# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Its official: I am an anarchist

## Christian Liberty

I posted this exact post, word for word, on another site.  I suspect this site will be more encouraging, although I just posted it over on TOL so I'm not 100% sure.  Here goes:

****

I am an anarchist.

Yes, I'm one of *those people. Someone who believes that, if an action is evil for me and you, it does not automatically become OK because they attach an American flag to their chest. Someone who believes that, if its wrong for me to steal (that is, take property that is not mine without provocation or permission), its wrong for government to steal. That if its wrong for me to murder innocent people, that it is objectively wrong for government to do so as well. That, if it is wrong for me to police what substances my neighbor puts into his body, if it is a violation of the golden rule for me to do so (Because, I obviously do not want him to similarly police what I put into my body) it is wrong of government to do so as well. That, if I don't want the government in my bedroom, I should stay out of my neighbor's. That, if I want to live, I shouldn't kill innocent people. And since I shouldn't do any of those things, that it is also wrong for anyone to call themselves "government" to call those actions "legal" and to do those very same things that we just established were not moral.

And yes, that all taxation, ALL taxation, is theft, a violation of the 8th commandment, and offensive to God.

And yes, I'm a Christian too.

Now, does being an anarchist mean I oppose all government, or all laws? Of course not. My church has a government, but since this is not coercive, it is not wrong. To voluntarily fund law enforcement that only use force against aggressors also does not initiate force, and as such, it is not wrong. Free market police forces, again, that only punish aggressors, are not wrong. Laws that punish aggressors are not wrong.

So, what I'm saying when I say I'm an anarchist may not be what you may have thought of when I say "I'm an anarchist" but there you go.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

You've joined the cult.  It sure is tempting, but I think I'll stick with the realist camp.

----------


## green73



----------


## Christian Liberty

> You've joined the cult.  It sure is tempting, but I think I'll stick with the realist camp.


I'm not saying anarchy is or isn't realistic, only that its morally right.

Does that change the fact that I'll work with people who agree with me for the most part but maybe think differently on a few side issues?  No, of course not.

----------


## green73

> You've joined the realist camp.  It sure is tempting, but I think I'll stick with the cult.


ftfy

----------


## Christian Liberty

green, when you told me this day would come (Well, it wasn't really today, I've been here for a couple weeks and I've been mostly here, but still in denial, for a couple months) I didn't believe you.  I was wrong

----------


## Christian Liberty

TradCon is going to kill me now, and probably throw Chuck Baldwin at me

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You've joined the cult.  It sure is tempting, but I think I'll stick with the realist camp.


Is that better or worse than teh constitutionalist cult?

----------


## green73

> green, when you told me this day would come (Well, it wasn't really today, I've been here for a couple weeks and I've been mostly here, but still in denial, for a couple months) I didn't believe you.  I was wrong


Glad to hear it! It was only a matter of time with you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is that better or worse than teh constitutionalist cult?


Ron Paul is still a constitutionalist, and even if you think he was secretly an ancap, he still worded his arguments in way that it would make sense for constitutionalists to follow him.

And while I guess its true that constitutionalists are still legal positivists, their willingness to go all the way back to the Constitution shows a willingness to question that isn't present in most other legal positivists.  Most also think for themselves with regards to state level policies. 

So while I am an anarchist now, I don't advocate attacking people who are our allies 95% of the time but have a few minor disagreements with us.  Its the warmongering, anti-liberty plants that need to be attacked, not the legit constitutionalists.  Don't waste time attacking people like Tom Massie when you could attack genuine infiltrators like Ted Cruz.

I'll still vote for constitutionalists

----------


## TaftFan

I'll become an anarchist once we have achieved minarchy.

In other words, keep waiting.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Glad to hear it! It was only a matter of time with you.


Believe it or not, for all your anger at the religious forum, I wouldn't have ever become an ancap if it wasn't for the religion subforum.  Particularly Erowe1 and Sola_Fide.

Rothbard and Block are brilliant,  but I would never have gotten anywhere if I couldn't find a good Biblical argument for Romans 13, which required a Reformed foundation of theology.

So yes, I'm a fundamentalist Christian AND an ancap

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll become an anarchist once we have achieved minarchy.
> 
> In other words, keep waiting.


Here's the thing that I've learned: its hard, IMO impossible, to argue for minarchy PHILOSOPHICALLY.  So while, yeah, I'd love to live in a minarchy, or even a legit constitutional republic again, neither of those positions are actually logically consistent.

For people who don't care about that, more power to them.  I'll still work with them if they agree with me on most issues.  But my logical foundation  didn't really hold up as a minarchist.  I couldn't logically articulate why taxes for defense weren't theft, while taxes for welfare and warmongering were theft.  I couldn't articulate it because there really isn't a reason, or at least not one that I've discovered as of yet.

That said, I still doubt I'm 100% consistent, and so I won't expect that out of people that I'll work with either.  If you agree with enough of my principles that I can support you in good conscience, I will.  If not, I won't.

----------


## green73

> Believe it or not, for all your anger at the religious forum, I wouldn't have ever become an ancap if it wasn't for the religion subforum.  Particularly Erowe1 and Sola_Fide.
> 
> Rothbard and Block are brilliant,  but I would never have gotten anywhere if I couldn't find a good Biblical argument for Romans 13, which required a Reformed foundation of theology.
> 
> So yes, I'm a fundamentalist Christian AND an ancap


That's cool. The people I love the most are ancap Christians.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

And, FF, real serious constitutionalists are anarchorealists at heart.  _Which I think you experienced, somewhat._

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ron Paul is still a constitutionalist, and even if you think he was secretly an ancap, he still worded his arguments in way that it would make sense for constitutionalists to follow him.
> 
> And while I guess its true that constitutionalists are still legal positivists, their willingness to go all the way back to the Constitution shows a willingness to question that isn't present in most other legal positivists.  Most also think for themselves with regards to state level policies. 
> 
> So while I am an anarchist now, I don't advocate attacking people who are our allies 95% of the time but have a few minor disagreements with us.  Its the warmongering, anti-liberty plants that need to be attacked, not the legit constitutionalists.  Don't waste time attacking people like Tom Massie when you could attack genuine infiltrators like Ted Cruz.
> 
> I'll still vote for constitutionalists


I think I've made it quite clear over the years here that I can get along with just about anyone who can follow the Golden Rule as best as possible-including Constitutionalists and anarchists.

----------


## eduardo89

> That's cool. The people I love the most are ancap Christians.


Like Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker?

According to FF, those aren't Christians.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Like Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker?
> 
> According to FF, those aren't Christians.


Stick a sock in it. (for today)

----------


## green73

> Like Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker?
> 
> According to FF, those aren't Christians.


The pagan!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's cool. The people I love the most are ancap Christians.






> And, FF, real serious constitutionalists are anarchorealists at heart.  _Which I think you experienced, somewhat._


I did.  And there's still a certain context in which I could refer to myself as a constitutionalist.  Although that would be limited in scope.




> Like Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker?
> 
> According to FF, those aren't Christians.


I don't know what they teach, so I can't say.  I'm not going to say that just because of the church they're in without evidence that they actually agree with the damnable heresies of the Council of Trent.

That said, this isn't the right thread for this.  And even if they do teach non-Christian doctrine, I still like all of those people for their political contributions.



> The pagan!


LOL!

----------


## phill4paul

You're young. You're views will change as you age. Don't consider this current change to be the end all of your journey. It does go on. And on. Each onion peel just leads to the belief that it is all one big onion. I use to cry when I cut onions. Some native Americans taught me to say thank you to the onion before cutting it. I stopped crying over sliced onions.

----------


## Origanalist

> You're young. You're views will change as you age. Don't consider this current change to be the end all of your journey. It does go on. And on.


This^^^^ (with a little luck....)

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Yeah, but it's like...one of his birthdays 

_No need to run fingers across the icing on the cake. Today_

----------


## BuddyRey

Congratulations, FF!  I KNEW you had it in you!!!

In the immortal words of the great Sean Connery, "You're the man now, dog!"

----------


## phill4paul

> Congratulations, FF!  I KNEW you had it in you!!!
> 
> In the immortal words of the great Sean Connery, "You're the man now, dog!"


  In the immortal words of Sean Connery.........

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, but it's like...one of his birthdays 
> 
> _No need to run fingers across the icing on the cake. Today_


Lol.  Not sure what day I actually crossed over though.  It wasn't really today.  Today was just the day I was settled enough on it that I felt like posting it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Is that better or worse than teh constitutionalist cult?


You mean the one that Ron Paul is in?  

Cut the crap, hb.

----------


## phill4paul

> You mean the one that Ron Paul is in?  
> 
> Cut the crap, hb.


   Cut the crab, LE.

----------


## Cabal

@OP

Not to be too picky, but in place of government, you might find 'the State' to be more accurate terminology. As you pointed out, anarchists don't necessarily oppose government, as government isn't a specific enough term in general, and can apply to different things under different contexts. Contrarily, the State, is quite specific, and has a very precise denotation. 

Beyond that, I'd simply say that it is one thing to talk the talk (although this in itself can be something of an accomplishment, as many people aren't so great at grasping and/or communicating the underlying philosophy), but it's another to have true conviction, and walk the walk. As you can already see, you will encounter ardent opposition to your convictions.

In any case, I can only hope the epiphany that has brought you to this point is genuine--a product of both reason and emotion that stirs you to the very core. Best of luck to you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> TradCon is going to kill me now, and probably throw Chuck Baldwin at me


We'll have your back.

----------


## Brett85

> TradCon is going to kill me now, and probably throw Chuck Baldwin at me


No, not really.  But, does this mean that you're now pro choice, pro abortion rights?

----------


## Root

Congratulations!

I agree with what Cabal said above (ie government vs. the State). I also try not to use terms like "liberal, conservative, democrat or republican", instead I tend to use left/right statist.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, not really.  But, does this mean that you're now pro choice, pro abortion rights?


why should it?

----------


## Brett85

> why should it?


People like myself believe that the government has a role to play in protecting the unborn.  An anarchist by definition is opposed to having a government, so how can the government possibly protect the unborn if it doesn't exist?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> People like myself believe that the government has a role to play in protecting the unborn.  An anarchist by definition is opposed to having a government, so how can the government possibly protect the unborn if it doesn't exist?


Okay, restate that using "state" instead of government. Then, consider self governance to help identify the difference.  It may help (like Cabal suggested) in separating the concepts more precisely when conveying a statement so that others understand better.

----------


## Brett85

> Okay, restate that using "state" instead of government. Then, consider self governance to help identify the difference.  It may help (like Cabal suggested) in separating the concepts more precisely when conveying a statement so that others understand better.


How does an anarcho capitalist society protect the unborn?  Even if anarcho capitalists claim to be pro life, it's not the same position that those of us take who want the government to protect the unborn.  An anarcho capitalist by definition would have to vote against all government laws protecting the unborn if they were a member of a state legislature, since an anarchist by definition opposes all government laws.  And yes, I know they say they support some kind of theoretical ideology where they say that there would be "private law," but they're opposed to all government laws.

----------


## Todd

> I'm not saying anarchy is or isn't realistic, only that its morally right.  Does that change the fact that I'll work with people who agree with me for the most part but maybe think differently on a few side issues?  No, of course not.





> I'll become an anarchist once we have achieved minarchy.
> 
> In other words, keep waiting.




I once head someone say something similar....that they were an Anarchist philosophically and a minarchist in practice.  That's kind of the way I've always thought about Ron Paul.  Most people aren't ready for their minds to stretch that far.   I think he understood this better than any politician in our lifetime.  Why do you think so many Anarchists flocked to this forum.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm not saying anarchy is or isn't realistic, only that its morally right.
> 
> Does that change the fact that I'll work with people who agree with me for the most part but maybe think differently on a few side issues?  No, of course not.


But doesn't everyone believes that anarchy is morally right?  Deep down, we all wish that people could live together peacefully with no government whatsoever, but we differ only in the degree to which we believe it is practical.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is that better or worse than teh constitutionalist cult?


You decide.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> How does an anarcho capitalist society protect the unborn?  Even if anarcho capitalists claim to be pro life, it's not the same position that those of us take who want the government to protect the unborn.  An anarcho capitalist by definition would have to vote against all government laws protecting the unborn if they were a member of a state legislature, since an anarchist by definition opposes all government laws.  And yes, I know they say they support some kind of theoretical ideology where they say that there would be "private law," but they're opposed to all government laws.


It is the state that has allowed abortion to become so prominent.  Hell, it not only allows it, it pays for it and promotes it.  Stop that.

There are certain things that cannot be avoided.  Accidents happen and people sometimes go off half-cocked, also, mistakes change lives causing critical decisions to be made (not by choice, after the fact, but as a result).  We can't protect everyone all of the time, although some would argue that the police state is an attempt to (from a naïve point of view).  And making things illegal that people are going to do anyway does not work, although some might argue that it slows it down.  Even murder cannot be completely stopped by making it illegal, but that doesn't mean it should be made legal either.

Then, what is the root of the problem?

----------


## Cabal

> How does an anarcho capitalist society protect the unborn?  Even if anarcho capitalists claim to be pro life, it's not the same position that those of us take who want the government to protect the unborn.  An anarcho capitalist by definition would have to vote against all government laws protecting the unborn if they were a member of a state legislature, since an anarchist by definition opposes all government laws.  And yes, I know they say they support some kind of theoretical ideology where they say that there would be "private law," but they're opposed to all government laws.


First, it would do you well to be more accurate in your rhetoric. Anarchists are opposed to the State, the State is a form of government, but it is not the only form of government, therefore saying that anarchists are opposed to all government laws is fallacious. The phrase, theoretical ideology is redundant. I'm fairly certain all ideologies are theoretical by definition, and moreover, you're using the term theoretical as if to imply 'imaginary', or 'unobtainable'; that's not what theoretical means. Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) is... a theory, and thus theoretical. That doesn't make it any less observable in objective reality. 

As for the question of, "how would an anarchist society deal with <insert issue here>;" any answer, or discussion about this would also be theoretical--an intellectual exercise, because the simple truth is no one really can know since predicting the future is not an ability us mere mortals tend to possess. Luckily, such an anarchist society would most certainly have a free market which would be well equipped to find adequate and sufficient solutions and satisfaction to the demands and issues which may arise, such as abortion.

The sheer amount of contributing factors to any single issue that tend to arise from institutionalized violence (statism) as a whole are so far reaching, it becomes really difficult to make any accurate predictions about what society might look like when that State is removed from the equation. How many unwanted pregnancies would actually occur in the absence of the State? Can't say, one way or another with any definitive certainty. For all we know, unwanted pregnancies could drop dramatically. If that's the case, then it follows that the demand for abortions would also drop dramatically, thus the number of abortions would drop. Certain communities may have different accepted practices on whatever remaining abortions there may be. Some communities may not offer any abortion services, while others may offer abortions only under certain circumstances, while others may offer abortions only at certain stages in the pregnancy. Who knows what kind of advances in medical technology and science the market will produce in the absence of the State. The ability to sustain life outside of the womb may be increased, thus presenting a more viable alternative to certain abortions.

But you might have thought about all of these considerations, and the many, many others I haven't mentioned here prior to thinking you posted a "gotcha" question, as if such shallow, short-sighted objections hadn't ever been thrown about before.

Then again, if you really gave a damn about the unborn, you wouldn't be sitting there acting as if the State is at all capable of or concerned with protecting them, given the fact that it sells off the unborn as leverage for debt to use for bribery (voting) and mass murder (war) in the present.

----------


## ctiger2

Anarchy would be the closest to a perfect society. That should be our goal. To strive for perfection.

----------


## green73

I'm out of rep for Cabal. Can somebody cover me?

----------


## fisharmor

Love is not what you feel when everything is right.
Love is what you *do* when everything is wrong.

We're all raised to believe that bullets and billy clubs are what we do when things are wrong,
and we're all raised to feel good during flag ceremonies and fireworks and football games.

For the Christian, it's ecstatic to finally realize the true path of love.  And it binds his heart and guts against the false path.

People who ask enough questions, who assume nothing, they get here eventually.
I knew you would, too, FF.

----------


## Lucille

> I'm out of rep for Cabal. Can somebody cover me?


Got him.

I have also evolved!  

Q: What’s the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A:  About 6 to 7 years, if you’re paying attention!!

----------


## green73

> Got him.
> 
> I have also evolved!  
> 
> Q: What’s the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
> A:  About 6 to 7 years, if you’re paying attention!!



Thanks, Lucille. 

I sort of figured you had. There just comes a point when you can't deny it any longer. That's how it was for me.

----------


## brandon

OP Are you going to change your last name to Voluntaryist on facebook?  Can't fight the system with your slave name.

----------


## Cabal

> OP Are you going to change your last name to Voluntaryist on facebook?  Can't fight the system with your slave name.

----------


## klamath

> But doesn't everyone believes that anarchy is morally right?  Deep down, we all wish that people could live together peacefully with no government whatsoever, but we differ only in the degree to which we believe it is practical.


 yeaw, pretty much. communism is the same. Sounds great for everyone to do their part and share everything with no fighting over the division  of labor or goods.

----------


## Brett85

> It is the state that has allowed abortion to become so prominent.  Hell, it not only allows it, it pays for it and promotes it.  Stop that.
> 
> There are certain things that cannot be avoided.  Accidents happen and people sometimes go off half-cocked, also, mistakes change lives causing critical decisions to be made (not by choice, after the fact, but as a result).  We can't protect everyone all of the time, although some would argue that the police state is an attempt to (from a naïve point of view).  And making things illegal that people are going to do anyway does not work, although some might argue that it slows it down.  Even murder cannot be completely stopped by making it illegal, but that doesn't mean it should be made legal either.
> 
> Then, what is the root of the problem?


My question was to Freedom Fanatic, because he had argued in the past that he supports state laws banning abortion.  You are making the pro choice argument that laws against abortion won't stop abortion, which is a different position than Freedom Fanatic has taken in the past.  I was simply asking him whether or not he still supports banning abortion at the state level.  I don't understand how it's possible to be opposed to abortion rights if you don't believe that the government should even exist.  The government is the only entity capable of protecting human life and punishing aggression.

----------


## Brett85

...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, not really.  But, does this mean that you're now pro choice, pro abortion rights?


No.



> People like myself believe that the government has a role to play in protecting the unborn.  An anarchist by definition is opposed to having a government, so how can the government possibly protect the unborn if it doesn't exist?


First of all, as long as it does exist, it should protect the unborn, or more specifically, it should criminalize the murder of the unborn (I'm honestly not convinced government is capable of "protecting" anyone, certainly not normally.)  I don't actually think we're ever going to accomplish an ancap society, so this question probably won't come up.

But if it did, ultimately "free market law" really is the answer.  As far as I know, this kind of thing wasn't a problem in OT Israel.  They did have some victimless crimes laws (Which I do believe were justified in OT Israel as the chosen nation, and only OT Israel) but no centralized State until King Saul.  




> How does an anarcho capitalist society protect the unborn?  Even if anarcho capitalists claim to be pro life, it's not the same position that those of us take who want the government to protect the unborn.  An anarcho capitalist by definition would have to vote against all government laws protecting the unborn if they were a member of a state legislature, since an anarchist by definition opposes all government laws.  And yes, I know they say they support some kind of theoretical ideology where they say that there would be "private law," but they're opposed to all government laws.


I'm not sure why we'd have to vote against all laws protecting the unborn anymore than we'd have to vote against any other anti-murder law.

And even if that were the case (Which it isn't) we could still use jury nullification to get anti-abortion doctor vigilantes off.  I might be the only one who would do that, but I would.




> Got him.
> 
> I have also evolved!  
> 
> Q: Whats the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
> A:  About 6 to 7 years, if youre paying attention!!


It wasn't even that long for me




> OP Are you going to change your last name to Voluntaryist on facebook?  Can't fight the system with your slave name.


I don't have an FB.



> You mean the one that Ron Paul is in?  
> 
> Cut the crap, hb.


I didn't endorse that comment, for the record.




> @OP
> 
> Not to be too picky, but in place of government, you might find 'the State' to be more accurate terminology. As you pointed out, anarchists don't necessarily oppose government, as government isn't a specific enough term in general, and can apply to different things under different contexts. Contrarily, the State, is quite specific, and has a very precise denotation.


I agree.  And even as an applicable example, Biblical Israel (Before 1 Samuel 8) had a government, it had laws, but no State.




> Beyond that, I'd simply say that it is one thing to talk the talk (although this in itself can be something of an accomplishment, as many people aren't so great at grasping and/or communicating the underlying philosophy), but it's another to have true conviction, and walk the walk. As you can already see, you will encounter ardent opposition to your convictions.


I've only discussed it with one person in real life.  My dad.  He doesn't agree with me, but I think he understands where I'm coming from.  He's pretty anti-state for an Evangelical pastor though.  In a conversation with him, he's finally admitted that the term "Collateral Damage" is immoral, but he still struggles with Hiroshima and Nagisaki (I believe he wouldn't if he knew some real history, namely, that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway, but he's still got some work to do).  Ultimately, I'd say he's pretty close to Rand Paul in the grand scheme of things.... maybe a little bit more socially conservative, and I'd say a little bit more fiscally conservative/libertarian as well, but considering how many dispensational Israel-firsters in the Baptist church, I'm pleased with how far he's come.

I'm not so much worried about defending "anarchy" as I am defending freedom, which ultimately, and logically, leads to an anarcho-capitalist ethic.


> In any case, I can only hope the epiphany that has brought you to this point is genuine--a product of both reason and emotion that stirs you to the very core. Best of luck to you.


Yep




> We'll have your back.


I was only kidding, but thanks

----------


## Brett85

> Anarchy would be the closest to a perfect society. That should be our goal. To strive for perfection.


But there are countries that already have anarchy, like Somalia.  If anarchy is your definition of a perfect society, then wouldn't it make sense for you to live in a society where the government doesn't exist?

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not sure why we'd have to vote against all laws protecting the unborn anymore than we'd have to vote against any other anti-murder law.


Because if you don't believe the government should even exist, logically you would have to oppose all government laws, including laws against murder.  Otherwise, you really aren't an anarchist but are still a believer in limited government.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My question was to Freedom Fanatic, because he had argued in the past that he supports state laws banning abortion.  You are making the pro choice argument that laws against abortion won't stop abortion, which is a different position than Freedom Fanatic has taken in the past.  I was simply asking him whether or not he still supports banning abortion at the state level.  I don't understand how it's possible to be opposed to abortion rights if you don't believe that the government should even exist.  The government is the only entity capable of protecting human life and punishing aggression.


OK, let me clarify, my agreeing with you doesn't mean I disagree with him.

I support abortion laws because abortion is murder and should be punished as such.  Its a moral argument, not a pragmatic one.  I really don't think these laws will do all that much about abortion, practically speaking.  So I do think Cabal is correct from a pragmatic angle.  I just don't really care.  Acts of aggression should still be illegal.

I fail to see, logically, why an entity that must give itself the legal right of aggression to exist is "The only means abortion (Or any other crime)" can be stopped.  I don't understand this logically.  For one thing, Scott Roeder proves this theory false (And no, I don't normally support it being done in  all that messy, or individual, a fashion.  I think it should be the community that deals with criminal justice, much like OT Israel, not a single individual in most cases.)




> But there are countries that already have anarchy, like Somalia.  If anarchy is your definition of a perfect society, then wouldn't it make sense for you to live in a society where the government doesn't exist?


Isn't Somalia growing faster than the other African countries?

That said, there's still a lot of aggression going on there.  A position of "All aggression is wrong" doesn't necessarily make non-government aggression better than government aggression.  Its simply an acceptance that violence against an innocent person, to kill him, kidnap him, enslave him, or steal from him, is wrong no matter who does it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because if you don't believe the government should even exist, logically you would have to oppose all government laws, including laws against murder.  Otherwise, you really aren't an anarchist but are still a believer in limited government.


I don't believe the State should exist.  But while it is exercising an evil monopoly on the use of force, they should punish other aggressors.  But the fact of the matter is, they are still an aggressor

There is still nothing, however, nothing on this earth, that will ever justify taxation as anything other than theft.

----------


## green73

> But there are countries that already have anarchy, like Somalia.  If anarchy is your definition of a perfect society, then wouldn't it make sense for you to live in a society where the government doesn't exist?


Somolia is the smoldering remains of a failed state. But why argue with you? You're nothing but a sophist. So boring.

----------


## Cabal

Ahh, of course. Somalia, the desperate last resort of the confused statist. Didn't see that one coming.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Somolia is the smoldering remains of a failed state. But why argue with you? You're nothing but a sophist. So boring.





> Ahh, of course. Somalia, the desperate last resort of the confused statist. Didn't see that one coming.


Could you guys expound on this, for my sake at least?  Because I've heard this accusation a lot and I'm honestly not 100% sure how to answer it.

BTW: He may be misguided but I believe TC is actually on our side.  And there are several people here, members in good standing, who I do not believe are on our side.  Don't write him off too quickly just because he may not agree with us on every issue.

----------


## Brett85

You guys are going to make this movement fail badly if you turn it into a movement to abolish all government.  People even have trouble going along with the idea of significantly limited government, let alone abolishing it.  It's also not a movement that Ron Paul ever supported.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You guys are going to make this movement fail badly if you turn it into a movement to abolish all government.  People even have trouble going along with the idea of significantly limited government, let alone abolishing it.  It's also not a movement that Ron Paul ever supported.


I'll support people who agree with significantly curtailing government, even if they don't support 100% abolishing it.

That said, the only *logically consistent* position is anarchism IMO.  Minarchism is not logically consistent.

As for Ron Paul, once again, while Ron Paul was hugely instrumental in my awakening, far more so than anyone else, he is not perfect, and I don't agree with him on every issue.

Also, honestly, if I were going to run for congress, I probably wouldn't do anything different than what he did anyway.  I wouldn't call myself an anarchist.  I'd just point out that taxation is theft and let people make the connection themselves, or not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Also, I don't support calling it "Anarchist forums" anymore than I support calling it "Rand Paul Forums."  

RON PAUL is what brought us together.  Not his son in Kentucky, and not Murray Rothbard.  I like both of them, I don't agree with either of them on everything, but the bottom line is this, we're all pretty much here because we like Ron Paul.  

And that's enough for me.

----------


## fisharmor

> I don't understand how it's  possible to be opposed to abortion rights if you don't believe that the  government should even exist.


First, please adjust your terms regardless of whether you believe in the state.
There  is no such thing as "abortion rights".  Ending the life of a third  party because of the actions of a first or second party cannot be a  right.
Stop using the terminology of pro-fetus-murder advocates.

Second, thank you for taking a position of nonunderstanding.

I can only speak for myself, and how I reconcile this.

Who  educated the majority of us?  What did that entity have to say about  abortion?  Were any of us shown pictures in sex education of aborted  fetuses?
We were shown pictures of people that were ground into hamburger during driver's ed, weren't we?
We were compelled to cut apart fetal pigs or frogs at one point, weren't we?
Why  did our state-compelled education include these gruesome elements, yet  sexual education didn't include a graphic depiction of what abortion is?

Who is it that buckles to the pressure to distribute condoms to teenagers?  
Who  is it that is in charge of all our radio and television communications -  who therefore has the keys to mass communication and what is included  in it, including the $#@!-fests that pass as sitcoms?
Who passively encourages unmarried people to have sex?

Who guarantees some modicum of subsistence to abandoned mothers?
Who forces delinquent fathers to support those mothers?
Who is it that encourages women not to consider the future ramifications of their sexual activity?

What private entity was it that declared 40 years ago that abortion is morally acceptable and must not be denied?




> The government is the only entity capable of protecting human life and punishing aggression.


The state is actively involved in the pro-abortion argument in this country, in more ways than simply Roe.
In  the absence of state schools, who is it that will be schooling  everyone?  The people who did it prior to compulsory schooling?
Supposing  there's a resurgence of Christian schools, how many of those aren't  going to show 12 year olds pictures of dismembered fetuses?
In the absence of state controlled hospitals, who will be healing everyone?  The people who did it prior to socialized medicine?
Supposing there's a resurgence of Christian hospitals, how many of those are going to be performing abortions?

How many health insurance companies are going to cover abortions if they're not compelled to?


All  lines of argument lead to the state.  I get past this by realizing  first that without the state, the game is totally different, in more  ways than any of us can imagine... and second, that without the state's  propaganda wing spinning the abortion situation every day, the opinions  of opposing individuals might get a better chance at an airing.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> yeaw, pretty much. communism is the same. Sounds great for everyone to do their part and share everything with no fighting over the division  of labor or goods.


No, communism is not the same because it involves the state.  We all believe anarchy would be great if only we could achieve it peacefully, but very few actually believe it is achievable.  Those who call themselves anarchists barely believe it themselves.  They're just hoping for some kind of moral revolution in which people become angels so that we don't need government.  Everyone wishes it could be that way, but the only true anarchists are the ones who believe it is actually practical without some kind of major awakening.

Those who are moving to abolish all government immediately are the true believers, but they are few and far between.  Most people who call themselves anarchists just hold anarchy as an ideal (like everyone else does) while not specifying where they believe the real line should lie.

----------


## green73

> Could you guys expound on this, for my sake at least?  Because I've heard this accusation a lot and I'm honestly not 100% sure how to answer it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Why are you guys beating up on TC?

Don't be one of those "I just quit smoking so now everyone should understand and quit, right now, or they are idiots" people.

TC still has things that you could learn from. 

And, TC, I'm not advocating no government (state) at all at this time, only pointing out why it fails and the injustice of it, and I believe we must still work toward the improvement of mankind so that even a minimal necessary evil no longer need exist.

_edit: It's crazy to think that we need a state because humans are imperfect, yet those that are in control of the state are human.  Does that make any sense at all?_

----------


## klamath

> No, communism is not the same because it involves the state.  We all believe anarchy would be great if only we could achieve it peacefully, but very few actually believe it is achievable.  Those who call themselves anarchists barely believe it themselves.  They're just hoping for some kind of moral revolution in which people become angels so that we don't need government.  Everyone wishes it could be that way, but the only true anarchists are the ones who believe it is actually practical without some kind of major awakening.


No real communism doesn't involve a state. Just people working, sharing  and owning everything together

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Somolia is the smoldering remains of a failed state. But why argue with you? You're nothing but a sophist. So boring.


But, since it has achieved anarchy now, how long until it springs up from the ashes like a phoenix?

----------


## Brett85

> Why are you guys beating up on TC?
> 
> Don't be one of those "I just quit smoking so now everyone should understand and quit, right now, or they are idiots" people.
> 
> TC still has things that you could learn from. 
> 
> And, TC, I'm not advocating no government (state) at all at this time, only pointing out why it fails and the injustice of it, and I believe we must still work toward the improvement of mankind so that even a minimal necessary evil no longer need exist.
> 
> _edit: It's crazy to think that we need a state because humans are imperfect, yet those that are in control of the state are human.  Does that make any sense at all?_


I guess I'm used to the criticism by now.    The only reason why I even commented in this thread is because Freedom Fanatic mentioned me in one of his comments.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No real communism doesn't involve a state. Just people working and sharing together.


That's called anarcho-communism.  

The point, as I've mentioned before, is that everyone holds anarchy as an ideal.  We would all love it if government didn't need to exist.  The ones who are pushing for the abolition of all government immediately are the true believers, but they are few and far between.  Most people who call themselves anarchists hold anarchy as an ideal (like everyone else does) but don't specify where they really believe the line should lie because they are too focused on an ideal that they know is impossible or impractical.

----------


## Cabal

> Could you guys expound on this, for my sake at least?  Because I've heard this accusation a lot and I'm honestly not 100% sure how to answer it.


It's not something you can quickly skim over if you mean to do the topic any justice. You really have to understand the relevant history, context, and be able to approach the subject from a variety of angles. Luckily, there are a number of notable minds who have done most of the legwork for you, if you have the time to digest the information.

Robert Murphy and Ben Powell are a couple off the top of my head that have done a pretty good job of addressing this topic from different angles.

Of course, Stefan has also dedicated some time to this topic as well, given how often statists like to find refuge in this sort of fallacy in discussions such as this.

----------


## green73

> But, since it has achieved anarchy now, how long until it springs up from the ashes like a phoenix?


Watch that Molyneux video I posted above. They are are actually much better off.  

Alas, anarchy there was not brought about because of a philosophical revolution. Statism still poisons the mind.

----------


## BuddyRey

> You guys are going to make this movement fail badly if you turn it into a movement to abolish all government.  People even have trouble going along with the idea of significantly limited government, let alone abolishing it.  It's also not a movement that Ron Paul ever supported.


If you only ever strive for half-measures, you'll be lucky to achieve even those.  If, on the other hand, you strive for something as close to pure libertarianism as possible, your adversaries will have to reach further to compromise with you.  I think there's actually a term for this sociological phenomenon that's related to the Overton Window, but I can't recall its name at the moment.

Having said this, I don't think the broader movement's face should so obviously broadcast that many of us want to "abolish all government".  I'm a fan of the gradualist, Fabian approach.  We're all going in the same general direction on the train of liberty...Minarchists are perfectly welcome to get off once they reach their stop, but ours is a bit further down the line.

----------


## Cabal

> _edit: It's crazy to think that we need a state because humans are imperfect, yet those that are in control of the state are human.  Does that make any sense at all?_

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 


Comprised is the wrong word to use there.  "Comprised of" is never a correct usage of the word.  "Composed of" would be more appropriate.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Watch that Molyneux video I posted above. They are are actually much better off.


Sorry, I can't.  I just ate lunch. 




> Alas, anarchy there was not brought about because of a philosophical revolution. Statism still poisons the mind.


Maybe you guys should ship 'em a bunch of copies of _Human Action_ and Rothbard's entire library.  That'd probably do it, don't you think?  They'd be all bought into the non-aggression principle and stuff.

----------


## klamath

> That's called anarcho-communism.  
> 
> The point, as I've mentioned before, is that everyone holds anarchy as an ideal.  We would all love it if government didn't need to exist.  The ones who are pushing for the abolition of all government immediately are the true believers, but they are few and far between.  Most people who call themselves anarchists hold anarchy as an ideal (like everyone else does) but don't specify where they really believe the line should lie because they are too focused on an ideal that they know is impossible or impractical.


But there is still two distinct idea differences. One group believes people will all work share and own everything together. One for all on all for one.  The other believes every individual owns, works his own and interacts through trade with  others. 
Neither take into account human nature. Some in communism would find they didn't have to work as hard and others would carry them. In anarchy groups of people would band together because they find it easier to rob from lone anarchists. In order for the lone anarchists to survive they would have to form a state to fight the first group that formed a state.

----------


## green73

LE, this is not a thinking hat.

----------


## Brett85

I guess it would at least be easy to leave America if it ever turned into an anarchist society, as anarchists believe in free travel and open borders.  So at least no one would be forced to live in an anarchist county.

----------


## Cabal

> Comprised is the wrong word to use there.  "Comprised of" is never a correct usage of the word.  "Composed of" would be more appropriate.


I believe you're correct. A clear oversight on my part. Though I don't think I know where the psd for this is anymore, so edits will probably not be forthcoming. Though I'll be sure to bear that in mind if I ever decide to remake the same message. IIRC, it's inspired by an image I saw that used "made up of," but I wasn't particularly fond of that phrasing. Oh, well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess I'm used to the criticism by now.    The only reason why I even commented in this thread is because Freedom Fanatic mentioned me in one of his comments.


I was only joking




> If you only ever strive for half-measures, you'll be lucky to achieve even those.  If, on the other hand, you strive for something as close to pure libertarianism as possible, your adversaries will have to reach further to compromise with you.  I think there's actually a term for this sociological phenomenon that's related to the Overton Window, but I can't recall its name at the moment.
> 
> Having said this, I don't think the broader movement's face should so obviously broadcast that many of us want to "abolish all government".  I'm a fan of the gradualist, Fabian approach.  We're all going in the same general direction on the train of liberty...Minarchists are perfectly welcome to get off once they reach their stop, but ours is a bit further down the line.


I agree.




> I guess it would at least be easy to leave America if it ever turned into an anarchist society, as anarchists believe in free travel and open borders.  So at least no one would be forced to live in an anarchist county.


Wait, you're staying here now, but you couldn't stay in a working anarcho-capitalist society?  What?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Thanks for posting the video, Green. An interesting watch.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Thank goodness. I was beginning to think you were the biggest statist on this forum. I am glad you are now, legally speaking, 100% pro-choice. You also support allowing babies to use crack, which is pretty messed up but...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Thank goodness. I was beginning the think you were the biggest statist on this forum. I am glad you are not, legally speaking, 100% pro-choice. You also support allowing babies to use crack, which is pretty messed up but...


When did I say that?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Thank goodness. I was beginning the think you were the biggest statist on this forum. I am glad you are not, legally speaking, 100% pro-choice. You also support allowing babies to use crack, which is pretty messed up but...


This is an amazing post.

Not amazing in a good sense of the word, but amazing nonetheless.

This is just an attempt to more absurdly misrepresent a position than other members have, right? I mean, this isn't serious, is it?

Even TC is [probably] shaking his head.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

You're still going to vote in elections, right FF?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're still going to vote in elections, right FF?


For the right people, yes.

I don't think anything has really changed recently in that regard.

Catch you in the senate someday

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> For the right people, yes.
> 
> I don't think anything has really changed recently in that regard.
> 
> Catch you in the senate someday


I'm likely to go down the judicial route, but who knows what will happen?  Hope to see you go far in your political career!

----------


## Keith and stuff

If you are an anarchist, you support legalizing abortion at 10 months.

----------


## Brett85

> Wait, you're staying here now, but you couldn't stay in a working anarcho-capitalist society?  What?


I don't believe that an anarcho-capitalist society would be "working" or "functioning."  I think you would just have disorder and chaos, which is what we've seen throughout history in situations where governments have been overthrown or abolished.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm likely to go down the judicial route, but who knows what will happen?  Hope to see you go far in your political career!


I'm only kidding, I'm pretty much hopeless for politics.  If I ever ran for anything it would be more to educate than to win.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you are an anarchist, you support legalizing abortion at 10 months.


This is just a stupid argument in so many ways.



> I don't believe that an anarcho-capitalist society would be "working" or "functioning."  I think you would just have disorder and chaos, which is what we've seen throughout history in situations where governments have been overthrown or abolished.



That's irrelevant to the moral issue that aggression is still wrong, IMO.  I'm not convinced its true, but even if it is it wouldn't matter.

Also, how do you explain everything in the Bible before 1 Samuel 8?

----------


## Brett85

> This is just a stupid argument in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant to the moral issue that aggression is still wrong, IMO.  I'm not convinced its true, but even if it is it wouldn't matter.
> 
> Also, how do you explain everything in the Bible before 1 Samuel 8?


How is it "aggression" for the government to punish aggression?  If someone breaks into someone elses home and murders that person, how is it "aggression" for the government to keep that person behind bars and away from the rest of society?  

And they still had government early in the Old Testament, just not a King.  I'm not in favor of having a King either.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LE, this is not a thinking hat.


What?  You're dissing the power of Rothbard?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> This is just a stupid argument in so many ways.


Actually, you support legalizing abortion at 802 weeks, right? After all, that's what all anarchists support, right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How is it "aggression" for the government to punish aggression?  If someone breaks into someone elses home and murders that person, how is it "aggression" for the government to keep that person behind bars and away from the rest of society?


Its not.  but taxation is aggression.

I'm guessing you still don't understand anarchy.  I'm too new to it to explain it to you, but if you think anarchists oppose murder laws, you don't know what anarchy is.




> And they still had government early in the Old Testament, just not a King.  I'm not in favor of having a King either.


There was no State, no taxation, no King, no rulers except judges who were periodiclly called by God for specific purposes (NOT to rule like a King) etc.

----------


## KingRobbStark

Welcome to the bro camp, where registration is not mandatory.

----------


## fisharmor

> How is it "aggression" for the  government to punish aggression?  If someone breaks into someone elses  home and murders that person, how is it "aggression" for the government  to keep that person behind bars and away from the rest of society?


Who pays for the bars?  Who pays for the guards?  Who pays for their food?
Do they pay voluntarily?
If it's not voluntary, then what are _those_ wrongdoers being punished for, that they must subsidize other wrongdoers?

How  is keeping murderers locked away helping the victim?  Do you not see  that murder as defined in America today is not a crime against a person?
Do you not see that there are NO crimes against people?
All  crimes in the United States are crimes against the state.  The state  doesn't care who the victim is or how he suffers.  The state doesn't  even need a victim except as a puppet to dangle in front of a jury, to  try to convince the jury to subsidize keeping the evildoer in a rape  cage.
The state isn't even particularly interested in finding the right evildoer!

This is justice?  Meting out indiscriminate punishment?

Your system is broken, sir, and beyond repair!

But  the most saddening part of your statements is that they suggest an  assumption that there is no market for justice.  Sit and really think on  that a moment: if there is no market for justice, that means that  _most people don't want justice_.
Given that so many people blindly accept the insidious and patently obvious lie that the state provides justice, I might be inclined to agree with you!
But then that begs the question: if nobody really wants justice, then why have a state to provide it?




> And they still had government early in the Old Testament, just not a *state*.


FTFY... and that is exactly what we're shooting for.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> How is it "aggression" for the government to punish aggression?  If someone breaks into someone elses home and murders that person, how is it "aggression" for the government to keep that person behind bars and away from the rest of society?  
> 
> And they still had government early in the Old Testament, just not a King.  I'm not in favor of having a King either.


From a technical POV it is still aggression. The government agressed the aggressor. Whether he deserved it or not is a different point entirely. 

That being said policing of neighborhoods or towns should be decided voluntarily, which means that it has to be as local as possible. The system that we have now forces everyone to participate in one system, and they enforce their will by threatening us with aggression.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> From a technical POV it is still aggression. The government agressed the aggressor. Whether he deserved it or not is a different point entirely. 
> 
> That being said policing of neighborhoods or towns should be decided voluntarily, which means that it has to be as local as possible. The system that we have now forces everyone to participate in one system, and they enforce their will by threatening us with aggression.


The problem is that we aren't following "the system" that we were given.

We were supposed to have 50 republics; not a one-size-fits-all and if you didn't like how one state did it, you could either try to change the laws, or move to another state whose laws you liked better.  Makes sense to me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Who pays for the bars?  Who pays for the guards?  Who pays for their food?
> Do they pay voluntarily?
> If it's not voluntary, then what are _those_ wrongdoers being punished for, that they must subsidize other wrongdoers?
> 
> How  is keeping murderers locked away helping the victim?  Do you not see  that murder as defined in America today is not a crime against a person?
> Do you not see that there are NO crimes against people?
> All  crimes in the United States are crimes against the state.  The state  doesn't care who the victim is or how he suffers.  The state doesn't  even need a victim except as a puppet to dangle in front of a jury, to  try to convince the jury to subsidize keeping the evildoer in a rape  cage.
> The state isn't even particularly interested in finding the right evildoer!
> 
> ...


Yes, the system is broken, because we allowed it to turn into something that it never was intended to be. Your solution is to instill something that never has existed, much less worked.  Personally, I'd prefer to go back to a lean mean constitutional form of government.  Once we get there, we can evaluate where to go from there.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Interesting. So you support the right of white store owners to prevent blacks from eating there. Yuck.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Interesting. So you support the right of white store owners to prevent blacks from eating there. Yuck.


If you believe in property rights, you have to support that (even though it's not nice, bigoted, and certainly bad PR).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Yes, the system is broken, because we allowed it to turn into something that it never was intended to be.* Your solution is to instill something that never has existed, much less worked.  Personally, I'd prefer to go back to a lean mean constitutional form of government.  Once we get there, we can evaluate where to go from there.


Who is this "We" you speak of?  Sounds like commie-speak to me, comrade. :P

----------


## green73

> Who is this "We" you speak of?  Sounds like commie-speak to me, comrade. :P


Are you surprised? She's a collectivist.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Interesting. So you support the right of white store owners to prevent blacks from eating there. Yuck.


You oppose property rights?

I wholeheartedly support a business owner as being the decider of who can and can't come onto *their* property. Is everyone welcomed into one's home (property)? Then how is it legitimate that the government can force one to conduct business with someone they do not want to?

For what it's worth, I personally despise racism and view it as an ideology of the weak. I personally would avoid storefronts that discriminated against race or religion as I'm sure most others would as well. This idea that the government can force you to interact with someone you do not wish to interact with spits in the face of property rights. Of natural rights. You end up with photographers fined for refusing to photograph a wedding they are religiously opposed to. You get the hiring of overweight people to teach aerobics. You get tyranny i.e. a minority being oppressed by the whims of the majority. Jim Crow laws were outrageous because it forced businesses to segregate. Many companies did not want to but were fined for not segregating. Much of the burden went to business owners in accommodating the laws. Many went under because they couldn't accommodate the laws.

Your statements are ridiculous. Pro crack smoking babies, check. I mean, where do you get off spouting this horse$#@!?

Why wouldn't I support property rights? Do you even have a semblance of a rational response to be had? I never had you pegged for this level of irrationality, Keith, I really didn't. Some of this discussion is making me question my judgement calls. I've been wrong a lot lately.

----------


## Brett85

> Its not.  but taxation is aggression.
> 
> I'm guessing you still don't understand anarchy.  I'm too new to it to explain it to you, but if you think anarchists oppose murder laws, you don't know what anarchy is.


If you think that anarchy is simply a philosophy that supports the abolition of all taxes, then I'm not sure if you understand anarchy, or are an anarchist yourself.  Theoretically, you could still have a government without taxes.  You could just create a national lottery.

----------


## Brett85

> You oppose property rights?
> 
> I wholeheartedly support a business owner as being the decider of who can and can't come onto *their* property. Is everyone welcomed into one's home (property)? Then how is it legitimate that the government can force one to conduct business with someone they do not want to?
> 
> For what it's worth, I personally despise racism and view it as an ideology of the weak. I personally would avoid storefronts that discriminated against race or religion as I'm sure most others would as well. This idea that the government can force you to interact with someone you do not wish to interact with spits in the face of property rights. Of natural rights. You end up with photographers fined for refusing to photograph a wedding they are religiously opposed to. You get the hiring of overweight people to teach aerobics. You get tyranny i.e. a minority being oppressed by the whims of the majority. Jim Crow laws were outrageous because it forced businesses to segregate. Many companies did not want to but were fined for not segregating. Much of the burden went to business owners in accommodating the laws. Many went under because they couldn't accommodate the laws.
> 
> Your statements are ridiculous. Pro crack smoking babies, check. I mean, where do you get off spouting this horse$#@!?
> 
> Why wouldn't I support property rights? Do you even have a semblance of a rational response to be had? I never had you pegged for this level of irrationality, Keith, I really didn't. Some of this discussion is making me question my judgement calls. I've been wrong a lot lately.


It sounded to me like Keith was just joking or being sarcastic.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It sounded to me like Keith was just joking or being sarcastic.


I'm not so sure. He has mentioned 602 week (IIRC) abortions and crack smoking babies so it is hard to tell. In another thread I read another cheap shot he took at "anarchists."

I'm thinking he is serious and I don't understand how he reconciles some of these views with liberty.

602 weeks is 150 year old abortion though so who knows, maybe he was just joking. Sarcasm tags are helpful. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious but sometimes you wonder. Other people have assumed he is serious as well. I have seen the argument of drug ingesting children seriously thrown around too often. Maybe my sense of humor is off.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The problem is that we aren't following "the system" that we were given.
> 
> We were supposed to have 50 republics; not a one-size-fits-all and if you didn't like how one state did it, you could either try to change the laws, or move to another state whose laws you liked better.  Makes sense to me.


Its definitely a start.




> If you think that anarchy is simply a philosophy that supports the abolition of all taxes, then I'm not sure if you understand anarchy, or are an anarchist yourself.  Theoretically, you could still have a government without taxes.  You could just create a national lottery.


I don't think that's all it is, and I answered quickly.  There's the taxation is theft aspect, and there's the monopoly on justice aspect.  The main reason the latter is a problem is because it allows state actors to prevent their own people from being punished.  The law should apply to every person equally. 

If you had a government that had no compuslory taxation, and no monopoly on the use of defensive or retaliatory force (Aggressive force should be banned for everyone) you wouldn't really have a State.  Which is ultimately what I'm working toward.  No State, not no government whatsoever.

----------


## Cabal

> ...because we...


Speak for yourself. 

And, if you and yours $#@!ed it up, then maybe you and yours shouldn't be the ones presuming to tell anyone what is or isn't going to work.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Who is this "We" you speak of?  Sounds like commie-speak to me, comrade. :P


The American people, hb.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> If you believe in property rights, you have to support that (even though it's not nice, bigoted, and certainly bad PR).


So you anarchists support the right of US military officers to moonlight for al-Qaeda and 9-11 terrorists during their coffee breaks. Nice way to agree with Obama that the US should help the terrorists.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Speak for yourself. 
> 
> And, if you and yours $#@!ed it up, then maybe you and yours shouldn't be the ones presuming to tell anyone what is or isn't going to work.


Do you have parents?   I am assuming the answer to that is yes and if you are of voting age, then welcome to the party, obtuse one.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are you surprised? She's a collectivist.


Still smarting over Somalia, eh?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Still smarting over Somalia, eh?


Somalia outpaced its neighbors and its own history in improvements to education, life expectancy, medical advancements, and myriad other areas under statelessness. Interesting that your implication is that a State is needed for civilized progress, though. Kind of cuts against every argument ever for a limited government stance.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The American people, hb.


That is called "reasoning from parts to whole".  Fallacious, inductive, and downright bad logic.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So you anarchists support the right of US military officers to moonlight for al-Qaeda and 9-11 terrorists during their coffee breaks. Nice way to agree with Obama that the US should help the terrorists.


1) I'm not an anarchist
2) How in Sam Hell did you go from:



> If you believe in property rights, you have to support that (even though it's not nice, bigoted, and certainly bad PR).


to 


> So you anarchists support the right of US military officers to moonlight for al-Qaeda and 9-11 terrorists during their coffee breaks. Nice way to agree with Obama that the US should help the terrorists.


?  That is one the most ginorous, absurd jumps in logic I've ever seen!

----------


## green73

> The American people, hb.


Ooooh, the socialists, marxists, neocons, and plethora of other divides?

----------


## green73

> Still smarting over Somalia, eh?


Um...no. It was pretty lame. You're pretty lame.

----------


## Cabal

> Do you have parents?


No, I'm the product of immaculate conception, obviously.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> 1) I'm not an anarchist
> 2) How in Sam Hell did you go from:
> 
> to ?  That is one the most ginorous, absurd jumps in logic I've ever seen!


Do you support the right of Sen. McCain to moonlight for the terrorist during the summer recess? If so, you can be an anarchist. If not, cool.

----------


## Tod

I think constitutionalism is probably more practical than anarchy, and considering that we have never actually practiced it without major flaws, it has served quite well.  However, I believe that we have traveled beyond the point where we need to refresh the tree of liberty.  I don't believe that anarchy would have served us better (that is to say I believe that constitutionalism has resulted in overall greater liberty than anarchy would have).

----------


## green73

> I think constitutionalism is probably more practical than anarchy, and considering that we have never actually practiced it without major flaws, it has served quite well.  However, I believe that we have traveled beyond the point where we need to refresh the tree of liberty.  I don't believe that anarchy would have served us better (that is to say I believe that constitutionalism has resulted in overall greater liberty than anarchy would have).


The economic greatness that resulted in America had nothing to do with the constitution. The government parasite hadn't really grown enough in the beginning to stave it off. But it was always growing, just like a parasite does, and the constitution didnt stop it, nor ever has really hindered it. America arose in a time of relative anarchy. And then the government finally caught up.

----------


## fr33

You people give FF too much attention.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do you support the right of Sen. McCain to moonlight for the terrorist during the summer recess? If so, you can be an anarchist. If not, cool.


What do you mean by "moonlighting for the terrorist"?   How would a disabled senior citizen like McShame do that?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You people give FF too much attention.


He's a kid and I like to teach him things on occasion.  He's kind of like a goofy kid brother.

----------


## Brett85

> There was no State, no taxation, no King, no rulers except judges who were periodiclly called by God for specific purposes (NOT to rule like a King) etc.


I'll have to research that more, but I'm pretty sure they had government throughout the entire Old Testament, except for at the very beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  If we lived in a perfect world where everyone did the right thing and never sinned, you could have anarchy.  Since we currently live in a world where people are born with a sinful nature, it's not possible to have a society with no government.

----------


## green73

> I'll have to research that more, but I'm pretty sure they had government throughout the entire Old Testament, except for at the very beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  If we lived in a perfect world where everyone did the right thing and never sinned, you could have anarchy.  Since we currently live in a world where people are born with a sinful nature, it's not possible to have a society with no government.


HAHAHAHA. We don't live in a world where men are angels. That's exactly why government fails and always will. Who the hell do you think is attracted to governing men???

----------


## eduardo89

> No, I'm the product of immaculate conception, obviously.


You might want to look up that term. The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that from the moment of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin so that she was from the start filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred in baptism. 




> We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

----------


## green73

> You might want to look up that term. The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that from the moment of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin so that she was from the start filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred in baptism. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception


 Obviously Cabal is the second coming...

----------


## eduardo89

> Obviously Cabal is the second coming...


Christ won't come back by being born again as a human.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll have to research that more, but I'm pretty sure they had government throughout the entire Old Testament, except for at the very beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  If we lived in a perfect world where everyone did the right thing and never sinned, you could have anarchy.  Since we currently live in a world where people are born with a sinful nature, it's not possible to have a society with no government.


government, yes.  Not a State.  

The thing is, States are made up of sinners too.  Although not a Christian, Rothbard addressed this issue, and he denied that mankind was "basically good".  He didn't believe mankind was "basically evil" either (I disagree with Rothbard on this one) but he stated, and correctly so in my opinion, that if men were "basically evil" anarchy would still be the least bad system because otherwise you'd have a government made up of evil people.

Admittedly, this logic is not infallible.  People could be "basically evil" but you could theoretically get the few who are the least evil and have them rule the government.  But what are the odds of this actually happening?




> You people give FF too much attention.


To be fair, this thread is literally about me

----------


## green73

> Christ won't come back by being born again as a human.


That's what you think. Cabal is it!

----------


## Tod

> HAHAHAHA. We don't live in a world where men are angels. That's exactly why government fails and always will. Who the hell do you think is attracted to governing men???


That is why anarchy fails too.  EVERY form of government (or lack of) will fail.  Why do you think Jefferson said what he said about the tree of liberty?  It is a truism that is independent of societal structure.

----------


## eduardo89

> That's what you think. Cabal is it!


Actually if the Immaculate Conception refers to him, it means he's Christ's mother.

----------


## green73

> Actually if the Immaculate Conception refers to him, it means he's Christ's mother.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *That is why anarchy fails too.*  EVERY form of government (or lack of) will fail.  Why do you think Jefferson said what he said about the tree of liberty?  It is a truism that is independent of societal structure.


According to whom?  Every historical example of anarchist society I'm aware of was conquered by hostile invaders, not from within as statist societies inevitably do.

----------


## Tod

> The economic greatness that resulted in America had nothing to do with the constitution. The government parasite hadn't really grown enough in the beginning to stave it off. But it was always growing, just like a parasite does, and the constitution didn’t stop it, nor ever has really hindered it. America arose in a time of relative anarchy. And then the government finally caught up.


I think the economic greatness was mainly due to exploitation of natural resources, including fellow men.  It resulted in a few very wealthy people and a lot of near subsistence people.  That lop-sidedness was countered with the rise of the unions, which created a middle class, which in turn was countered when businesses started moving jobs out of the country, which is where we are now....returning to near subsistence levels for many people (which is not quite the same as it was before the technology boom, people do have cell phones and stuff but they are dependent upon assistance for food and housing...take away that assistance and they quickly start to look more like old-time subsistence).

----------


## Tod

> According to whom?  Every historical example of anarchist society I'm aware of was conquered by hostile invaders, not from within as statist societies inevitably do.


And that is how they fail....someone comes along and takes advantage of the weakness of anarchy, which is the difficulty in acting as a cohesive unit with purpose (think herding cats).

Why do you think armies are structured with people giving orders?  If everything was voluntary, they would be more like the afghan rebels, whom we only have been unable to defeat because we have not been ruthless.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> And that is how they fail....someone comes along and takes advantage of the weakness of anarchy, which is the difficulty in acting as a cohesive unit with purpose (think herding cats).
> 
> Why do you think armies are structured with people giving orders?  If everything was voluntary, they would be more like the afghan rebels, whom we only have been unable to defeat because we have not been ruthless.


That's not a failure of anarchism, that's a failure of statism.

----------


## Tod

> That's not a failure of anarchism, that's a failure of statism.


huh?  Could you elaborate on that, please?

----------


## green73

I think tod has been on an epic troll on the behalf of ancaps.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *And that is how they fail.*...someone comes along and takes advantage of the weakness of anarchy, which is the difficulty in acting as a cohesive unit with purpose (think herding cats).
> 
> Why do you think armies are structured with people giving orders?  If everything was voluntary, they would be more like the afghan rebels, whom we only have been unable to defeat because we have not been ruthless.


Ummmm...no.  Invaders gonna invade, against anarchist or anyone else.  Correlation is not causation.  Whether or not you agree with anarchists, I hold you to the same standard of proof as them-and at this moment you are the greater of fails.

----------


## fisharmor

> And that is how they fail....someone comes along and takes advantage of the weakness of anarchy, which is the difficulty in acting as a cohesive unit with purpose (think herding cats).
> 
> Why do you think armies are structured with people giving orders?  If everything was voluntary, they would be more like the afghan rebels, whom we only have been unable to defeat because we have not been ruthless.


Sigh......
People were trying to conquer Ireland for at least 1000 years, and unsuccessfully.
Cromwell finally succeeded by causing the deaths of at least 15% and maybe as much as 85% of the population.
You do realize that you're advocating genocide as a valid military tactic, right?

----------


## Tod

> Sigh......
> People were trying to conquer Ireland for at least 1000 years, and unsuccessfully.
> Cromwell finally succeeded by causing the deaths of at least 15% and maybe as much as 85% of the population.
> You do realize that you're advocating genocide as a valid military tactic, right?


I'm not advocating it, just acknowledging it as a means of defeating an enemy.

----------


## Tod

> Ummmm...no.  Invaders gonna invade, against anarchist or anyone else.  Correlation is not causation.  Whether or not you agree with anarchists, I hold you to the same standard of proof as them-and at this moment you are the greater of fails.


Yes, invaders are going to invade, but what proof do you offer that an anarchic society is more able to defend against an invasion than a statist one?

----------


## Root

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428025-Federal-government-routinely-hires-internet-trolls-shills-to-monitor-chat-rooms-disrupt-arti

----------


## Tod

> People were trying to conquer Ireland for at least 1000 years, and unsuccessfully.


What is your basis for this statement?  During what years has Ireland even been a unified country?  The Vikings got what they wanted, which did not include ruling the country, just small raids to collect whatever riches they could gather.  The Normans conquered all the best parts, all the towns of any size and the best land.  If they didn't conquer it, it probably because they just didn't really want it.  They were undone not so much by the Irish but by the black death.  After that did its damage, the Irish were free to pick up.  There is no reason to believe that they would not have stayed, had it not been for the black death decimating them.

----------


## eduardo89

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428025-Federal-government-routinely-hires-internet-trolls-shills-to-monitor-chat-rooms-disrupt-arti


Could be. He has tried to get people to agree with him that Nidal Hasan is a hero for protecting people in Afghanistan and that Tom Cotton and Obama should be 'constitutionally executed.'

----------


## Tod

> Could be. He has tried to get people to agree with him that Nidal Hasan is a hero for protecting people in Afghanistan and that Tom Cotton and Obama should be 'constitutionally executed.'


Who has?

----------


## eduardo89

> Who has?


The OP.

----------


## Root

> Yes, invaders are going to invade, but what proof do you offer that an anarchic society is more able to defend against an invasion than a statist one?


Eventually wind up in a situation where the State will justify any action it wants in the name of your safety. The State will invade your home and you are just as defenseless. The State always grows.

----------


## Tod

> Eventually wind up in a situation where the State will justify any action it wants in the name of your safety.  The State always grows.


I don't dispute that at all.  That is absolutely correct and merely serves as an example of the truth contained in Jefferson's statement about the need to refresh the tree of liberty.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, invaders are going to invade, but what proof do you offer that an anarchic society is more able to defend against an invasion than a statist one?


The burden of proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim ("a state-run society is objectively better than a stateless one").  But if you really want to discuss that, there have been a few threads in RPF history relating to defense in a stateless society.  I'm not going to rehash them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Could be. He has tried to get people to agree with him that Nidal Hasan is a hero for protecting people in Afghanistan and that Tom Cotton and Obama should be 'constitutionally executed.'


Your ideology still holds that murderers who are state-empowered are somehow less heinous than any other murderers.  

I never tried to get anyone to agree with me on Nidal Hasan.  I had a weak moment and made a stupid post.  But if you'll recall the post in question, I actually asked that someone convince me that my gut reaction was wrong.  I never told anyone they should agree with me.  I do stand by, however, that the world would be better off if Tom Cotton and Obama both dropped dead tomorrow.

----------


## Root

> I don't dispute that at all.  That is absolutely correct and merely serves as an example of the truth contained in Jefferson's statement about the need to refresh the tree of liberty.


Why do we have to keep repeating the same mistakes?  Next refresh,  let's try something different.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Eduardo, half the time you act like you genuinely respect me, the other half of the time you act like you think I'm some kind of radical home-grown terrorist?  Which is it?

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo, half the time you act like you genuinely respect me, the other half of the time you act like you think I'm some kind of radical home-grown terrorist?  Which is it?


I respect you, but I think you're misguided, politically as well as your eager following of Sola_Fide's theology on many issues. I think you're young (I'm guilty of that as well) and your views will mature over time. I just don't want to see you get lost in dangerous views, such as the ones I states above in a joke about you being a paid government plant (which I don't think you are).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't dispute that at all.  That is absolutely correct and merely serves as an example of the truth contained in Jefferson's statement about the need to refresh the tree of liberty.


The Jeffersonian claim you cite was not a constitutionalist one.  The constitutionalists have traditionally made the opposite claim-that a strong, centralized regime prevents factions, promotes peace, etc, etc.  In fact, citing that quote runs against your claim.   Unfortunately, like every other Constitutionalist I've encountered, you are succumbing to the numerous internal contradictions within your civic and legal theory (well, Constitutionalism has no sound legal theory behind it at all...something you Constitutionalists really need to work on).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I respect you, but I think you're misguided, politically as well as your eager following of Sola_Fide's theology on many issues.


It may not be as much as you think (Or maybe I think you think that its more than you actually think).  I don't believe in double predestination the way that he defines it, although I do agree with it by RC Sproul's definition, which I posted in another thread.  I don't agree with him that all Arminians are unsaved.  I don't agree with him on supralapsarianism.  While I do agree with him that the Catholic Church isn't Christian, I think he goes too far on the rhetorical front with that as well.  You aren't going to like this, but I think there's a way to point out that the Catholic Church does teach damnable heresy without being a jerk about it.



> I think you're young (I'm guilty of that as well) and your views will mature over time. I just don't want to see you get lost in dangerous views, such as the ones I states above in a joke about you being a paid government plant (which I don't think you are).


You know, I think my stupid Hasan comment illustrates a valid point though.  Question everything.  Take nothing for granted.  That's basically what I was doing.  

And yeah, I'm definitely not a government plant.  I couldn't be, I hate them way too much

----------


## Tod

> Why do we have to keep repeating the same mistakes?  Next refresh,  let's try something different.


Doesn't your question assume that there IS a solution that allows for indefinitely peaceful society (not counting crimes by individuals or small groups against individuals against whom justice is somehow served and the issue ended)?  I think that is a false assumption.  I think the human condition dictates a constant struggle for liberty over time.  The longer the struggle is postponed, the bloodier the correction.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why do we have to keep repeating the same mistakes?  Next refresh,  let's try something different.


The monied interests benefit from repeating those mistakes and the laity never learns from history, that's why.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It may not be as much as you think (Or maybe I think you think that its more than you actually think).  I don't believe in double predestination the way that he defines it, although I do agree with it by RC Sproul's definition, which I posted in another thread.  I don't agree with him that all Arminians are unsaved.  I don't agree with him on supralapsarianism.  While I do agree with him that the Catholic Church isn't Christian, I think he goes too far on the rhetorical front with that as well.  You aren't going to like this, but I think there's a way to point out that the Catholic Church does teach damnable heresy without being a jerk about it.
> 
> 
> You know, I think my stupid Hasan comment illustrates a valid point though.  Question everything.  Take nothing for granted.  That's basically what I was doing.  
> *
> And yeah, I'm definitely not a government plant.  I couldn't be, I hate them way too much*


Just what a government plant would say!!!!11!!!

----------


## Tod

> The Jeffersonian claim you cite was not a constitutionalist one.  The constitutionalists have traditionally made the opposite claim-that a strong, centralized regime prevents factions, promotes peace, etc, etc.  In fact, citing that quote runs against your claim.   Unfortunately, like every other Constitutionalist I've encountered, you are succumbing to the numerous internal contradictions within your civic and legal theory (well, Constitutionalism has no sound legal theory behind it at all...something you Constitutionalists really need to work on).


It sounds like your view of constitutionalism is different than mine, which places large restrictions on the power of a centralized regime as listed in the ....well, the constitution.  That does not mean that any regime will not try (and succeed anytime the populace becomes complacent) to overstep the bounds placed upon it by the constitution.

----------


## Cabal

I'm not all that convinced an anarchist society would be very prone to invasion, quite frankly.

I assume an anarchist society would probably be significantly productive, and thus would be exporting and importing many goods with a number of foreign communities/nations, thus forming friendly, cooperative partnerships. Not only does this minimize potential enemies, but the friendly partners would have an interest in keeping the productive anarchist society out of war.

An anarchist society would have no tax structure in place. This alone, I think, is a huge disincentive for any potential invaders.

An anarchist society wouldn't be involved in foreign interventionism, adventurism, or nation building of any kind; nor would an anarchist society be funding or supporting militant regimes. This would also minimize the possibility of retaliatory invasion.

The simple truth is, most nations in this day and age are not antagonistic, or aggressive, and of those that are, even less are capable of launching a full-scale invasion, at least not against the North American landmass. Disputes that lean toward or result in war tend to be regional or internal. The US--sometimes followed by allies after the US initiates action--is of course the largest exception to this norm.

Of course there will always be the possibility of someone or some government deciding to amass an invasion force, but it's not as if these things happen over night, so there would be time to prepare, engage in diplomacy, and formulate some type of response or deterrent. I will admit that, when it comes to warfare, that is one area where the State is probably superior to a peaceful society, but then that isn't a virtue, really. But I don't think that means an anarchist society would be all that susceptible to an invasion, nor do I think that means an anarchist society would be unable to respond to one, in the off-chance that it does somehow take place.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not all that convinced an anarchist society would be very prone to invasion, quite frankly.
> 
> I assume an anarchist society would probably be significantly productive, and thus would be exporting and importing many goods with a number of foreign communities/nations, thus forming friendly, cooperative partnerships. Not only does this minimize potential enemies, but the friendly partners would have an interest in keeping the productive anarchist society out of war.
> 
> An anarchist society would have no tax structure in place. This alone, I think, is a huge disincentive for any potential invaders.
> 
> An anarchist society wouldn't be involved in foreign interventionism, adventurism, or nation building of any kind; nor would an anarchist society be funding or supporting militant regimes. This would also minimize the possibility of retaliatory invasion.
> 
> The simple truth is, most nations in this day and age are not antagonistic, or aggressive, and of those that are, even less are capable of launching a full-scale invasion, at least not against the North American landmass. Disputes that lean toward or result in war tend to be regional or internal. The US--sometimes followed by allies after the US initiates action--is of course the largest exception to this norm.
> ...


I imagine that the average person in an anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist society would be heavily armed-that alone kept the Japanese from ever planning an invasion on the continental US.

----------


## green73

> I'm not all that convinced an anarchist society would be very prone to invasion, quite frankly.
> 
> I assume an anarchist society would probably be significantly productive, and thus would be exporting and importing many goods with a number of foreign communities/nations, thus forming friendly, cooperative partnerships. Not only does this minimize potential enemies, but the friendly partners would have an interest in keeping the productive anarchist society out of war.
> 
> An anarchist society would have no tax structure in place. This alone, I think, is a huge disincentive for any potential invaders.
> 
> An anarchist society wouldn't be involved in foreign interventionism, adventurism, or nation building of any kind; nor would an anarchist society be funding or supporting militant regimes. This would also minimize the possibility of retaliatory invasion.
> 
> The simple truth is, most nations in this day and age are not antagonistic, or aggressive, and of those that are, even less are capable of launching a full-scale invasion, at least not against the North American landmass. Disputes that lean toward or result in war tend to be regional or internal. The US--sometimes followed by allies after the US initiates action--is of course the largest exception to this norm.
> ...



What you write is brilliant. Sadly, I'm afraid that the detractors will be put off by the length of six short paragraphs and not read it.

----------


## green73

> I think the economic greatness was mainly due to exploitation of natural resources, including fellow men.  It resulted in a few very wealthy people and a lot of near subsistence people.  That lop-sidedness was countered with the rise of the unions, which created a middle class, which in turn was countered when businesses started moving jobs out of the country, which is where we are now....returning to near subsistence levels for many people (which is not quite the same as it was before the technology boom, people do have cell phones and stuff but they are dependent upon assistance for food and housing...take away that assistance and they quickly start to look more like old-time subsistence).


Wow, somebody was paying attention in their government indoctrination center!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What you write is brilliant. Sadly, I'm afraid that the detractors will be put off by the length of six short paragraphs and not read it.


I read Cabal's posts. He is logical and reasonable which many lack. I am skeptical of anarchism in that I know the way of men. I've seen enough that I think it would take, or need, some doing to philosophically or ideologically change the mindsets of people. That said consistently I agree with the philosophy. It is mainly minor instances of my own lack of understanding of what they'd propose as solutions. Pot shots from the trees and the sheer economics of providing for an invading force would no doubt challenge a nation to consider invading here. But that said I could see instances of where a defensive force need be ready. At the moment a more strictly defined Constitution and a diligence in upholding rights not seen in any previous American generation is where I feel comfortable advocating. After that we can argue about what is necessary and what are the alternatives.

I'm not well versed in how everything would, or imaginative enough to see how it could work out.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What you write is brilliant. Sadly, I'm afraid that the detractors will be put off by the length of six short paragraphs and not read it.


I read it, it was an excellent response. 

However, I do think the point about the US is relevant.  Not to throw Somalia into it, but didn't the US try to intervene there?  If the US went ancap, SOMEBODY would probably become the new world empire (Note that this is an "is" claim, as in, "I think that would happen" not a "Should" claim.  I see no NEED for such an empire but I suspect one would arise regardless.)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I read it, it was an excellent response. 
> 
> However, I do think the point about the US is relevant.  Not to throw Somalia into it, but didn't the US try to intervene there?  If the US went ancap, SOMEBODY would probably become the new world empire (Note that this is an "is" claim, as in, "I think that would happen" not a "Should" claim.  I see no NEED for such an empire but I suspect one would arise regardless.)


It's an interesting thing to ponder.  The interwebz have made the world a lot smaller and better connected.  It seems that younger people don't have the irrational fear of foreigners older folks have long had-an impulse which tends to lead to militant nationalism, cheauvanism, warfarism and imperialism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's an interesting thing to ponder.  The interwebz have made the world a lot smaller and better connected.  It seems that younger people don't have the irrational fear of foreigners older folks have long had-an impulse which tends to lead to militant nationalism, cheauvanism, warfarism and imperialism.


That's true, but they still vote for the people who do.  And they're mostly hardcore statists on the other end.  I literally had a student in my world politics class say that the ONLY good thing GWB did was... wait for it...




The Iraq War.

Seriously.  Not even kidding

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's true, but they still vote for the people who do.  And they're mostly hardcore statists on the other end.  I literally had a student in my world politics class say that the ONLY good thing GWB did was... wait for it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Iraq War.
> 
> Seriously.  Not even kidding


oh, FFS.    My instincts were right...the future is fail.

----------


## Tod

> I assume an anarchist society would probably be significantly  productive


 (It certainly has that possibility, but outside of Western European and Japanese cultures, is there a reason to believe that productivity is a desired - or desirable - characteristic?  Take many Pacific islands, where the work ethic is not well developed because, well, what is the point when the weather is moderate and the food abundant?  Take nomadic people with traditionally few possessions and who don't place an emphasis on a big house and stuff.  Someone I knew was a missionary in Papau New Guinea in the early 60's and their culture was completely different than ours, with no strong central government.  Violence was an integral part of life for most people as families were engaged in ongoing tit-for-tat retaliatory killings, kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys, only it was pretty much every family)


> , and thus would be exporting and importing many goods with a  number of foreign communities/nations, thus forming friendly,  cooperative partnerships. Not only does this minimize potential enemies,  but the friendly partners would have an interest in keeping the  productive anarchist society out of war.





> An anarchist society would have no tax structure in place. This alone, I  think, is a huge disincentive for any potential invaders.
> 
> An anarchist society wouldn't be involved in foreign interventionism,  adventurism, or nation building of any kind; nor would an anarchist  society be funding or supporting militant regimes. This would also  minimize the possibility of retaliatory invasion.


 (you don't think that groups within the  society would go around invading other areas?  I think they would.  I  think areas within the US would be controlled by criminal organizations  that would develop into their own governments.  And I think the reason  that would happen is because most people just want to live their daily  life but sociopaths would collect young men with promises of riches and  take over an area for a base and they would initiate raids on others and  as their stolen wealth grows, initiate full-blown wars)




> The simple truth is, most nations in this day and age are not  antagonistic, or aggressive


 (I think most nations throughout history have not been, but there are always the troublemakers who see opportunity and exploit it)


> , and of those that are, even less are  capable of launching a full-scale invasion, at least not against the  North American landmass. Disputes that lean toward or result in war tend  to be regional or internal. The US--sometimes followed by allies after  the US initiates action--is of course the largest exception to this  norm.


 ("in this day and age" seems to take a short term view of history.  For reference:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...f_wars_by_date )




> Of course there will always be the possibility of someone or some  government deciding to amass an invasion force, but it's not as if these  things happen over night


 (one word: Blitzkrieg)


> , so there would be time to prepare, engage in  diplomacy, and formulate some type of response or deterrent. I will  admit that, when it comes to warfare, that is one area where the State  is probably superior to a peaceful society, but then that isn't a  virtue, really.


 (I agree, it is not a virtue!) 


> But I don't think that means an anarchist society would  be all that susceptible to an invasion, nor do I think that means an  anarchist society would be unable to respond to one, in the off-chance  that it does somehow take place.

----------


## Tod

> I read Cabal's posts. He is logical and reasonable which many lack. I am skeptical of anarchism in that I know the way of men. I've seen enough that I think it would take, or need, some doing to philosophically or ideologically change the mindsets of people. That said consistently I agree with the philosophy. It is mainly minor instances of my own lack of understanding of what they'd propose as solutions. Pot shots from the trees and the sheer economics of providing for an invading force would no doubt challenge a nation to consider invading here. But that said I could see instances of where a defensive force need be ready. At the moment a more strictly defined Constitution and a diligence in upholding rights not seen in any previous American generation is where I feel comfortable advocating. After that we can argue about what is necessary and what are the alternatives.
> 
> I'm not well versed in how everything would, or imaginative enough to see how it could work out.


That's pretty much how I feel about it.

----------


## Cabal

> I read Cabal's posts. He is logical and reasonable which many lack. I am skeptical of anarchism in that I know the way of men. I've seen enough that I think it would take, or need, some doing to *philosophically or ideologically* change the mindsets of people. That said consistently I agree with the philosophy. It is mainly minor instances of my own lack of understanding of what they'd propose as solutions. Pot shots from the trees and the sheer economics of providing for an invading force would no doubt challenge a nation to consider invading here. But that said I could see instances of where a defensive force need be ready. At the moment a more strictly defined Constitution and a diligence in upholding rights not seen in any previous American generation is where I feel comfortable advocating. After that we can argue about what is necessary and what are the alternatives.
> 
> I'm not well versed in how everything would, or imaginative enough to see how it could work out.


That's the problem with getting bogged down by the question of solutions. The truth is no one can know with any certainty how things can or will unfold. No one can know with any certainty what problems will arise, or what solutions will be used to respond to these problems. We can speculate, and hypothesize, sure... but at the end of the day that's just an intellectual exercise.

You're absolutely right--there are far too many considerations to factor in to really make any kind of accurate prediction about things in the absence of a State. We can't really look to history as much of an indicator either. And while there has been much discourse over the years on a number of topics, ranging from abortion, to roads, to dispute resolution, to insurance, to defense, to security, and so on, I can understand how these sort of issues can seem to be a practical problem for some. I used to be the same way. I used to think that we need definitive solutions and answers to all of the problems that may arise, but over the years I've come to realize it doesn't matter.

As mentioned above here, and touched on in a previous post, there's so many far reaching factors to consider, that we can't even begin to imagine what will even be a problem that needs solving, let alone how many potential new solutions there may be waiting to answer those problems that we can't even fathom right now.

As libertarians, or minarchists, or constitutionalists, or whatever, we all generally understand that the free market is really very capable and efficient at satisfying demand in the best ways we've seen yet. So, if that is truly the case, then it should follow that in the absence of the State, the free market--much freer than any market we've ever encountered--will most certainly be that much more equipped to come up with solutions to all kinds of problems that may arise. In which case, we needn't be too concerned with conjuring up imaginary problems, or solutions to them. If the problem is significant enough, it stands to reason there will be adequate demand for a solution to that problem. If there is adequate demand for a solution to a given problem, the free market will endeavor to satisfy that demand, and in all likelihood, the free market will find a number of different approaches to solving the same problem. That's what the free market does--people compete with each other to find the best, most desirable, most valued, most efficient ways of satisfying demand, and solving problems. So, why would it work any differently in the absence of all the State's interferences? It should work better than we've ever seen it work before, if we are correct.

Another point, of course, is the morality of it all. Problems, solutions... okay, sure. But the State is still a morally bankrupt, brutal, parasitic monstrosity no matter how many hypotheticals we can conjure up. And there is really no reason to believe that this truth will ever change. It's the proverbial nature of the beast. When you centralize a monopoly on the use of violence, you have yourself a State, and the State will always behave like the State. So, then it becomes a question of is liberty so frightening that the State could ever be regarded as the better alternative? This is a question we all have to ask ourselves individually. But I would submit that if there is even a small possibility that we can live without the State, it's sure as hell worth a shot

I'll never forget the way I heard Stefan put it in one of his discussions. He compared the abolition of statism to the abolition of slavery, and he said something to the effect of, our goal is to see that the slaves are freed, we can worry about what happens next afterward. Of course, you are again correct in saying that before any of this can happen there will need to be an intellectual revolution--another Enlightenment era, if you will. The only problem is, the longer people continue to bet on statism, the more delayed that enlightenment is. But make no mistake, it is an inevitability. Because when you think about it, and if you are honest with yourself, you understand that statism will eventually be seen as primitive and barbaric by the standards of future societies, just as present society looks back on god-kings as primitive and barbaric.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> That's the problem with getting bogged down by the question of solutions. The truth is no one can know with any certainty how things can or will unfold. No one can know with any certainty what problems will arise, or what solutions will be used to respond to these problems. We can speculate, and hypothesize, sure... but at the end of the day that's just an intellectual exercise.
> 
> You're absolutely right--there are far too many considerations to factor in to really make any kind of accurate prediction about things in the absence of a State. We can't really look to history as much of an indicator either. And while there has been much discourse over the years on a number of topics, ranging from abortion, to roads, to dispute resolution, to insurance, to defense, to security, and so on, I can understand how these sort of issues can seem to be a practical problem for some. I used to be the same way. I used to think that we need definitive solutions and answers to all of the problems that may arise, but over the years I've come to realize it doesn't matter.
> 
> As mentioned above here, and touched on in a previous post, there's so many far reaching factors to consider, that we can't even begin to imagine what will even be a problem that needs solving, let alone how many potential new solutions there may be waiting to answer those problems that we can't even fathom right now.
> 
> As libertarians, or minarchists, or constitutionalists, or whatever, we all generally understand that the free market is really very capable and efficient at satisfying demand in the best ways we've seen yet. So, if that is truly the case, then it should follow that in the absence of the State, the free market--much freer than any market we've ever encountered--will most certainly be that much more equipped to come up with solutions to all kinds of problems that may arise. In which case, we needn't be too concerned with conjuring up imaginary problems, or solutions to them. If the problem is significant enough, it stands to reason there will be adequate demand for a solution to that problem. If there is adequate demand for a solution to a given problem, the free market will endeavor to satisfy that demand, and in all likelihood, the free market will find a number of different approaches to solving the same problem. That's what the free market does--people compete with each other to find the best, most desirable, most valued, most efficient ways of satisfying demand, and solving problems. So, why would it work any differently in the absence of all the State's interferences? It should work better than we've ever seen it work before, if we are correct.
> 
> Another point, of course, is the morality of it all. Problems, solutions... okay, sure. But the State is still a morally bankrupt, brutal, parasitic monstrosity no matter how many hypotheticals we can conjure up. And there is really no reason to believe that this truth will ever change. It's the proverbial nature of the beast. When you centralize a monopoly on the use of violence, you have yourself a State, and the State will always behave like the State. So, then it becomes a question of is liberty so frightening that the State could ever be regarded as the better alternative? This is a question we all have to ask ourselves individually. But I would submit that if there is even a small possibility that we can live without the State, it's sure as hell worth a shot
> ...


Yes, sir. I've been considering this period as a new enlightenment for some time. I personally can foresee a ending of time if we do not succeed in the effort. (at the least the further irradiating of this planet either sterilizing people or making earth unhabitable.)

I read a little earlier about Americans losing their imagination... their creativity. Truth be told I feel that way sometimes. I've been so accustomed to how things are it is hard to envision how things could be or the solutions that would arise if needed.

Give me about six months. I'm reading a new book every 4-7 days. I plan on being well versed in every aspect of the subject of liberty.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Somalia outpaced its neighbors and its own history in improvements to education, life expectancy, medical advancements, and myriad other areas under statelessness. Interesting that your implication is that a State is needed for civilized progress, though. Kind of cuts against every argument ever for a limited government stance.


The whole purpose of government is to protect the rights of the minority from the force of the majority (including gangs).  So, yes, I think it is helpful, IF and only if, it is kept within its boundaries and those boundaries are guarded constantly by the people.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It sounds like your view of constitutionalism is different than mine, which places large restrictions on the power of a centralized regime as listed in the ....well, the constitution.  That does not mean that any regime will not try (and succeed anytime the populace becomes complacent) to overstep the bounds placed upon it by the constitution.


Your understanding of constitutionalism is different than the authors of the document.  You're thinking more like an Anti-Federalist.

----------


## Cabal

> (It certainly has that possibility, but outside of Western European and Japanese cultures, is there a reason to believe that productivity is a desired - or desirable - characteristic?  Take many Pacific islands, where the work ethic is not well developed because, well, what is the point when the weather is moderate and the food abundant?  Take nomadic people with traditionally few possessions and who don't place an emphasis on a big house and stuff.  Someone I knew was a missionary in Papau New Guinea in the early 60's and their culture was completely different than ours, with no strong central government.  Violence was an integral part of life for most people as families were engaged in ongoing tit-for-tat retaliatory killings, kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys, only it was pretty much every family)


Admittedly, I'm generally operating from a perspective of North American culture, given that is what I am directly familiar with, and where I live. But again, it's difficult to determine or predict such things. The necessary intellectual revolution that would ideally precede an anarchist society of the sort I'm speaking of, that might emerge from the current cultural trends in North America, probably wouldn't be all that similar to the examples you're citing here.

When I say productive, I'm simply referring to how densely populated societies tend to become relative to market freedom. You can see this throughout North American and similar histories. The freer the market, the greater the standard of living, the lower the levels of poverty, and so on. So, when I say productive here, I'm more or less talking about wealth creation, and I think it's reasonable to suspect that from that productivity, as it were, cooperative partnerships with foreign communities/nations would likely emerge to one degree or another.




> (you don't think that groups within the  society would go around invading other areas?  I think they would.  I  think areas within the US would be controlled by criminal organizations  that would develop into their own governments.  And I think the reason  that would happen is because most people just want to live their daily  life but sociopaths would collect young men with promises of riches and  take over an area for a base and they would initiate raids on others and  as their stolen wealth grows, initiate full-blown wars)


Again, if you take into consideration the necessary and requisite intellectual revolution that precedes the anarchist society I speak of, then no, I don't think it follows that invading groups would be common. Certainly there would still be elements of criminality, but in general I think these would be few and far between. I also think there is plenty of reason to suspect that such a society would be less likely to encourage and support such criminality, relative to statist societies.

----------


## Woods

> I'm not all that convinced an anarchist society would be very prone to invasion, quite frankly.
> 
> I assume an anarchist society would probably be significantly productive, and thus would be exporting and importing many goods with a number of foreign communities/nations, thus forming friendly, cooperative partnerships. Not only does this minimize potential enemies, but the friendly partners would have an interest in keeping the productive anarchist society out of war.


Don't wars break out between trading partners?  Wasn't France a big trading partner with Germany in 1914?

----------


## Cabal

> Don't wars break out between trading partners?  Wasn't France a big trading partner with Germany in 1914?


Wars can break out under many conditions, especially when States are involved. But, are wars more likely or less likely to break out between those with a relationship of voluntary exchange? And is that relationship of voluntary exchange more likely or less likely to be the cause of said war?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your understanding of constitutionalism is different than the authors of the document.  You're thinking more like an Anti-Federalist.


James Madison wrote it and he was a strict constructionist.  Just keep that in mind.

----------


## Woods

> Wars can break out under many conditions, especially when States are involved. But, are wars more likely or less likely to break out between those with a relationship of voluntary exchange? And is that relationship of voluntary exchange more likely or less likely to be the cause of said war?


The point of mentioning the German state attacking its leading trading partner, the French state, in 1914 is to show that the presence of voluntary exchange is not determinative.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The point of mentioning the German state attacking its leading trading partner, the French state, in 1914 is to show that the presence of voluntary exchange is not determinative.


Open and honest trade is a deterrent to war. Diplomacy and sitting down with people as well.

Perhaps not "determinative" in that an ambitious dictator may overstep his bounds no matter the circumstances but it is safe to say that we should strive for trade with anyone willing to trade and we should sit down with anyone willing to sit down. Our modern foreign policy is arrogant and foolish.

----------


## Cabal

> The point of mentioning the German state attacking its leading trading partner, the French state, in 1914 is to show that the presence of voluntary exchange is not determinative.


Yes, but the argument was never made that it was any sort of absolute determinative.

----------


## Woods

> Yes, but the argument was never made that it was any sort of absolute determinative.


 And I didn't say "absolute."  But enough of what wasn't argued.

It is your hypothesis that "importing and exporting...minimizes potential enemies."  As I implied, that's not the history of Europe, for example.

----------


## Cabal

> And I didn't say "absolute."  But enough of what wasn't argued.
> 
> It is your hypothesis that "importing and exporting...minimizes potential enemies."  As I implied, that's not the history of Europe, for example.


Your counter has been, "Germany and France traded and ended up at war," which is in complete disregard of any and all other contributing factors and context regarding that specific conflict. Moreover, this is one singular instance versus the infinitely larger wealth of contrary instances that exist at the international State level and at the individual every-day level. Given that what I said was concerning tendency, probability, and likelihood; and had nothing to do with absolutes, or with trade necessarily determining what who will or won't go to war; and that this was all just one of several factors in the overall argument being submitted which you've chosen to apparently cherry-pick and misunderstand, you haven't submitted anything to demonstrate otherwise.

You said:




> Don't wars break out between trading partners?


Again, I never said they couldn't. So no, not "enough of what wasn't being argued," if you can't even bother to understand the argument being submitted, then...

----------


## Woods

> if you can't even bother to understand the argument being submitted


You would have to submit an argument BEFORE I fail to understand it.  You "submitted" a conclusion (that import/export minimizes enemies), based on an assumption ("I assume an anarchist society would be significantly productive").  You are one argument short of an argument.




> Moreover, this is one singular instance versus the infinitely larger wealth of contrary instances that exist


The post you are responding to said the "history of Europe," which is more than "one singular instance."  It's more than half of recorded history.  I am not stopping you from using the "infinitely larger wealth."  Is there a book somewhere, of the infinite instances of importing and exporting minimizing potential enemies, since this is going to be a barren source, or is infinite too big to fit in just one book?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> He's a kid and I like to teach him things on occasion.  He's kind of like a goofy kid brother.


How do you know?  Have you met him?

----------


## Brett85

Going from the big government we have now to anarchy is kind of like a hypothetical situation where you get in an accident and break your arm, and instead of going to a doctor and getting it fixed, you decide to just go ahead and cut off your entire arm.  Personally, I would rather get my broken arm fixed than just cut the entire thing off.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Going from the big government we have now to anarchy is kind of like a hypothetical situation where you get in an accident and break your arm, and instead of going to a doctor and getting it fixed, you decide to just go ahead and cut off your entire arm.  Personally, I would rather get my broken arm fixed than just cut the entire thing off.


A better analogy would be that the massive government we have now is a tumor, and anarchy is complete removal of the tumor.

----------


## Woods

> A better analogy would be that the massive government we have now is a tumor, and anarchy is complete removal of the tumor.


I agree in that I couldn't follow his analogy at all.  In your analogy, wouldn't anarchy be the *absence* of a tumor, because "removal" would be an act of force perpetrated by something more powerful than the tumor?

----------


## Cabal

> You would have to submit an argument BEFORE I fail to understand it.  You "submitted" a conclusion (that import/export minimizes enemies), based on an assumption ("I assume an anarchist society would be significantly productive").  You are one argument short of an argument.


That's simply not accurate. It was most certainly one argument in a series of arguments to support the conclusion of "I'm not all that convinced an anarchist society would be very prone to invasion, quite frankly."

Again, reading comprehension is important. Exercise it PRIOR to pressing the post button.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How do you know?  Have you met him?


He's taking me at my word that I am, in fact, 18 and falsely concluding that that makes me "A kid"




> Going from the big government we have now to anarchy is kind of like a hypothetical situation where you get in an accident and break your arm, and instead of going to a doctor and getting it fixed, you decide to just go ahead and cut off your entire arm.  Personally, I would rather get my broken arm fixed than just cut the entire thing off.





> A better analogy would be that the massive government we have now is a tumor, and anarchy is complete removal of the tumor.


That was a good response, IMO, although I don't think its quite as simple as anarchy is the only thing worth working for.  That'st ultimately what I want, I'd go now if I could, but I don't have a problem with working with small government people to at least get closer to where we're going.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How do you know?  Have you met him?


He has discussed details about himself several times on the forums.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> He's taking me at my word that I am, in fact, 18 and* falsely concluding that that makes me "A kid"*
> 
> That was a good response, IMO, although I don't think its quite as simple as anarchy is the only thing worth working for.  That'st ultimately what I want, I'd go now if I could, but I don't have a problem with working with small government people to at least get closer to where we're going.


I assure you, as a former 18 year old and someone with some interesting experiences in life, you are "a kid".  (it's not a bad thing to be a kid necessarily )

----------


## Brett85

> A better analogy would be that the massive government we have now is a tumor, and anarchy is complete removal of the tumor.


I have to admit, that was a good and creative response.

----------


## Cabal

> Going from the big government we have now to anarchy is kind of like a hypothetical situation where you get in an accident and break your arm, and instead of going to a doctor and getting it fixed, you decide to just go ahead and cut off your entire arm.  Personally, I would rather get my broken arm fixed than just cut the entire thing off.


When the treatment you've been using in an attempt to cure the problem has a consistent history of not working, and actually making the problem worse, perhaps it's time to try a different treatment. What started as a broken arm now has several compound fractures, a blood infection, and gangrene thanks to the treatment you folks have been trying to fix it with--the State has never been very good when it comes to health care, after all.

----------


## Fredom101

Couple recommended podcasts for new anarchists:

http://freedomainradio.com
http://completeliberty.com

I'm a fan of Complete Liberty for the philosophy stuff as Wes has gone beyond the "Good & Evil" doctrines of typical ancaps and moved to empathy. Enjoy.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You're young. You're views will change as you age. Don't consider this current change to be the end all of your journey. It does go on. And on. Each onion peel just leads to the belief that it is all one big onion. I use to cry when I cut onions. Some native Americans taught me to say thank you to the onion before cutting it. I stopped crying over sliced onions.


yep^^

The only things certain in life are death, taxes, and change.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Couple recommended podcasts for new anarchists:
> 
> http://freedomainradio.com
> http://completeliberty.com
> 
> I'm a fan of Complete Liberty for the philosophy stuff as Wes has gone beyond the "Good & Evil" doctrines of typical ancaps and moved to empathy. Enjoy.


Molyneux is like the worst anarchist ever.  People who won't even support the likes of Ron Paul are the kind of wackos that turn intelligent people away from anarchism.  And Molyneux is not libertarian himself when it comes to parents rights.

He's living proof that you can't have a decent philosophy without Christianity and the Bible.  Heck, Murray Rothbard seemed to recognize that despite not being Christian himself.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Couple recommended podcasts for new anarchists:
> 
> http://freedomainradio.com
> http://completeliberty.com
> 
> I'm a fan of Complete Liberty for the philosophy stuff as Wes has gone beyond the "Good & Evil" doctrines of typical ancaps and moved to empathy. Enjoy.
> 			
> 		
> 
> ...


Well as long as we are recommending things, I have been recently re-acquainting myself with and renewing my appreciation for Harry Browne.  Here is his acceptance speech at the 1996 convention.  I remember watching it back when I was even younger than you, and being just extremely impressed and fired up by him.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/73406-1

Start it at about 1 hour, 6 minutes.

He wrote a lot of worthwhile books.  He was a very good, classy, persuasive man.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> He's living proof that you can't have a decent philosophy without Christianity and the Bible.  *Heck, Murray Rothbard seemed to recognize that despite not being Christian himself.*


Doesn't this kind of imply that people can in fact have a decent philosophy without Christianity and the Bible?

----------


## Cabal

> Couple recommended podcasts for new anarchists:
> 
> http://freedomainradio.com
> http://completeliberty.com
> 
> I'm a fan of Complete Liberty for the philosophy stuff as Wes has gone beyond the "Good & Evil" doctrines of typical ancaps and moved to empathy. Enjoy.


I follow and generally value FDR podcasts. I'm not as familiar with the second link, so thanks for the recommendation.

----------


## Woods

> Again, reading comprehension is important. Exercise it PRIOR to pressing the post button.


What's not to comprehend?  You have zero items from your alleged "infinite wealth" of examples to prove your preposterous assertion that importing and exporting is a national defense against attack.  As I posted the last time you tried to attack me in lieu of rational argument, you would have to post something of substance BEFORE someone else can fail to understand it.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Molyneux is like the worst anarchist ever.  People who won't even support the likes of Ron Paul are the kind of wackos that turn intelligent people away from anarchism.  And Molyneux is not libertarian himself when it comes to parents rights.
> 
> He's living proof that you can't have a decent philosophy without Christianity and the Bible.  Heck, Murray Rothbard seemed to recognize that despite not being Christian himself.


Molyneux doesn't prescribe State involvement in parenting, he is libertarian when it comes to parenting. He's also said many positive things about Ron Paul.

----------


## compromise

It's official for me too. I am now an anarchist.

As we have done successfully for the last 50 years, we need a combination of civil disobedience, education and third party politics to win. The statist Republican Party cannot be an avenue for liberty; that goes down to its very name - any party that endorses the existence of a "republic" is by definition one that actively embraces the state...I do not want a form of government, I want no government at all. It is immaterial whether Chris Christie or Rand Paul leads it as fundamentally both are defenders of state coercion and thus opponents of true liberty.

----------


## Cabal

> It's official for me too. I am now an anarchist.


You suck at April fools.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I have recently discovered that I am an Anarchist, but not the kind you usually see here.  Anarchy and Capitalism are incompatible because Capitalism is an authoritarian system.  I am an Anarcho-Communist, because without people will voluntarily give up their property to other people.  I learned this on Revleft.

----------


## mad cow

> I have recently discovered that I am an Anarchist, but not the kind you usually see here.  Anarchy and Capitalism are incompatible because Capitalism is an authoritarian system.  I am an Anarcho-Communist, because without people will voluntarily give up their property to other people.  I learned this on Revleft.


And you're even younger than FF!
Why,bless your heart!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have recently discovered that I am an Anarchist, but not the kind you usually see here.  Anarchy and Capitalism are incompatible because Capitalism is an authoritarian system.  I am an Anarcho-Communist, because without people will voluntarily give up their property to other people.  I learned this on Revleft.


Yeah, me too.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You suck at April fools.


Hey, we can use this against him later

----------


## ProIndividual

> I have recently discovered that I am an Anarchist, but not the kind you usually see here.  Anarchy and Capitalism are incompatible because Capitalism is an authoritarian system.  I am an Anarcho-Communist, because without people will voluntarily give up their property to other people.  I learned this on Revleft.


You can be an anarchist and not a communist, and yet still be opposed to capitalism. I am an individualist free market anarchist (and anti-capitalist). This is because I think AnCapism is named incorrectly due to Rothbard's unfortunate use of the words 'free market" and "capitalism" as if they were synonyms, which they are not. To me, AnCaps are not actually capitalists, but free market anti-capitalists...but this usually pisses them off, so I don't say that very often around here. I mean no offense by it anyways, and I happen to like their ideas, even if I disagree with the semantics of using "capitalism" to describe free markets.

I assert the following to show why free markets and capitalism are not synonyms or compatible:

1. AnCaps believe, as I do, that a completely free market society is preferable and ethical. They also believe that you can't have a completely free market (as in free market society, not a singular market with no state intervention) so long as the state exists, because the state needs to coercively monopolize, monopsonize, and cartelize certain markets in order to exist. *So, logically, a totally free market economy, and therefore free society, is incompatible with the state.*

2. *Capitalism can exist in the context of the state*...we all agree to that. AnCaps and I agree also that *capitalism with a state is really just minimalist state socialism* (as the state coercively takes over the means of production for specific markets, as already explained above). 

3. If a totally free market society is what AnCaps seek, and a totally free market society is incompatible with a state, but capitalism can exist with a state, then logically capitalism and free markets aren't synonyms. *Free markets can only exist in the absence of the state, while capitalism can exist with a state.*

4. *So, if free markets only exist in the absence of the state, and capitalism can exist with a state, what AnCaps really want is a totally free market society, and this is logically anti-capitalist.* 

Brad ********, an Agorist, once said (tongue-in-cheek or not) that anarcho capitalism is really a misnamed form of stigmergic (spontaneous order) socialism. I agree with this (no tongue-in-cheek). AnCapism is a form of anti-state socialism...in that free markets rely on an absence of the state, and therefore the absence of capitalism.

It's only the misuse of the word "capitalism" by Rothbard that led to this confusion. His ideas were fine...the semantics were incorrect. You cannot have stateless capitalism...you CAN have stateless free markets. What we are describing doesn't change by fixing this semantics problem. It's only the semantics problem, which is derived mostly from American colloquial use of the words "capitalism" and "socialism" (and the distaste for the latter in the context of a state), that lead to this issue.

I no more see free markets as synonymous with capitalism than I see stateless socialism as synonymous with state socialism. I think Benjamin Tucker clearly defined the difference between the latter two.

I hope this doesn't piss off any AnCaps...I have no problem with what you advocate, just with the name of your label. But even that doesn't offend me or anything, as it is just a label, and it doesn't change the substance of your great ideas (which we share).

I'm not an anarcho communist or Syndicalist or collectivist...but I do accept them as parts of the libertarian tradition, and I do not find them illogical IF and ONLY IF they are completely voluntary. If they are completely voluntary, then they are not incompatible with a stateless society or my economic preferences (free markets). But...most AnComs are just statists by another name, as they usually try and say AnCaps aren't true anarchists, and that free market anti-capitalists like me are somehow not anarchists because we advocate for property and profit among those who voluntarily consent to such economic interactions. They seem to think property should be abolished by force, or that we will ever have a world where every single person agrees property should be abolished. The former is not anarchic, and the latter is impossible. There will be all manner of legal and economic systems co-existing in a truly free society (panarchist synthesis).

----------


## Christian Liberty

Tywysog's post was on April 1.

so, seriously Tywysog, are you an an-cap now?

----------

