> 
> There are those who say we, willfully or not, do damage to Dr. Paul's campaign. I say that I actively support his campaign, like many others who espouse a similar philosophy. Ron freely associates with folks who advocate - even on a single issue - individual liberty. For reference, see Lew Rockwell, Dennis Kucinich (war), Barney Frank (drug laws). Campaign for Liberty often features articles by anarcho-capitalists like Bob Murphy and Tom Woods. These are folks who do not entirely espouse the principles that Ron states openly he holds. Ron is a man of principle - he does not obfuscate the positions of others, and he does not run away from them. He does[n't] make false representations about Tom Woods when Tom speaks on his behalf. He does not try to claim that Tom is a "tool of the central bankers". Ron has integrity, unlike some here who claim to represent his campaign. 
> 
> Folks who would do war with we who espouse an anarchist philosophy stand in direct opposition to positions that Ron openly takes. 
> ...

----------


## Travlyr

Anarchist - "Hey man, how's it going"
Farmer - "Fine day... and you?"
Anarchist - "Fine myself ... I just noticed you were cultivating your field and wondered if you have a few minutes to chat."
Farmer - "Sure, what's on your mind?"
Anarchist - "Well, I'm an anarchist."
Farmer - "Oh you are? ... So, you like lawlessness, chaos, and disorder?"
Anarchist - "No, not at all... I hate violence and embrace the only one natural law - The Non-Aggression Principle. I want individual freedom and order ... that's why I'm an anarchist."
Farmer - "Okay."
Anarchist - "Yeah, you've been bamboozled by the State indoctrination team ... they make us look bad in their dictionaries. Anarchists just want to do away with the State."
Farmer - "Okay... you mean they want to do away with the State of Montana, and the other 49 States?"
Anarchist - "No, we just want to get rid of the State; See it will be better because all taxes are theft which is immoral." 
Farmer - "Yes, taxes are too high and they have to be paid or you'll go to jail... I sure would like to pay a lot less in taxes... and they shouldn't jail people if they don't pay."
Anarchist - "Exactly, that's why we have to get rid of the State."
Farmer - "Well what about Betty down at the County Clerk's office?" How would she get paid if we didn't pay taxes?"
Anarchist - "We don't need people working for the State ... it should all be Voluntary."
Farmer - "Well Betty is the County Clerk and they hold the public records for my deed to my farm, and my property is how I make my living. How would eliminating the State fix that?
Anarchist - "In order for a state to exist, it MUST claim sovereignty over a physical region... and if you live in that region, that means that your property is claimed by that state. In other words, you do not own it. We have a much better way to do that." 
Farmer - "Oh you do, eh? ... What is it?"
Anarchist - "Go to Mises.org and read Rothbard, Spooner, Block, Kinsella, Murphy and others they have a lot of great ideas."
Farmer - "Okay, when I get done with my harvest, I'll check into it"
Anarchist - "Yeah, we'll get rid of the State."
Farmer - "Okay." I'll check into it. I've been watching Ron Paul in the debates, he seems serious about limiting government to constitutional principles and ending the fiat system of money.
Anarchist - "No, that's impossible. Government cannot be limited, the State has to be eliminated for you to be free."
Farmer - "Oh, really....? "
Anarchist - "Even a small state (government) must encroach in some way or another on an individual." 
Farmer - "Again, how would property work without a State?" 
Anarchist - "You can read up on how they did that in the West in the 1800's before States were formed. Sometimes they used Land Associations and Land Clubs."
Farmer - "Yes, I am familiar with them. They were much like small local governments with constitutions, by-laws, officers, judges, etc. It worked well for them. Local governance is preferable to central authority. Times are different now, how would property ownership work without the State today?"
Anarchist - "Nobody knows for sure because it would be different in different regions, go to Mises.org and read up on it. But, the bottomline is, we do not know what solutions a free people might arrive at for this and many other questions.
Farmer - "Well, I kind of like it the way it is."
Anarchist - "Well then you are a Statist. Statism is wrong and immoral. What right do rulers have to rule?"
Farmer - "What good are rules without rulers? And if you don't know how it will work, then how do you know it will be better? I've always understood anarchy to be chaos and disorder."
Anarchist - "No, anarchy is law and freedom without violence.
Farmer - "Okay. But the dictionary says, it is a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority."
Anarchist - "Don't believe that PC crap. The Statists teach that. Anarchy is law and freedom without violence."
Farmer - "Without a State?"
Anarchist - "Yes, because the State puts a gun to your head."
Farmer - "Hummm ... well if there is no State, then where do people get their authority to make laws?"
Anarchist - "Facepalm!!!" ... Read Man! Go to Mises.org and read ... Sheesh!
Farmer - "I kind of like the system as it is with Betty recording my property deed at the County Clerk and Recorder's office so that everybody knows where my property boundaries are ... and I'll defend my right to own property from anybody wanting to take it from me ... with a gun if I have to."
Anarchist - "You sir are a violent Statist sociopath! - Anarchist philosophy is nothing more than the logical conclusion of the concept of individual liberty.
Farmer - "Well have a nice day boy, I've got to get back to work. I think I'll be looking into Ron Paul some more because he is a Constitutionalist.
Anarchist - "No, he's an Anarchist. Some of the more sophisticated anarchists post blogs on his Campaign for Liberty website all the time ... how eliminating the State might work you should go there and read it.
Farmer - "I see. Well have a nice day, son. I'll share this information with the other farmers tomorrow morning over coffee ... thanks for stopping by and sharing with me how you'll go about getting everything "_fixed_."

Ron Paul is not an anarchist folks. No matter how bad you want him to be. He doesn't like coercion any more than any one else on these forums. But he has no intentions of getting rid of the State. Ron Paul is the _"Champion of the Constitution."_

For those of you who blanket everyone who likes the theory of a republic as "Statist." Most of us are no more of a Statist than was Ludwig von Mises. I'll take that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Your dialectics are amusing, but sub-par, Travlyr.  You would do well to study classical dialectitions.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Anarchophobia.

----------


## Deborah K

> Ad-hominem.


Uh....pointing out attacks from one side and not the other is a little disingenuous, don't cha think? 

 From the OP himself:




> You can't be serious. I highlight the word "OR", as it doesn't mean "AND". See logically, the statement is true, because he is "extremely, extremely sympathetic with their beliefs". He is very sympathetic to our beliefs, hence all the contributors to his PAC site, and his neck ties, and his affinity for certain ancaps who seem to be personal friends of his. It's clear he is quite sympathetic, if nothing else. Anyone familiar with logic would read that sentence as true. The fact you throw it out our because the word "OR" didn't separate Ron's name far enough from "dirty dirty anarchy, ewwww!!!" *shows you have a mental issue beyond even anarchism and it's connotation...you may have a learning disability or are just possibly hopelessly illogical.*
> 
> For the second time, good luck with that skippy.
> 
> 
> Therefore, when I said "fair enough", it was fair enough. Wowza!

----------


## Deborah K

> Your dialectics are amusing, but sub-par, Travlyr.  *You would do well to study classical dialectitions*.


Just more sophistry.

----------


## Wesker1982

I go get married and this thread explodes lol! I can't wait to read through the new 40+ pages.

----------


## Deborah K

> I go get married and this thread explodes lol! I can't wait to read through the new 40+ pages.


Congratulations!  Did you get a marriage license?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I go get married and this thread explodes lol! I can't wait to read through the new 40+ pages.


:thumbs: Congrats!

----------


## CCTelander

> I go get married and this thread explodes lol! I can't wait to read through the new 40+ pages.


Congratulations!

You might want to just pass on those 40+ pages, however. They're not likely to do much for your mood!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I go get married and this thread explodes lol! I can't wait to read through the new 40+ pages.


Married?  My sympathies and condolences.  (j/k...congrats, bro )

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just more *sophistry*.


   It's nice that you know that word, but you use it incorrectly.  What I wrote was not sophistry.  You also imply that I had previously used sophistry, which is untrue.

You can learn the basics of the sophists and sophistry here.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's nice that you know that word, but you use it incorrectly.  What I wrote was not sophistry.  You also imply that I had previously used sophistry, which is untrue.


Really?  Because I see your constant lecturing of Travlyr and others on how they should study linguistics, dialectics, etc. as if somehow they don't qualify to debate on this subject, as specious.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Really?  Because I see your constant lecturing of Travlyr and others on how they should study linguistics, dialectics, etc. as if somehow they don't qualify to debate on this subject, as specious.


 That was not a specious argument.  It is true.  The meanings of words are critical to the issue at hand.  Did you even read post 600?  It was just an exercise in dialectics.

----------


## Deborah K

> Anarchist - "Hey man, how's it going"
> Farmer - "Fine day... and you?"
> Anarchist - "Fine myself ... I just noticed you were cultivating your field and wondered if you have a few minutes to chat."
> Farmer - "Sure, what's on your mind?"
> Anarchist - "Well, I'm an anarchist."
> Farmer - "Oh you are? ... So, you like lawlessness, chaos, and disorder?"
> Anarchist - "No, not at all... I hate violence and embrace the only one natural law - The Non-Aggression Principle. I want individual freedom and order ... that's why I'm an anarchist."
> Farmer - "Okay."
> Anarchist - "Yeah, you've been bamboozled by the State indoctrination team ... they make us look bad in their dictionaries. Anarchists just want to do away with the State."
> ...


LOL!  This about sums it up.  +rep!  This is the real world folks, not the la-la land of philosophical theory.

----------


## Deborah K

> That was not a specious argument.  It is true.  The meanings of words are critical to the issue at hand.  Did you even read post 600?  It was just an exercise in dialectics.


It matters not if you think it was sub-par.  This is no argument against his views - "you aren't educated enough for my liking, therefore you don't qualify to debate this subject" This isn't a classroom, and he isn't your student, HB.  And that is why I view your remarks are sophistic.

----------


## mczerone

> It matters not if you think it was sub-par.  This is no argument against his views - "you aren't educated enough for my liking, therefore you don't qualify to debate this subject" This isn't a classroom, and he isn't your student, HB.  And that is why I view your remarks are sophistic.


It was not "sub-par", it was simply a dialog intended to give short shrift to the voluntaryists.  A true dialectic paints the losing argument in the best light possible, doesn't attribute poor character traits to the character, and genuinely tries to find fault in the logic of the losing argument.

I could write a similar dialog and BASH the U.S. Constitutionalists, but I've agreed not to BASH people I don't agree with.  Can you agree to that?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> LOL!  This about sums it up.  +rep!  This is the real world folks, not the la-la land of philosophical theory.


But that hasn't been my experience in the real world, when I speak with people.  That has been my experience here, discussing this topic with Travlyr.  

When I speak with people in the real world, they don't cringe and/or freak out when I use the word "anarchism" (not saying you do, Deborah).  When I explain to them what it means, more often than not they say, "yeah, I can see that."  Some agree with it, and some don't.  Most at least grasp the concept.  Many stick to their utilitarian preference for a state, but many also acknowledge that what I pose makes good sense... I've never had a conversation like Travlyr lays out in the real world or anywhere, but with him.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This is the real world folks, not the la-la land of philosophical theory.


 Kinda like the la la land of constitutional government?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman.




I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I go get married and this thread explodes lol! I can't wait to read through the new 40+ pages.


Congrats bro!

----------


## Deborah K

> It was not "sub-par", it was simply a dialog intended to give short shrift to the voluntaryists.  A true dialectic paints the losing argument in the best light possible, doesn't attribute poor character traits to the character, and genuinely tries to find fault in the logic of the losing argument.
> 
> I could write a similar dialog and BASH the U.S. Constitutionalists, but I've agreed not to BASH people I don't agree with.  Can you agree to that?


Yes I would agree to that.  Although I do not agree that his dialogue was bashing anarchists, et al. at all!  It was a synoptic portrayal of what goes on in here, and that's why it's funny. 

Whether your side wants to admit it or not, there has been a great deal of trashing on the Constitution and Christianity going on for many months in this forum.  And I see it as intellectually dishonest to give the impression that your side only takes the high road (using only a "true dialectic") when it comes to debates on this issue.

----------


## Deborah K

> Kinda like the la la land of constitutional government?


No Clay.  Not if your interpretation of a Constitutional government is what exists today.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No Clay.  Not if your interpretation of a Constitutional government is what exists today.


What exists today is exactly what I expect to grow out of any kind of state, constitutional or otherwise.

----------


## Deborah K

> But that hasn't been my experience in the real world, when I speak with people.  That has been my experience here, discussing this topic with Travlyr.  
> 
> When I speak with people in the real world, they don't cringe and/or freak out when I use the word "anarchism" (not saying you do, Deborah).  When I explain to them what it means, more often than not they say, "yeah, I can see that."  Some agree with it, and some don't.  Most at least grasp the concept.  Many stick to their utilitarian preference for a state, but many also acknowledge that what I pose makes good sense... I've never had a conversation like Travlyr lays out in the real world or anywhere, but with him.


I don't expect you would.  You don't strike me as someone who views himself as morally and intellectually superior to others.

----------


## Deborah K

> What exists today is exactly what I expect to grow out of any kind of state, constitutional or otherwise.


This is where the rubber meets the road I guess Clay, because I don't believe that man is going to suddenly rise above his nature to dominate, and oppress just because a government isn't enforcing the rule of law.  Humans are herd animals, there are leaders and followers, the sociopaths eventually rise to the top.  It matters not what system or what overriding philosophy is being adhered to.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It matters not if you think it was sub-par.  This is no argument against his views - "you aren't educated enough for my liking, therefore you don't qualify to debate this subject" This isn't a classroom, and he isn't your student, HB.  And that is why I view your remarks are sophistic.


You are entitled to your view.  But I wasn't playing "classroom" as you suggest.  I was pointing out the meaning of the word, which is critical to the debate.  This is an argument.  It's like when atheists try to criticize Christians on their own imagined terms than what the Christian worldview really is (rather than examining what the Christian worldview actually is).  This linguistic sleight of hand is important.  If both sides of the debate are starting with fundamentally different understandings of terms, there is no debate.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is where the rubber meets the road I guess Clay, because I don't believe that man is going to suddenly rise above his nature to dominate, and oppress just because a government isn't enforcing the rule of law.  Humans are herd animals, there are leaders and followers, the sociopaths eventually rise to the top.  It matters not what system or what overriding philosophy is being adhered to.


Here's the flaw in your reasoning-who will watch the watchers?  Every time I pose this question, minarchists dodge it by saying something to the effect of "we the people will hold them accountable".  This is folly, of course, because by the time "the people" realize the wrong-doing, it's too late.  You made a very good point-sociopaths rise to the top.  This is another folly of centralized government.  In this regard, the anarchists are more correct than you are (though not totally correct).  The best compromise is to allow people to pick their own governments.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Here we are, back to debating philosophy, when the request was to please stop bashing Ron Paul's positions on Christianity and restoring the Constitution.

Just stop it, please.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This is where the rubber meets the road I guess Clay, because I don't believe that man is going to suddenly rise above his nature to dominate, and oppress just because a government isn't enforcing the rule of law.


So you believe it is inherent in human nature to dominate and oppress others?  Does this mean that you feel the idea of individual liberty is contrary to human nature?




> Humans are herd animals, there are leaders and followers, the sociopaths eventually rise to the top.  It matters not what system or what overriding philosophy is being adhered to.


If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power.  I think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Here we are, back to debating philosophy, when the request was to please stop bashing Ron Paul's positions on Christianity and restoring the Constitution.
> 
> Just stop it, please.


Will do.  Have a nice day, LE.   ttyl.

----------


## Deborah K

> You are entitled to your view.  But I wasn't playing "classroom" as you suggest.  I was pointing out the meaning of the word, which is critical to the debate.  This is an argument.  It's like when atheists try to criticize Christians on their own imagined terms than what the Christian worldview really is (rather than examining what the Christian worldview actually is).  This linguistic sleight of hand is important.  If both sides of the debate are starting with fundamentally different understandings of terms, there is no debate.


Then I guess anarchists, et al. have their work cut out for them because the prevailing definition of anarchy is not what you think it is in the r/w.

----------


## Seraphim

Please read the name of the forum. Thank you.




> Here we are, back to debating philosophy, when the request was to please stop bashing Ron Paul's positions on Christianity and restoring the Constitution.
> 
> Just stop it, please.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power.  I think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime.


Quoted for truth.  This is the hurdle that advocates of a state cannot clear, I think.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't expect you would.  You don't strike me as someone who views himself as morally and intellectually superior to others.


I liked you from the beginning.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Then I guess anarchists, et al. have their work cut out for them because the prevailing definition of anarchy is not what you think it is in the r/w.


I agree.  Popular understandings of things are not always correct (much like "gay" used to mean happy, but now the popular meaning is "homosexual").  That's why I suggest anarchists adopt the word autarchist-but most are very purist in my experience, and won't take my advice.  /shrugs

----------


## Deborah K

> Here's the flaw in your reasoning-who will watch the watchers?  Every time I pose this question, minarchists dodge it by saying something to the effect of "we the people will hold them accountable".  This is folly, of course, because by the time "the people" realize the wrong-doing, it's too late.  You made a very good point-sociopaths rise to the top.  This is another folly of centralized government.  In this regard, the anarchists are more correct than you are (though not totally correct).  The best compromise is to allow people to pick their own governments.


You're missing the point.  This is not a question of who's watching whom?  It's about the nature of man and his innate desire to dominate or be dominated.  We individualists are the exception to that rule, we've figured out how to rise above that innate inclination.  We have differing views on how to get there, but it is wrongheaded for some, with the anarchy view, to propagate the complete destruction of the basis for our current system (the Constitution).  I might remind you that it is that very system that allows you to speak freely on the subject at all.

The fact is, the history of the nature of man is cyclical: liberty, complacency, dependency, tyranny, revolution.  Anarchy is not going to break that cycle. 

I am for restoring the republic by installing minimal governments (chosen by the people of course) at all levels, with a strict adherance to the Constitution for the federal gov't.  I contend that whatever form of recourse that can be had within an anarchist society upon its members,  can also be had in a republic.  The Constitution does not give the gov't permission to use violence against its people.  That is wholly derived from subversive gov'ts present and past.  And to use the excuse that all forms of government lead to tyranny, without giving consideration to the fact that governments are led by mere mortal man, is just willful ignorance, imo.

----------


## Deborah K

> I liked you from the beginning.


Same here.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We have differing views on how to get there, but it is wrongheaded for some, with the anarchy view, to propagate the complete destruction of the basis for our current system (the Constitution).  I might remind you that it is that very system that allows you to speak freely on the subject at all.


Incorrect.  It is my creator the allows me to speak freely.  The government can and does censor speech it doesn't like. (remember the persecution of Julian Assange?)




> The fact is, the history of the nature of man is cyclical: liberty, complacency, dependency, tyranny, revolution.  Anarchy is not going to break that cycle.


 Until the rise of liberalism in the West, there was always tyranny (strictly speaking), except in a few places in the world that the various empires hadn't reached.  Anarchy may not break tyranny _everywhere_, but anarchists in the past have ended tyranny locally.  Interestingly, the kings of old were much less tyrannical than modern presidents.  If you are concerned about preventing tyranny with constitutional government, you should argue for a limited monarchy, as Hamilton originally did.




> We individualists are the exception to that rule, we've figured out how to rise above that innate inclination.


 Why do you consider yourself an individualist if you don't believe others have the right to opt out of the government in favor of a government they prefer?




> I am for restoring the republic by installing minimal governments (chosen by the people of course) at all levels, with a strict adherance to the Constitution for the federal gov't.  I contend that whatever form of recourse that can be had within an anarchist society upon its members,  can also be had in a republic.  The Constitution does not give the gov't permission to use violence against its people.  That is wholly derived from subversive gov'ts present and past.  And to use the excuse that all forms of government lead to tyranny, without giving consideration to the fact that governments are led by mere mortal man, is just willful ignorance, imo.


  Whether the Constitution gives the government permission to use violence does not and will not prevent it from happening anyway.  It is not willful ignorance to say that governments led by mere mortal men lead to tyranny.  It is the most consistent trend in civic history.  This is why many (if not most) classical American theorists insisted government be manned by god-fearing men.  The Constitution offers no objective moral code for governance.  This is one of the reasons I want the option to choose a moral government.  If men were angels, you would have a good case.  But they are not.

Nice chatting with you, as always.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I liked you from the beginning.





> Same here.


awwww, can ya feel the love?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I am for restoring the republic by installing minimal governments (chosen by the people of course) at all levels, with a strict adherance to the Constitution for the federal gov't.


I'm all for this, and on board.  And if we ever reach that goal, count on me being one of the guys saying, "Hey, this is great!  Now, wouldn't it be great if we took it juuuuust a couple steps further!?"

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> awwww, can ya feel the love?


:thumbs:  We're proof of peace extending across this philosophical divide.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm all for this, and on board.  And if we ever reach that goal, count on me being one of the guys saying, "Hey, this is great!  Now, wouldn't it be great if we took it juuuuust a couple steps further!?"


That works!

----------


## Revolution9

> Your dialectics are amusing, but sub-par, Travlyr.  You would do well to study classical dialectitions.


Your rebuttals lack substance and bearing and come off mostly like one who has been pwned in public with their own phraseology and trying to forego the embarrassment by pretending it did not happen that way.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> :thumbs:  We're proof of peace extending across this philosophical divide.


Only took 65 pages. Pat yourself hard on the back and try not to gag.

Rev9

----------


## CCTelander

> awwww, can ya feel the love?


Honestly?

No, not much.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Your rebuttals lack substance and bearing and come off mostly like one who has been pwned in public with their own phraseology and trying to forego the embarrassment by pretending it did not happen that way.
> 
> Rev9


 I don't need to make a lengthy rebuttal to an argument with no substance (such as yours) any more than I need to make a rebuttal to someone who thinks they are clever by making a joke about my mother.  I was not pwned, and you know this.  You don't even know why you're on the offensive against me.  You have deluded yourself into thinking I am an anarchist or an apologist for one.  It could not be further from the truth.  In fact, I've numerous times offered my services as an artist/musician/composer on these very boards for no charge, as long as the projects are related to RP's campaign or a relevant cause.

You should take all the effort you put into insulting others and use it to find a way to make minarchy work, as noone else has been able to do it these past 230 years.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Your rebuttals lack substance and bearing and come off mostly like one who has been pwned in public with their own phraseology and trying to forego the embarrassment by pretending it did not happen that way.
> 
> Rev9


Your posts in this thread have contributed nothing to the discussion here.  One wonders why you bother.  You've said that you've debated it in the past and don't care to make the case for your repeated unsubstantiated claims like "anarchy is false freedom" and "anarchists are tools of the bankers", so why bother posting in the thread at all?  You've said that it's because you enjoy "smacking" around us anarchists.  Well, I'm sorry to tell you that you've done nothing of the sort.  This is a childish tactic, and I'd guess that if everyone in this thread were completely honest, they'd say the same thing.  You merely lash out angrily, posting nothing of a coherent counter-point to the many that have been posed, and not only do you lack the grace and humility to acknowledge this, you actually think you're contributing in some way?  I'm actually kind of embarrassed for you.

----------


## Deborah K

> Incorrect.  It is my creator the allows me to speak freely.  The government can and does censor speech it doesn't like. (remember the persecution of Julian Assange?)


I think you know what I meant by that.  But if not, then allow me to restate it - you have the freedom in this country to harshly criticize the government whereas in many other countries doing so would get your head cut off.




> Until the rise of liberalism in the West, there was always tyranny (strictly speaking), except in a few places in the world that the various empires hadn't reached.  Anarchy may not break tyranny _everywhere_, but anarchists in the past have ended tyranny locally.  Interestingly, the kings of old were much less tyrannical than modern presidents.  If you are concerned about preventing tyranny with constitutional government, you should argue for a limited monarchy, as Hamilton originally did.


Anarchists are not the only ones who have ended tyranny in the past.  And my argument is not about preventing tyranny with a Constitutional gov't.  My argument is that no matter what you put into place, the cycle will eventually repeat itself because man is a mere mortal with tendencies toward domination.  It is foolish to think that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the answer.





> Why do you consider yourself an individualist if you don't believe others have the right to opt out of the government in favor of a government they prefer?


Because I don't consider that the litmus test.  And besides, I have no problem with people opting out of government - knock yourself out.




> Whether the Constitution gives the government permission to use violence does not and will not prevent it from happening anyway.


Exactly, because of man's nature.  So why would you think any substantial change would come from an anarchic society?  Oh, perhaps in the beginning, like with all system changes, there's freedom - yaye!  Then the cycle repeats itself till we're right back where we started.  





> It is not willful ignorance to say that governments led by mere mortal men lead to tyranny.


It most definitely is, when you are of the impression that somehow mere mortal man will only become tyrannical with a government and not in an anarchic environment.





> It is the most consistent trend in civic history.  This is why many (if not most) classical American theorists insisted government be manned by god-fearing men.  The Constitution offers no objective moral code for governance.  This is one of the reasons I want the option to choose a moral government.  If men were angels, you would have a good case.  But they are not.
> 
> Nice chatting with you, as always.


Taken by itself, the Constitution does not offer a moral code, but taken with the DOI, it does.  I suspect that the Founders didn't anticipate the country being infiltrated by marxism and secularism.  But even so, I doubt installing a moral code in the Constitution would have prevented what has happened.  Men aren't Angels.  That has been my argument all along, and that is why your ideal - anarchy - will fall into the same cycle as everything else.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Congratulations!


TY all 





> You might want to just pass on those 40+ pages, however. They're not likely to do much for your mood!


Yeah, so far it doesn't seem like anything new lol. 

I just want to know if anyone has addressed this  yet:




> Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.


and




> But more profoundly, would a laissez-fairist recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from that country? Is it legitimate for West Ruitania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why not? And if so, then how can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual? Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled.


I have posted these questions quite a few times but I have not received even one response. It is completely ignored, yet important imo. 




> I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.


Absolutely! I don't spend hours debating with certain people here to necessarily change _their_ minds. It is nice if that happens, but I have no delusions about the stubborn cognitive dissonance and/or Stockholm syndrome that isn't likely to wither in some people. Watching other people debate each other about anarcho-libertarianism on the 2+2 forum is how my mind was changed too, btw. 

I really appreciate the discussion, though. The minarchists will probably lol at this, but thanks to them, I have an answer for everything now. I have had to ponder about certain criticisms that never even crossed my mind before some of the debates here occurred. It is so easy to get stuck in auto-pilot answering easy questions about roads or taxes that sometimes I forget that once in a while someone might actually come up with a criticism that I haven't addressed 10,000 times already. _That_ is the main reason why I post.

They have also inspired me to continually desire more knowledge in economics. At some point I figured out that many of the criticisms are based on many of the same economic fallacies that frustrate the minarchists _themselves_ when debating the average American. Oddly enough (but makes perfect sense now), studying economics, _not_ anarchist theory,  has helped me understand how a voluntary society would function.

In my dream scenario of crowds of friends and family coming up to me and asking: "Ok Master Obi-Wan, we are your apprentices. Where should we begin our training?" I know now that I would definitely start them (or at least make sure they have a basic understanding of the material) with _Economics in One Lesson_, _How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes_, and _Meltdown_.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think you know what I meant by that.  But if not, then allow me to restate it - you have the freedom in this country to harshly criticize the government whereas in many other countries doing so would get your head cut off.
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are not the only ones who have ended tyranny in the past.  And my argument is not about preventing tyranny with a Constitutional gov't.  My argument is that no matter what you put into place, the cycle will eventually repeat itself because man is a mere mortal with tendencies toward domination.  It is foolish to think that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Deborah, you keep claiming my ideal to be anarchism, when I have told you repeatedly it is not.(though I respect anarchists' desire to secede and form their own anarchist territory, as Jefferson accepted States' rights of secession)  I am a voluntaryist.   My ideals are more in line with the Declaration of Independence (and general individualist liberty/classical liberalism) than yours.  We can't have a conversation if you are going to go on putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my positions this way.

----------


## Deborah K

> Deborah, you keep claiming my ideal to be anarchism, when I have told you repeatedly it is not.  I am a voluntaryist.   My ideals are more in line with the Declaration of Independence (and general individualist liberty/classical liberalism) than yours.  We can't have a conversation if you are going to go on putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my positions this way.


That's not my intention.  When I use the term 'anarchy' I try to be inclusive of all forms of it by writing 'anarchy' et al.  And I'm not trying to single you out.  Actually, I'm not really even trying to argue against anarchy, et al. as much as I'm arguing that the focus should include our biggest obstacle to true freedom - man's nature.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's not my intention.  When I use the term 'anarchy' I try to be inclusive of all forms of it by writing 'anarchy' et al.  And I'm not trying to single you out.  Actually, I'm not really even trying to argue against anarchy, et al. as much as I'm arguing that the focus should include our biggest obstacle to true freedom - man's nature.


I agree that man's nature is a big obstacle. (I'm reminded of the Jefferson quote in my sig)  However, it would be better to allow people to find ways to deal with man's nature in peaceful, voluntary ways.  I'm sure some people would accept the constitutional way, and I don't mind that.  Other people will find their own ways.  These various ways of developing peaceful interactions don't necessarily have to be in conflict any more than Texas affairs are separate from California affairs or Indian tribes vs. States, and so on.  Nice chatting with you, my friend.

----------


## Deborah K

> I agree that man's nature is a big obstacle. (I'm reminded of the Jefferson quote in my sig)  However, it would be better to allow people to find ways to deal with man's nature in peaceful, voluntary ways.  I'm sure some people would accept the constitutional way, and I don't mind that.  Other people will find their own ways.  These various ways of developing peaceful interactions don't necessarily have to be in conflict any more than Texas affairs are separate from California affairs or Indian tribes vs. States, and so on.  Nice chatting with you, my friend.


No argument from me on this.  Always a pleasure, HB.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Here we are, back to debating philosophy, when the request was to please stop bashing Ron Paul's positions on Christianity and restoring the Constitution.


Except we never bashed ANY of Ron Paul's positions on Christianity or restoring the Constitution...it aids our cause to shrink the State. Unwilling as you may be, we are allies. 

So why keep posting and keeping the thread alive, when you claim the thread hurts RP 2012?

Because you're the problem...you are your attacking friends. Stop making up stuff, and we'll quit defending ourselves.


The fundamental flaws of what all the small government statists are saying here:

1. Aggression is always wrong unless in self defense (we agree), or if the State does it (we disagree).

2. Self defense is always okay (we agree), unless it's in response to attacks from small government statists on anarchists (we disagree).

3. Our self defense to YOUR attacks somehow harm the RP2012 campaign (we disagree). 

For #3, the real problem is YOUR attacks. The thread would be dead by now if not for YOU guys and YOUR attacks on what WE have proved to be false definitions of the word "anarchy", and for that matter "anarchism".

Either READ and accept you were wrong about the definitions in question...or just stop coming to this post and re-assereting your nonsense. Either way, the post only continues with the presence of statist attackers, and the definition doesn't just magically change because a State school taught it to you wrong in order to propagandize you, nor does it change because you refuse to READ anything that conflicts with that bastardized, false, and propaganda-filled definition you seem to hold so dear.

Last I checked, anarchists aren't destroying this country or it's government...the statist are. You might want to a long hard look in the mirror and decisde if WE are the real problem in the world, or YOU (and those you enable) are. 

But maybe your conscience doesn't have mirror, like mine does.

----------


## ProIndividual

> The fact is, the history of the nature of man is cyclical: liberty, complacency, dependency, tyranny, revolution. Anarchy is not going to break that cycle.


Actually, anarchy does break that cycle, because we aren't competing for this monopoly on violence the State lauds over everyone but who holds it.

The cycle you speak of, I also spoke of in a previous post you didn't read. I said the State never expects stability...it always accepts a violent overthrow as it it's only way to release power over others. This is expected and accepted by statists, as they cannot conceive of simply getting rid of the monopoly on power that causes the violent overthrows to begin with. No one overthrows things unless it takes a control OFF of them, and/or gives them control of others.

The anarchist realizes stability is a myth, propagated by the false dichotomy of who should run the government, Gang A or Gang B. We are MORE stable in essence, because we do not accept the idea that any one group should laud absolute power over others without their consent. So, since stability of governance is a myth, and life is actually ordered by a capitalist principle, spontaneous order, we can expect whoever has power to a greater or lesser extent at any given time to vary. For example, you hold power over your child, but at a certain age, the child resists, and they disobey and rebel. Then the child becomes an adult, and the power is now theirs over themselves. Later you age, and they hold power over you now. The order of life, and the power structure of it, are time dependent and situational. Since we do not fight this "free market of power", and free markets always become niche, due to Division of Labor, there are no "booms" and "busts" of power, i.e. violent overthrows of a monopoly that doesn't exist.

The same way the FED causes booms and busts in the finanical economy, the statists and the State cause booms and busts in the political economy. Stop blowing up the bubble, fighting market forces that cause growth and contraction cyclically and predictably in political power structures, and you'll quit having your busts of violent takeover.

Gang A and Gang B are no way to run a moral or civil political system. It's just two gangs.

----------


## ProIndividual

Also...let me say...I see agreement on many points now...

...GOOD.


If you go back and read all my lengthy posts on here, you'll find these points of current agreement were stated then.

I also agree completely of course with what the Constitutionalists and minarchists, and anarchists (or Free Constitutionalists, or Natural Lawyers, Lysander Spooner called us) are now agrreing to.

This is all we seek...the right to opt out of the government unless we have harmed someone (not it's forceful abolition), and the right to organize voluntarily, or not.

This is why I pointed out several times that minarchy and anarchy are compatable even if different, as no land area is designated with coercion to hold a monopoly on violence (statist law). The State says minarchists and anarchists may not exist...only one top-down law applies to everyone in a certain area. The Minarchy says there is no such area, but is such a government system without it. In that, anarchists are free to secede and live without any governance external from them at all, given they do not harm others. 

None of us have to agree on which is the best way to organize society if we all agree to the basic tenant that this organization is voluntary. No one has to follow laws beyond harm unless they choose to, no matter what area they are in. The only way this applies differently is if a group gives over their property rights voluntarily to a collective, and then makes rules for that area...but even then, it only effects the voluntary residents and their children, not anyone who happens to be in this collectivist area.



Like I said from the beginning...we are allies. We all should agree on some basic tenants. It's the word "anarchy" that causes the problem for those who do not know it's history or what it actually means. Us being allied isn't dependent on semantics, and doesn't suggest we completely agree either. It just implies we agree on MOST things, or at least SOMETHING of importance. I just hope all the statists can see, we didn't want to pick a fight here...we just don't want to be told false things about our own philosophy and ethics, and don't want to told that IF we reach the small government statist view of the Constitution that we will be then excluded from pursuing any further of a voluntary and logical end for ourselves.

In most Revolutions in history (not the American Revolution though, which is telling), the anarchists who fought along side the "patriots" were often rounded up and shot or deported right after the revolution.

This is why we oppose any violent revolution...we know we are next in most cases (that, and a moral stand against aggression NOT in self defense). This is also why we so love Ron Paul and his ideas...he not only shrinks the State back to levels where a discussion like this can happen and have a possibility of implementation, but he also genuinely seems not to reject us (and therefore not keen on rounding us up and shooting or deporting us).

I hope the statists can see, I'm not your enemy, I am your ally. We will only come into conflict IF we reach your goal of Constitutional society FIRST. We cannot bypass Constitutionalism and go straight to anarchy...unless we fail, and the State completely collapses. Even then, I doubt a voluntary society will spring forth (anarchy/minarchy, depending on what you choose), it's far more likely chaos will ensue and a tyrant will replace the tyranny we have already. None of us want that.

Ron Paul 2012...it's all any of us want.

I'll take it as a peace treaty if we stop arguing on the philosophy and ethics and start saying nice things about each others points of agreement.



I'll start:

DeborahK, your last post to heavenlyboy just got +rep'd.

----------


## TER

> The anarchist realizes stability is a myth, propagated by the false dichotomy of who should run the government, Gang A or Gang B. We are MORE stable in essence, because we do not accept the idea that any one group should laud absolute power over others without their consent. So, since stability of governance is a myth, and life is actually ordered by a capitalist principle, spontaneous order, we can expect whoever has power to a greater or lesser extent at any given time to vary. *For example, you hold power over your child, but at a certain age, the child resists, and they disobey and rebel. Then the child becomes an adult, and the power is now theirs over themselves. Later you age, and they hold power over you now. The order of life, and the power structure of it, are time dependent and situational.*


Pardon me, but this is what was the snake whispered to Adam and Eve.

  The fact is that before you, was your parents, and before them, their parents, and on and on and on all the way back to our Source and Creator, Who blew His Breath and Spirit into the creation He made which was good.  Whether evolving from monkeys or from microscopic amoebas or from invisible cosmic dust, but not whether, but rather _through_ and _in communion with_ and in loving relationship, the lion laying down with the sheep and the living all and in all.  

And from dust we were formed and in dust our flesh will become, for the flesh profit nothing compared to the Spirit.  And so, it is how we live in these garments of skin which will justify us before the Final Judge.

   But to say that the child has power over their parent as the normal and natural cycle of human beings reveals much, and reminds me why I, and the vast majority of people who have ever lived, have rejected anarchy as a facilitator of a peaceful and just society, but rather the breakdown of.

----------


## TER

> Gang A and Gang B are no way to run a moral or civil political system. It's just two gangs.


And the Revolutionary Patriots of this country were also a 'gang'.

----------


## TER

That there should be order is good.  Note, I am not saying 'tyranny'!  Liberty for all, by all means!  But there should be order and laws, namely, a Republic, democratically elected.  Because out of the utter chaos of nature, there develops laws of entropy.  And from these laws comes order order and beauty and goodness.  Not one at the expense of the other or as a substitute for, but rather all together, a unity of many, a singularity and oneness.

 The very values of life do not lead to chaos, but harmony, symmetry and enjoining.  In a word, communion.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Except we never bashed ANY of Ron Paul's positions on Christianity or restoring the Constitution...it aids our cause to shrink the State. Unwilling as you may be, we are allies. 
> 
> <snip>


Don't even start with me.  I've been around here a long time.  All we are asking is that you stop attacking the Constitution and Christianity during the campaign.  If you have not seen it, you are blind.  Promoting anarchy on a forum bearing Ron Paul's name is not too smart, either.  That is, if you want him to have a chance at winning.  

This is his last election.  I hope we all will support him in his efforts and do our best not to do harm to his campaign.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The anarchist realizes stability is a myth, propagated by the false dichotomy of who should run the government, Gang A or Gang B. We are MORE stable in essence, because we do not accept the idea that any one group should laud absolute power over others without their consent. So, since stability of governance is a myth, and life is actually ordered by a capitalist principle, spontaneous order, we can expect whoever has power to a greater or lesser extent at any given time to vary. For example, you hold power over your child, but at a certain age, the child resists, and they disobey and rebel. Then the child becomes an adult, and the power is now theirs over themselves. Later you age, and they hold power over you now. The order of life, and the power structure of it, are time dependent and situational. Since we do not fight this "free market of power", and free markets always become niche, due to Division of Labor, there are no "booms" and "busts" of power, i.e. violent overthrows of a monopoly that doesn't exist.
> 
> The same way the FED causes booms and busts in the finanical economy, the statists and the State cause booms and busts in the political economy. Stop blowing up the bubble, fighting market forces that cause growth and contraction cyclically and predictably in political power structures, and you'll quit having your busts of violent takeover.


This is a very interesting way of stating the anti-state viewpoint, as well as a very interesting interpretation of the justification for statism - the desire to exert control and eliminate instability.  Thanks.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But to say that the child has power over their parent as the normal and natural cycle of human beings reveals much, and reminds me why I, and the vast majority of people who have ever lived, have rejected anarchy as a facilitator of a peaceful and just society, but rather the breakdown of.


Of course PI can answer for himself, but I took that statement to refer to that time in life when the child begins to care and tend to his or her parents.  As my grandfather used to say, "the father becomes the child, and the the child becomes the father."  "Power", as I think PI expressed it, refers more to the inevitable dependency of the elderly parent on the adult child - as the parent cared for the young child when it was beyond the child's ability to care for himself.  

Just my observation.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> This is why we oppose any violent revolution...we know we are next in most cases (that, and a moral stand against aggression NOT in self defense). This is also why we so love Ron Paul and his ideas...he not only shrinks the State back to levels where a discussion like this can happen and have a possibility of implementation, but he also genuinely seems not to reject us (and therefore not keen on rounding us up and shooting or deporting us).


Consider yourself +rep'd, especially for this particular part.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> That there should be order is good.  Note, I am not saying 'tyranny'!  Liberty for all, by all means!  But there should be order and laws, namely, a Republic, democratically elected.  Because out of the utter chaos of nature, there develops laws of entropy.  And from these laws comes order order and beauty and goodness.  Not one at the expense of the other or as a substitute for, but rather all together, a unity of many, a singularity and oneness.
> 
>  The very values of life do not lead to chaos, but harmony, symmetry and enjoining.  In a word, communion.


I understand what you're saying.  However, speaking for myself, I acknowledged anarchism as a consequence of my relationship to God, who created man in his image.  God did not create a class of rulers to stand between Him and his creation on the eighth day.  On earth, the individual is sovereign, and God by his creation is the only just ruler.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And the Revolutionary Patriots of this country were also a 'gang'.


They were men.  Imperfect men, yet they espoused values never before implemented in a form of government.  They took the first big socio-political step toward recognizing the natural rights of man.  They weren't perfect.  The Declaration of Independence was a beautiful philosophical document, and the Articles of Confederation were an attempt to codify that philosophy.  They then took the - in my opinion, unfortunate - pragmatic, utilitarian step of inaugurating the Constitution because they found the chore of governance to be too cumbersome under the AoC; as a consequence of this practical move to facilitate governance, individual freedom was sacrificed.  Thus the insistence by those in opposition on the Bill of Rights.  

In my opinion, too much worship is heaped upon the Constitution; the wonderous moment of the revolutionary generation should be the signing and acceptance of the Declaration of Independence.  

Again this is not to say that the Constitution is not a fine contract; just that it is not perfect in terms of human liberty.  Better than anything else out there now, and definitely worth the effort to return to?  Indeed.

----------


## Revolution9

> How many more posts before it's your fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because I say "illogical" or "learning disability", I'm violating one of the soccer moms interpretation of the rules....but when you do it in so many words, well that's just plus rep. Rep it up. Rep Rep Repppppy.
> 
> 
> 
> You soak in hypocrasy as you continue to post.


People post back at your BS to let readers know we do not accept your dogma. If disruptive clowns get the last word on a thread it looks like it an acceptable opinion we agree with. Frankly I have read nothing yet from you that present me any other effigy than a $#@! disturber.

Rev9

----------


## ProIndividual

You morons still here attacking anarchism? lol. Losers, trolls, and statist rejects...get a life. Every answer has been given and refused...but losers keep on coming back to get beat down some more. Wow, you guys love hatred and coercion...and blame us for the length of the thread. I hope you guys convert people to my way of thinking with your nonsense posts...lol.

Good luck in life sadists and statists (same things).

Edit: I was a bit harsh...but I'm tired of being attacked, and then acting like it's my eternal duty to be nice to dogmatists (same ones who accuse me of "dogma", which I don't have).

----------


## ProIndividual

> Pardon me, but this is what was the snake whispered to Adam and Eve


These are the irrational arguments I have to deal with from these statists...wow.

Edit: Yes, I'm being harsh, but it is a totally irrational argument with an attempt at a Marxist propaganda model, "guilt by association".

----------


## ProIndividual

> And the Revolutionary Patriots of this country were also a 'gang'


Obviously, yes...they hold gang turf and monopolies within it by force, Hamilton most of all was a tyrant. Quit deifying men to rationalize your aggression today. Why play semantics when this was OBVIOUSLY not the point I was making, it was a way to describe it without the guise over your eyes of "patriotism".

As Smauel Clemons said (Mark Twain), the patriot is overthrown by the traitors, who become the new patriots, and then they are overthrown by the new "traitors", who then become the new "patriots". Notice whoever owns the monopolies of the State are the "patriots", anyone seeking to oppose them are "traitors".

How about, as I suggested, and WAS MY POINT, this is a false dichotomy, an informal logical fallacy? How about fighting over the same bludgeon is not "patriotic", but "traitor-ous", and that the ending of such a monopoly on force, money, et cetera would end this psychopathic thinking (look it up in psychology, also refered to as a black and white fallacy, or the either/or fallacy)?

But thanks for the third grader apparoach to attacking my ideas.

Didn't anyone else here take high school debate? No one else seriously knows what an informal logical fallacy is?


Edit: again, harsh, but true.

----------


## ProIndividual

> But there should be order and laws, namely, a Republic,


You lost me at Republic...but the former part I agree with. The only law that is moral is "do no harm", the only order that is moral is voluntary (or what capitalists call "spontaneous") order.

Anarchism isn't abolition of laws and governemnt, as I said 500 times in this thread...it's a code of ethics, or a moral code. It means "Do No Harm" at all times, and when it is done, then you must pay recompense. There is a court system, etc. Please don't listen to these statist rejects about what anarchy means, please!

----------


## ProIndividual

> Don't even start with me. I've been around here a long time.


Who cares, not at all relevant.




> All we are asking is that you stop attacking the Constitution and Christianity


Except we never did, so why ignore the very quote you quoted? I'm convinced you're mentally ill. Read all of my posts on this thread...show mw one that attacks, not defends an attack, but attacks the Constitution or Christianity (again I consider myself a constructional Deist, i. e. a Christian Deist).

Everything you say from there follows from your BS non-point.


Edit: I've repeatedly said as much, you refuse to hear it...stop stereotyping anarchist, you anarchophobe.

----------


## ProIndividual

> This is a very interesting way of stating the anti-state viewpoint, as well as a very interesting interpretation of the justification for statism - the desire to exert control and eliminate instability. Thanks.


Thanks for liking it.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Of course PI can answer for himself, but I took that statement to refer to that time in life when the child begins to care and tend to his or her parents.


That's exactly what I meant.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Again this is not to say that the Constitution is not a fine contract; just that it is not perfect in terms of human liberty. Better than anything else out there now, and definitely worth the effort to return to? Indeed.


Agree.

----------


## ProIndividual

> People post back at your BS to let readers know we do not accept your dogma.


Except you come here to attack the literal and provable definition of "anarchy", and then to ignore all sources that prove so.

Again, Rev9, you're same dude who said Archons were half living half dead fetuses and lizard people...and everytime I bring it up, you ignore it. Go play in traffic with David Icke and all the rest of the lizard people believers....psyyyychooooooo.


Edit: Harsh, but again, true.

----------


## Travlyr

Collectivism at its finest. I could never be this hateful to my brothers & sisters.



> You morons still here attacking anarchism? lol. Losers, trolls, and statist rejects...get a life. Every answer has been given and refused...but losers keep on coming back to get beat down some more. Wow, you guys love hatred and coercion...and blame us for the length of the thread. I hope you guys convert people to my way of thinking with your nonsense posts...lol.
> 
> Good luck in life sadists and statists (same things).


I am a statist ... just like Mises was because I understand that the State distributes property. It is not perfect, but a Republic is one way to get land and resources in the hands of common people. State/County/Townships/Sections/Acreage/Lots & Blocks for property ownership. When a landowner without heirs or a will dies, then the State can orderly redistribute that property without fights through the rule of law. It is not perfect, but it's what we've got.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I am a statist


Enough said...lol.




> I understand that the State distributes property


Funny, there was property before the State evolved in the 5th century BC...darn facts!




> It is not perfect, but a Republic is one way to get land and resources in the hands of common people.


Your faith in the sadistic State is frightening.




> When a landowner without heirs or a will dies, then the State can orderly redistribute that property without fights through the rule of law.


And this means you need a coercive monopoly to do this? It's a service, any free market company can handle it...and did before the 5th century BC, even before humans knew what capitalism was. Native Americans also did the same, no State needed. You support monopolies, admit it.




> It is not perfect, but it's what we've got.


And that's your logic? lol. Wow...staus quo support is your answer. Amazing rationale for coercion and monopoly. How about it isn't perfect, let's recognize logically why, and abolish what is coercive and unnecessary. You support the State to the point of close minded zombification.

----------


## Travlyr

> Enough said...lol.


So are you but you just won't admit it. I own property that is authorized under the State where I live. 




> Funny, there was property before the State evolved in the 5th century BC...darn facts!


Many early Americans enjoyed prosperity for the first time in history, and many more early immigrants found a land of plenty and opportunity abundant in the united States of America. They were all statists. 

That opportunity became incrementally illusive for subsequent generations after 1861, 

See how the Feds quit distributing property after Salmon P. Chase became Secretary of Treasury under President Lincoln. The exact same time that debasement of currency funded an unnecessary war of brother against brother ... and the subsequent genocide of peaceful people. 


and individual opportunity came to a screeching halt upon the successful coup d'état orchestrated by Daddy Warbucks & gang with the symbolic signing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and New York Time's validation.

Now for the folks who are not on the statist attack. There is your prize when we win. We can distribute the Federal lands among us. When we are successful at returning the rule of law to ourselves and our brothers, we can give the Federal lands to individuals. Imagine owning river front property in the State of Idaho. Imagine owning some beautiful land in the State of New Mexico, or a big ranch in the State of Alaska. As you fellow statists work for liberty, peace, and prosperity, keep your eye on the prize.




> Your faith in the sadistic State is frightening.


Your belief that the State is the source of modern problems shows you are just buying more BS. The facts are available. Competing constitutional republic states can deliver a relatively voluntary society better than the absence of States. Our ancestors thought so, it is what I was born into and it works for me. 




> And this means you need a coercive monopoly to do this? It's a service, any free market company can handle it...and did before the 5th century BC, even before humans knew what capitalism was. Native Americans also did the same, no State needed. You support monopolies, admit it.


I support a monopoly on law and justice because those ideas do not need any competition. Justice is the determination of right vs. wrong. It is not for sale. Determining who is right vs. who is wrong is not free (hence the need for minimal taxation) but the concept is not for sale. And there is no need to jail people who are successful in avoiding paying taxes if they simply refuse.




> And that's your logic? lol. Wow...staus quo support is your answer. Amazing rationale for coercion and monopoly. How about it isn't perfect, let's recognize logically why, and abolish what is coercive and unnecessary. You support the State to the point of close minded zombification.


I suspect that you are a better talker than you are a reader.

----------


## josh b

> Funny, there was property before the State evolved in the 5th century BC...darn facts!


Good job bringing up the independent origins of property and the state.  There are much better ways to go about distributing property.

----------


## Travlyr

> Good job bringing up the independent origins of property and the state.  There are much better ways to go about distributing property.


Do tell.

----------


## josh b

In a similar way to Celtic Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth, or as outlined by writers such as Rothbard or Friedman.  Why is there a market failure in law?  Even much more decentralized government with secession privileges would be much better.

----------


## Travlyr

> In a similar way to Celtic Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth, or as outlined by writers such as Rothbard or Friedman.  Why is there a market failure in law?  Even much more decentralized government with secession privileges would be much better.


Clear as mud my friend.

----------


## josh b

> Clear as mud my friend.


Thanks.  It's not like people on this forum have tried to explain this before.  It's not like they've provided links to explanations either.

----------


## Travlyr

> Thanks.  It's not like people on this forum have tried to explain this before.  It's not like they've provided links to explanations either.


Like Ron Paul does ... keep trying. If your philosophy is really worth it, then it'll begin to make sense to most people.

----------


## libertyjam

> And that's your logic? lol. Wow...staus quo support is your answer. Amazing rationale for coercion and monopoly. How about it isn't perfect, let's recognize logically why, and abolish what is coercive and unnecessary. You support the State to the point of close minded zombification.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I suspect that you are a better talker than you are a reader.


That is because that is all PI has, he is nothing more than a punk kid hiding behind a keyboard that hurls insults,  he wouldn't dare say what he says IRL.

----------


## ProIndividual

> That is because that is all PI has, he is nothing more than a punk kid hiding behind a keyboard that hurls insults, he wouldn't dare say what he says IRL.


Nice ad hominem attack...informal logical fallacy anyone.

I didn't call him a name, I stated what he's doing.

And he meant writer, not reader...he couldn't even insult me correctly...even though it was just an ad hominem attack. Neither of you has anything logical to add apparently.

BTW..libertyjam (change your name, statist), you called me a "clueless $#@!"...so stfu hypocrite. Calling you a hypocrite here isn't an ad hominem, it's an observation.

Now does anyone want to have a logical debate a high school debate class would allow? Or are we going to condescend and use informal logical fallacies to make non-points?

I'm in my 30s btw, I'm not a kid, $#@!. I'll destroy you in any logical debate, IQ test, etc...anytime you want to pay for such measures to prove who is smarter, we can do that. I'm confident in my autodidactism over your State school education. Feel free to keep personally attacking me though, using guilt by association propaganda models, and any other informal logical fallacy you folks fall back on anytime we obliterate your long ago addressed nonsense reservation about total liberty and the abolition of tyranny.

Have a nice day sadistic statists (not ad hominem, sadism has been demonstrated, statism has been embraced).

Why don't you guys realize you lost already? Your precious State is the problem, not who is in it...power seeks power for powers sake. Repeating the same behaviors expecting a different result is insanity. 200 years of failing at small government and you still blow the State on hands and knees...it's sad really. The exact reason why the majority is almost always wrong, voting is tyranny, and democracies, and to a lesser extent Republics, fail. "Most people" are just a fickle and stupid mob who wave flags and send their kids to die for nonsense and call it "defending our rights, derrrr". Wake up, or lose all your liberties (what few we have left).

Tax is theft, the State is a monopolist violence machine, and your collectivist nonsense leads to tyranny...end of story.

And I'll say all this to your statist face as soon as you pay to put me in your face (my travel expenses). The fact you think I'm supposed to cower to violence or threat shows you are violent and coercive overall...a sadist. A sociopath. A statist. You don't believe in rights at all...you believe I should only have freedom of speech where I suck the balls of the State. $#@! your State. I love America, not the State. You know, the actual people your violent State is obstensibly supposed to keep safe, and whose rights are supposed to be safeguarded by it?

Hypocrite and bully...go play in traffic libertyjam, do humanity a favor you statist sadistic sociopathic violence-loving hypocrite.

(Ps. You aren't the first person to threaten me with violence, overtly or covertly. Both of you have been statists, not suprisingly....lol.)

----------


## Wesker1982

> Do tell.


Voluntarily.

----------


## josh b

> Voluntarily.


Given the ridiculous amount of resources we have and the constant debate I don't know how much clearer we can be.  You can't convince those who do not wish to be convinced.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Given the ridiculous amount of resources we have and the constant debate I don't know how much clearer we can be.  You can't convince those who do not wish to be convinced.


I have no illusions about convincing certain people. What I write though gives me good material for convincing others.

----------


## josh b

> I have no illusions about convincing certain people. What I write though gives me good material for convincing others.


Yeah but I just noticed that recently.  I didn't realize what a history these debates have on this board.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I have no illusions about convincing certain people. What I write though gives me good material for convincing others.


It's a good way of looking at the debate, and probably goes a long way toward preventing frustration.

----------


## ProIndividual

All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:

I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-)-read-this

----------


## abolitionist

Forgive me for not reading thru 70 pages of comments. I read the first page, saw a reference to somalia and ... so I'll just leave this here:

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

Apologies if someone else already posted it.  But every time anyone mentiones anything pro-liberty these days, it seems some jackalope mentions somalia as "proof" that we need the state. (never mind that it was the state that put somalia in the condition it was, and that it is the state that keeps going there and murdering people and generally making life worse.)

----------

