# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

## Madison320

The first time I heard the concept of anarcho-capitalism was about 20 years ago. I thought it sounded like a good idea at first. Eventually I decided it had some serious structural flaws and could never work. I've had long debates online with anarchists mainly focusing on resolving disputes. I never brought up national defense, I thought that was too obvious. Anyway I don't want to get into the "court system" side of the debate, been there, done that. I'm curious about the national defense side of the argument. So the questions for you anarchists out there, how would you provide for national defense?

By the way, I'm a libertarian, just not an anarchist.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> The first time I heard the concept of anarcho-capitalism was about 20 years ago. I thought it sounded like a good idea at first. Eventually I decided it had some serious structural flaws and could never work. I've had long debates online with anarchists mainly focusing on resolving disputes. I never brought up national defense, I thought that was too obvious. Anyway I don't want to get into the "court system" side of the debate, been there, done that. I'm curious about the national defense side of the argument. So the questions for you anarchists out there, how would you provide for national defense?
> 
> By the way, I'm a libertarian, just not an anarchist.


What is "National Defense"?

If you mean simple defense of private property against would be attackers, you would accomplish this the same as you would in defending your home from a robber.  Through voluntary individual action, either through contract with an agency of your choice, or through voluntary cooperation (i.e. militias).

If you mean some type of standing military, you completely miss the concept of individual liberty and that of the nation state.  For starters, an 'invader' must have something to gain for the expense of his invasion.  In a 'nation state' which commands a monopoly over a terrirory and it's resources, the gain is obvious, to either usurp or greatly influence that monopoly over the resources.  In a completely decentralized situation, where INDIVIDUALS or at most voluntary communities control their fratctional and justly acquired portion of resources with no overarching monopolistic territorial control aperatus, there is simply no gain.  Say that Invader A was able to take over block A1 of Washington D.C. in a decentralized scenario.  Great, good for them.  They have now gained block A1's resources.  However, the other 99.99999999999999% of the decentralized territory remain out of their control.  It is a scenario likeable to infinite energy, wherein energy output received will ALWAYS be less than energy input.  Likewise, in a completely decentralized scenario there is simply no payoff, the investment in 'invasion' will always be greater than any return that could be realized.

And of course, if you are of the belief that "national defense" requires pre-emptively intervening in the affairs of another region to increase your interests, *you* are the invader and might as well be casting your vote for Rick 'Nuke em All' Santorum.

----------


## Lucille

Rothbard covers it in For a New Liberty.

----------


## otherone

Ask the Native Americans how it worked out for them.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Rothbard covers it in For a New Liberty.


There is also Hans Hoppe's _The Myth of National Defense_

----------


## UMULAS

Ummm yeah, no offense but Anarchy is just dumb all together. I mean if there is an organization, or state that's is going to invade with military force, how is a place with Anarchy going to survive. Look at the Native Americans, if they united together, they were able to fight off the Colonists.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Ummm yeah, no offense but Anarchy is just dumb all together. I mean if there is an organization, or state that's is going to invade with military force, how is a place with Anarchy going to survive. Look at the Native Americans, if they united together, they were able to fight off the Colonists.




Thinking is hard, obeying is easy.

----------


## Madison320

> What is "National Defense"?
> 
> 
> If you mean some type of standing military, you completely miss the concept of individual liberty and that of the nation state.  For starters, an 'invader' must have something to gain for the expense of his invasion.  In a 'nation state' which commands a monopoly over a terrirory and it's resources, the gain is obvious, to either usurp or greatly influence that monopoly over the resources.  In a completely decentralized situation, where INDIVIDUALS or at most voluntary communities control their fratctional and justly acquired portion of resources with no overarching monopolistic territorial control aperatus, there is simply no gain.  Say that Invader A was able to take over block A1 of Washington D.C. in a decentralized scenario.  Great, good for them.  They have now gained block A1's resources.  However, the other 99.99999999999999% of the decentralized territory remain out of their control.  It is a scenario likeable to infinite energy, wherein energy output received will ALWAYS be less than energy input.  Likewise, in a completely decentralized scenario there is simply no payoff, the investment in 'invasion' will always be greater than any return that could be realized.



Invader A would quickly and easily take over much more than Block A. Claims that the "investment" will always be greater than the return ignores thousands of years of invasions, not to mention any crime of theft on a smaller scale.

This has been tried before. Ever heard of Minerva? Oops!

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

"The Republic of Minerva was set up in 1972 as a libertarian new-country project by Nevada businessman Michael Oliver. Oliver's group conducted dredging operations at the Minerva Reefs, a shoal located in the Pacific Ocean south of Fiji. They succeeded in creating a small artificial island, but their efforts at securing international recognition met with little success, and near-neighbour Tonga sent a military force to the area and annexed it."


Please don't try to pin Rick Santorum's idea of "defense" on me. 


As for the other responses I prefer reading your own words, not being referred to a book.

----------


## pcosmar

> As for the other responses I prefer reading your own words, not being referred to a book.


An armed population is the very best defense. A very well armed population.

Ask the Russians about attacking Afghanistan..

or observe the abject failure of the US doing the same stupid thing.

Now think of a country the size of the US if there was NO arms control and folks could have anything they wanted.
That is defense.

----------


## MooCowzRock

> What is "National Defense"?
> 
> If you mean simple defense of private property against would be attackers, you would accomplish this the same as you would in defending your home from a robber.  Through voluntary individual action, either through contract with an agency of your choice, or through voluntary cooperation (i.e. militias).
> 
> If you mean some type of standing military, you completely miss the concept of individual liberty and that of the nation state.  For starters, an 'invader' must have something to gain for the expense of his invasion.  In a 'nation state' which commands a monopoly over a terrirory and it's resources, the gain is obvious, to either usurp or greatly influence that monopoly over the resources.  In a completely decentralized situation, where INDIVIDUALS or at most voluntary communities control their fratctional and justly acquired portion of resources with no overarching monopolistic territorial control aperatus, there is simply no gain.  Say that Invader A was able to take over block A1 of Washington D.C. in a decentralized scenario.  Great, good for them.  They have now gained block A1's resources.  However, the other 99.99999999999999% of the decentralized territory remain out of their control.  It is a scenario likeable to infinite energy, wherein energy output received will ALWAYS be less than energy input.  Likewise, in a completely decentralized scenario there is simply no payoff, the investment in 'invasion' will always be greater than any return that could be realized.
> 
> And of course, if you are of the belief that "national defense" requires pre-emptively intervening in the affairs of another region to increase your interests, *you* are the invader and might as well be casting your vote for Rick 'Nuke em All' Santorum.


What?  You are absolutely denying ten thousand years of recorded human history if you are claiming that taking over another country provides no pay-off.  There are resources, there is money, there are people to exploit, there is land, etc, etc, etc.  If America decided to carpet bomb all of Kuwait, take it over, and steal all of Kuwait's oil reserves and begin producing, they have benefited.  How would individual people in Kuwait be able to defend against a better prepared and large military that use force?

The answer is that they cant, and that is the proof that anarchism fails as a reasonable goal for society.  You could argue we have anarchy right now.  You have absolute freedom to do what you wish to do, but under anarchy, there is no expectation that you will not receive violent consequences for not doing it.  In anarchy, the majority or the most powerful take power and impose their will on others, and the individuals have no power to stop it other than to convince those in control to be reasonable, or work together and force each other to work against those that wish to do worse harm than your current government does.  Anarchy leads to government.

What is anarchy's response to a military invasion?  It is either to try and fight them off as individuals(which considering the fact that we don't have any major anarchist areas in the world right now except in relatively remote or unstable areas, proves pretty much doesnt work), let themselves get taken over and exploited, or join together, agree on imposing a justifiable and relatively small amount of violence and force on each other to create a standing army of their own, recognize common borders, and defend their "country."

----------


## Madison320

> An armed population is the very best defense. A very well armed population.
> 
> Ask the Russians about attacking Afghanistan..
> 
> or observe the abject failure of the US doing the same stupid thing.
> 
> Now think of a country the size of the US if there was NO arms control and folks could have anything they wanted.
> That is defense.


Do you really want to live in a country where you're constantly under attack, whether it's successful or not? 

I think the problem with anarchists is that they take government protection for granted. "Hey, nobody's attacked us for years! Why do we need a military?" 

Keep in mind I'm all for limited government. 99.9% of the time I'm arguing for less government.

----------


## UMULAS

> Thinking is hard, obeying is easy.


Look, many communists and anarchists read a lot and think a lot, why? So that way they can try to perfect themselves on their ideology. Anarchism is just another ideology that would work if

   : There would be no enemies
   : No one would sin
   : There is infinite resources
   : Everyone lives happily together

Just like Anarchism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and 100+ ideologies, they only work * in one's mind.*

And you saying I don't think is very weak since I did think about the consequences of Anarchy; call me crazy, but I love policeman, fireman, regulated food, highways, public schools and much more. Though I lean into libertarianism, I still believe that we should have a state.

----------


## Madison320

> It is either to try and fight them off as individuals(which considering the fact that we don't have any major anarchist areas in the world right now except in relatively remote or unstable areas, proves pretty much doesnt work)


That's pretty much the bottom line isn't it? You can argue all day about theory but in the end the fact that anarchies don't exist settles the argument. Anarchist "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.

----------


## onlyrp

Anarchists don't believe in nations, borders, or government, so there would be nothing "national".

----------


## Domalais

> Likewise, in a completely decentralized scenario there is simply no payoff, the investment in 'invasion' will always be greater than any return that could be realized.


If that was true, nations would never have been established.  The land would have been 'too expensive' to take control of in the first place in its natural, decentralized state.


Your hypothesis is the exact opposite of all of recorded history.

----------


## TheTexan

> That's pretty much the bottom line isn't it? You can argue all day about theory but in the end the fact that anarchies don't exist settles the argument. Anarchist "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.


Government "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.  Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a success.

Government grows out of human nature to control people.  I believe while an anarchy is the ideal, any anarchy or any society will always end up in tyranny.  Every time.  However, this takes a great deal of time.  It took the United States about 150 years before it started really crossing the tyranny threshold.

However, this only means that any new governments we create, should start out with as little government as possible [none, preferably], and we hold on to this as long as we can.

----------


## onlyrp

> If that was true, nations would never have been established.  The land would have been 'too expensive' to take control of in the first place in its natural, decentralized state.
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is the exact opposite of all of recorded history.


you think you were going to be embarassing him by telling him "nations would never be here"? Anarchists know this, and they don't care.

----------


## onlyrp

> Government "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.  Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a success.
> 
> Government grows out of human nature to control people.  I believe while an anarchy is the ideal, any anarchy or any society will always end up in tyranny.  Every time.  However, this takes a great deal of time.  It took the United States about 150 years before it started really crossing the tyranny threshold.
> 
> However, this only means that any new governments we create, should start out with as little government as possible [none, preferably], and we hold on to this as long as we can.


you're assuming the market and the demography does not demand more government.

----------


## Domalais

> Ask the Russians about attacking Afghanistan..


Terrible example.  Afghanistan is an example of what small, well organized groups (not individuals) can do _with the economic and military support of another state._





> or observe the abject failure of the US doing the same stupid thing.


While the leadership of the Taliban hides _under the protection of another state_.  Not to mention economic and military support from a multitude of state and non-state actors.

----------


## TheTexan

> Terrible example.  Afghanistan is an example of what small, well organized groups (not individuals) can do _with the economic and military support of another state._


You've got this idea that anarchists can't form significantly large organizations.  Simply not true.

----------


## Domalais

> You've got this idea that anarchists can't form significantly large organizations.  Simply not true.


Did you not read the second half of that sentence?  Are you ignorant of the vast amount of money, intelligence, and training the United States gave the Mujaheddin?

----------


## No Free Beer

Let me ask you something, how is private property, private property without contracts? Without a set of laws supporting those contracts?

I am sorry, but anarchy doesn't work.

----------


## TheTexan

> Did you not read the second half of that sentence?  Are you ignorant of the vast amount of money, intelligence, and training the United States gave the Mujaheddin?


Do you realize that we don't live in huts and can actually afford to buy those weapons, intelligence, training, etc ourselves?

----------


## otherone

....and the sneetches get banished to political philosophy once't again.

----------


## TheTexan

> ....and the sneetches get banished to political philosophy once't again.


the hot topics of real politics - where threads go to die.

----------


## onlyrp

> Let me ask you something, how is private property, private property without contracts? Without a set of laws supporting those contracts?
> 
> I am sorry, but anarchy doesn't work.


tell that to the Amish.

----------


## No Free Beer

I love how the anarchists in here all support Ron Paul, who is not an anarchist. 

I also find it funny how all the open border people in here support Ron Paul, when he himself is not an Open Border Agent.

----------


## No Free Beer

> tell that to the Amish.


Are they not supported by our Constitution?

----------


## otherone

> I love how the anarchists in here all support Ron Paul, who is not an anarchist. 
> 
> I also find it funny how all the open border people in here support Ron Paul, when he himself is not an Open Border Agent.


Don't forget the funny atheists....and funny pro-choice folk....

----------


## TheTexan

> I love how the anarchists in here all support Ron Paul, who is not an anarchist.


That's actually debatable.  However, he is at least a minarchist.  Good enough for me.




> I also find it funny how all the open border people in here support Ron Paul, when he himself is not an Open Border Agent.


From what I recall he _is_ open border, just not now, because our economy is in shambles because of our socialist leaning tendencies.  In a healthy economy he has said he would want open borders.

----------


## No Free Beer

> That's actually debatable.  However, he is at least a minarchist.  Good enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I recall he _is_ open border, just not now, because our economy is in shambles because of our socialist leaning tendencies.  In a healthy economy he has said he would want open borders.


please supply me with examples/proof...

----------


## No Free Beer

> Don't forget the funny atheists....and funny pro-choice folk....


Well, religion is separate from politics.

----------


## mczerone

> Let me ask you something, how is private property, private property without contracts? Without a set of laws supporting those contracts?
> 
> I am sorry, but anarchy doesn't work.


How is private property overseen by a remote monopoly of force private?

I am sorry, but anything that's not 'anarchy' doesn't work.

----------


## mczerone

> Well, religion is separate from politics.


Only if you divorce morality from your social theorizing.

----------


## onlyrp

> How is private property overseen by a remote monopoly of force private?
> 
> I am sorry, but anything that's not 'anarchy' doesn't work.


the property isn't overseen, just the agreement of contracts and rules governing it.

----------


## Domalais

> can actually afford to buy those weapons, intelligence, training, etc ourselves?


No, you can't.

----------


## mczerone

> Are they not supported by our Constitution?


Are you?

----------


## mczerone

> the property isn't overseen, just the agreement of contracts and rules governing it.


And why couldn't I hire a private enforcer of those contracts? Why does a central state need to do this?  And what of Eminent Domian and Property Taxes?

You don't own your property. You are granted the privilege of using it by the govt who can take it away at any time, for any reason.

Would a private deed enforcer be able to come to you and say "Sorry, we own this now. Get off." or "We need 10% of what we thing the value of the property is every year, or we take your property."?

The state isn't an enforcer of contracts, it's a pirate that lets it's victims trade use claims to it's booty.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Are you?


My rights are supported by the Constitution, yes. 

My natural rights would not be supported under anarchism because there wouldn't be an scripts or laws to support my rights. 

I see what you are trying to do, but that is a whole different discussion.

----------


## No Free Beer

> And why couldn't I hire a private enforcer of those contracts? Why does a central state need to do this?  And what of Eminent Domian and Property Taxes?
> 
> You don't own your property. You are granted the privilege of using it by the govt who can take it away at any time, for any reason.
> 
> Would a private deed enforcer be able to come to you and say "Sorry, we own this now. Get off." or "We need 10% of what we thing the value of the property is every year, or we take your property."?
> 
> The state isn't an enforcer of contracts, it's a pirate that lets it's victims trade use claims to it's booty.


With force, yes.

So you are back at square one.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, you can't.


The weapons that the Afghans have?  I don't need a foreign government to supply me with AK-47's.  RPG's for that matter, either, if it weren't for the FFL restrictions.

How much do anti aircraft missiles go for?  I may have to pool some funds for that one, but no, we have the means to supply ourselves with our own arms, thank you very much.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Haha.

This country would turn to $#@! if we abolished the federal government and a foreign nation invaded. Think Afghanistan.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Haha.
> 
> This country would turn to $#@! if we abolished the federal government and a foreign nation invaded. Think Afghanistan.


How can you say that you statist! (troll face)

----------


## TheTexan

> please supply me with examples/proof...

----------


## mczerone

> My rights are supported by the Constitution, yes. 
> 
> My natural rights would not be supported under anarchism because there wouldn't be an scripts or laws to support my rights. 
> 
> I see what you are trying to do, but that is a whole different discussion.


It's not a different discussion.  The Constitution has not worked to restrain the govt from violating the rights of the people. The state works with impunity in its endless foreign and domestic wars, it wastes resources on pet projects, and it destroys any notion of "rights" via personal behavior prohibitions, eminent domain, and taxation.

Your "natural rights" wouldn't be supported _for free_ in a stateless society. But they aren't supported for free now. You have to pay exorbitant amounts for sub-par service, to enforce "rights" that you don't necessarily agree with.

But your rights would be supported in a responsive manner by voluntarily funded, efficient institutions that care about the well being of their subscribers. You would get the best price for the best service, or you could switch providers.

Sounds better than enormous prices for the crappiest service imaginable and a prohibition of switching providers!

----------


## No Free Beer

> 


Ron Paul is quite possibly minarchist. He is not an anarchist. 

In this video, a lot of the texts that were posted (from his books) are taken way out of context. And I do not have the time to go down the line and explaining all of his meanings. But, to show you that I am genuine, I will use one - Force: All he was saying there was that an initiation of force on anyone, whether it be by an individual or the state, is considered a violation of someone else's property and rights. To put it differently, whether your neighbor comes over and hits you, or the government abused the 4th amendment, it is that initiation of force that infringes on your rights. This is something completely different than the protection of contracts and rights by a Constitution. 

Also, with regards to the national security portion of this video, I could just as easily provide you with a video to that shows Ron explain that one of the roles of the federal government is to protect us. Us as citizens of the United States. 

So again, his views are being taken out of context, something that is not hard to do with anyone and everyone.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Invader A would quickly and easily take over much more than Block A. Claims that the "investment" will always be greater than the return ignores thousands of years of invasions, not to mention any crime of theft on a smaller scale.


Because apparently in your world, time stops.  Here in the real world, time is a continuous line (at least as we practically know it at present, given theoretical physics may be playing with theories otherwise).  Investment doesn't stop at invasion plus one milisecond.  In order to retain the resource on must now become the defensive, further investment must be made.  The fact that these 'invaders' have not held on to their newly acquired 'property' in perpetuity speaks contrary to your claim, and necessitates the ever widening and expanding of the empire for the protection of itself.  Your proposal ends in empire, as it necessarily must.  Is this what you want?  If not, start looking for a better way and stop shoving guns in peoples faces.




> This has been tried before. Ever heard of Minerva? Oops!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation 
> 
> "The Republic of Minerva was set up in 1972 as a libertarian new-country project by Nevada businessman Michael Oliver. Oliver's group conducted dredging operations at the Minerva Reefs, a shoal located in the Pacific Ocean south of Fiji. They succeeded in creating a small artificial island, but their efforts at securing international recognition met with little success, and near-neighbour Tonga sent a military force to the area and annexed it."


A minimalist government for the purposes of 'national defense' and common contract enforcement has been tried before.  Ever heard of hhe United States of America?  Oops!

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





> Please don't try to pin Rick Santorum's idea of "defense" on me.


Then don't preach an ideology which necessitates it's existence.





> As for the other responses I prefer reading your own words, not being referred to a book.


Ah, I see.  So then you are not interested in any actual understanding or knowledge, only in flexing your rhetorical skills and waving your epeen around?

If you asked for the solution to a complex mathematical equation, which I could not myself solve, and I provided you with a source which contained the solution, is that solution invalid simply because I, your humble servant, did not deliver it to you of my own cognition?

Grow up.

----------


## TheTexan

> Ron Paul is quite possibly minarchist. He is not an anarchist.


Debatable.

----------


## No Free Beer

> It's not a different discussion.  The Constitution has not worked to restrain the govt from violating the rights of the people. The state works with impunity in its endless foreign and domestic wars, it wastes resources on pet projects, and it destroys any notion of "rights" via personal behavior prohibitions, eminent domain, and taxation.
> 
> Your "natural rights" wouldn't be supported _for free_ in a stateless society. But they aren't supported for free now. You have to pay exorbitant amounts for sub-par service, to enforce "rights" that you don't necessarily agree with.
> 
> But your rights would be supported in a responsive manner by voluntarily funded, efficient institutions that care about the well being of their subscribers. You would get the best price for the best service, or you could switch providers.
> 
> Sounds better than enormous prices for the crappiest service imaginable and a prohibition of switching providers!


I would not put the full blame on the Constitution, rather on the politicians and the citizens of this country. What did Thomas Jefferson once write, "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

It's because our politicians have abused it and we, as a society, have been to lazy too check up on them (politicians). 

Is the Constitution perfect? No, absolutely not. Nothing is.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> What?  You are absolutely denying ten thousand years of recorded human history if you are claiming that taking over another country provides no pay-off.  There are resources, there is money, there are people to exploit, there is land, etc, etc, etc.  If America decided to carpet bomb all of Kuwait, take it over, and steal all of Kuwait's oil reserves and begin producing, they have benefited.  How would individual people in Kuwait be able to defend against a better prepared and large military that use force
> 
> The answer is that they cant, and that is the proof that anarchism fails as a reasonable goal for society.  You could argue we have anarchy right now.  You have absolute freedom to do what you wish to do, but under anarchy, there is no expectation that you will not receive violent consequences for not doing it.  In anarchy, the majority or the most powerful take power and impose their will on others, and the individuals have no power to stop it other than to convince those in control to be reasonable, or work together and force each other to work against those that wish to do worse harm than your current government does.  Anarchy leads to government.
> 
> What is anarchy's response to a military invasion?  It is either to try and fight them off as individuals(which considering the fact that we don't have any major anarchist areas in the world right now except in relatively remote or unstable areas, proves pretty much doesnt work), let themselves get taken over and exploited, or join together, agree on imposing a justifiable and relatively small amount of violence and force on each other to create a standing army of their own, recognize common borders, and defend their "country."


Thank you for the stirring argument for nihilism.  I myself don't take to the philosophy of nihilism, however I certainly acknowledge that outside of anarchism it remains the only logically consistent alternative.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Debatable.


Not really.
He has never advocated anarchy.

----------


## kuckfeynes

It boggles my mind how people can have such strong convictions against socialized health care, but socialized defense and justice are not only legitimate but necessary. Everything is a product or service. From birth control to anti aircraft missiles to murder trials. Anarchism is the only truly consistent position for anyone who acknowledges the superiority of the market over central planning.

----------


## Domalais

> The weapons that the Afghans have?  I don't need a foreign government to supply me with AK-47's.  RPG's for that matter, either, if it weren't for the FFL restrictions.
> 
> How much do anti aircraft missiles go for?  I may have to pool some funds for that one, but no, we have the means to supply ourselves with our own arms, thank you very much.


You can afford some of the weapons.  You can't afford the intelligence and training.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Debatable.


No, it's fact. 

Proof: He talks about the US Constitution and how we need to follow it. 

If we were to support your opinion about Ron and his views, you would essentially be saying he is a phony and he is disingenuous. Would you not?

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Do you really want to live in a country where you're constantly under attack, whether it's successful or not?


If you want to live under a "State", then you are under attack 100% of the time, and it is successful 100% of the time.




> I think the problem with anarchists is that they take government protection for granted. "Hey, nobody's attacked us for years! Why do we need a military?"


I think the problem with statists, is that they take government violence for granted.  "Hey, it's not me they're oppressing, it's _those people_ over there, and well they deserve it."




> Keep in mind I'm all for limited government. 99.9% of the time I'm arguing for less government.


Keep in mind 99.9% of the time you're arguing for a pink unicorn.

----------


## No Free Beer

> It boggles my mind how people can have such strong convictions against socialized health care, but socialized defense and justice are not only legitimate but necessary. Everything is a product or service. From birth control to anti aircraft missiles to murder trials. Anarchism is the only truly consistent position for anyone who acknowledges the superiority of the market over central planning.


Last time I checked, we have a volunteer military. Our military is also supported by the constitution.

Ya dig?

----------


## TheTexan

> Not really.
> He has never advocated anarchy.


"Anarchy" is a politically unpopular term.  His views, however, are entirely consistent with it.

Government is the initiation of force, which he indisputably recognizes.  He is also indisputably against the initiation of force.  Do the math.

----------


## No Free Beer

> "Anarchy" is a politically unpopular term.  His views, however, are entirely consistent with it.
> 
> Government is the initiation of force, which he indisputably recognizes.  He is also indisputably against the initiation of force.  Do the math.


You ignored my post. If you didn't, you wouldn't have responded this way.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, it's fact. 
> 
> Proof: He talks about the US Constitution and how we need to follow it. 
> 
> If we were to support your opinion about Ron and his views, you would essentially be saying he is a phony and he is disingenuous. Would you not?


I also support following the Constitution.  If you make a piece of law, at least follow it, for $#@!s sake.

Proves nothing.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I also support following the Constitution.  If you make a piece of law, at least follow it, for $#@!s sake.
> 
> Proves nothing.


That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...

Ron Paul is ADVOCATING a return to Constitutional government. 

If he was an anarchist, or whatever less provocative term you prefer, he would ADVOCATE for that instead.

Game. Over.

----------


## TheTexan

> That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...


Are you telling me that I'm not an anarchist, because I think people should follow a law that they agreed to follow?

Interesting.

----------


## w2992

a well armed government is an idividuals worst enemy

----------


## RiseAgainst

> That's pretty much the bottom line isn't it? You can argue all day about theory but in the end the fact that anarchies don't exist settles the argument. Anarchist "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.




The countries of the world live in a state of anarchy between each other.  Am I to understand you favor a world government to get rid of this anarchy?  If not, why not?  If the countries of the world, in your opinion, SHOULD live in a state of anarchy to one another, why not the states of this union?  Why not the counties of the separate states?  Why not the cities?  Why not the blocks?  Why not the houses?  Why not the individuals?

----------


## TheTexan

> That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...
> 
> Ron Paul is ADVOCATING a return to Constitutional government. 
> 
> If he was an anarchist, or whatever less provocative term you prefer, he would ADVOCATE for that instead.
> 
> Game. Over.


Even in the video he said he uses the Constitution as a tool for turning down bills, even when his real motives lie elsewhere.

Sorry, you lost.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...
> 
> Ron Paul is ADVOCATING a return to Constitutional government. 
> 
> If he was an anarchist, or whatever less provocative term you prefer, he would ADVOCATE for that instead.
> 
> Game. Over.


I understand before I even type this that it is a futile effort, you are not what one would classify as a "thinker" NFB.

I am an anarchist.  I advocate for a return to constitutional government *as opposed to* what we currently have.  I am still an anarchist.

You have an incredibly closed mind, and such a simple concept does not fit tightly in the self-designed box you have placed in your mind.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I understand before I even type this that it is a futile effort, you are not what one would classify as a "thinker" NFB.
> 
> I am an anarchist.  I advocate for a return to constitutional government *as opposed to* what we currently have.  I am still an anarchist.
> 
> You have an incredibly closed mind, and such a simple concept does not fit tightly in the self-designed box you have placed in your mind.


That would make you a hypocrite. 

You should be putting your energy into advocating for what you believe in, anarchy.

I have no problem with you believing in what you want. I just think that what you would find is something completely different that what may sound philosophically awesome.

Also, what you are in fact doing is picking what you see as the lesser of two evils. By that standard, you will be voting for either Romney or Obama in the General. 

Enjoy.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Even in the video he said he uses the Constitution as a tool for turning down bills, even when his real motives lie elsewhere.
> 
> Sorry, you lost.


Then, you are saying that Dr. Paul is disingenuous.

----------


## Pericles

> And why couldn't I hire a private enforcer of those contracts? Why does a central state need to do this?  And what of Eminent Domian and Property Taxes?
> 
> You don't own your property. You are granted the privilege of using it by the govt who can take it away at any time, for any reason.
> 
> Would a private deed enforcer be able to come to you and say "Sorry, we own this now. Get off." or "We need 10% of what we thing the value of the property is every year, or we take your property."?
> 
> The state isn't an enforcer of contracts, it's a pirate that lets it's victims trade use claims to it's booty.


One point for consideration is that if the enforcers were any good, they would (A) be well armed, and (B) have no hesitation in using those weapons - otherwise they wouldn't be much good at what they do. At some point the enforcers realize that they don't need to work for the peanuts you pay them, they can just steal your stuff because they can.

----------


## No Free Beer

anyywa, i will check back later. i have some homework to do.

----------


## TheTexan

> Then, you are saying that Dr. Paul is disingenuous.


Ya, I guess, I am, technically.

It's kind of like talking to a child.  You have to talk to them in terms they'd understand, like we're trying to do with you right now.

----------


## Madison320

> It boggles my mind how people can have such strong convictions against socialized health care, but socialized defense and justice are not only legitimate but necessary. Everything is a product or service. From birth control to anti aircraft missiles to murder trials. Anarchism is the only truly consistent position for anyone who acknowledges the superiority of the market over central planning.


So why doesn't it exist? 

Your mistake is failing to recognize the difference between mutually voluntary actions and force.

----------


## Pericles

> The countries of the world live in a state of anarchy between each other.  Am I to understand you favor a world government to get rid of this anarchy?  If not, why not?  If the countries of the world, in your opinion, SHOULD live in a state of anarchy to one another, why not the states of this union?  Why not the counties of the separate states?  Why not the cities?  Why not the blocks?  Why not the houses?  Why not the individuals?



This is probably the best argument that one can make.

The counter is that the anarchistic society has high transaction costs - treaties, various norms that all obey, and the world has a number of conflicts - it is more accurate to say that for the world that war is the normal state, and peace is the exception.

----------


## Madison320

> The countries of the world live in a state of anarchy between each other.  Am I to understand you favor a world government to get rid of this anarchy?  If not, why not?  If the countries of the world, in your opinion, SHOULD live in a state of anarchy to one another, why not the states of this union?  Why not the counties of the separate states?  Why not the cities?  Why not the blocks?  Why not the houses?  Why not the individuals?


No, I don't favor world government because most conflict is local. I'm probably not going to have to resolve a dispute with some guy in Russia, but possibly with my neighbor. 

If anarchies are so great, where are they???

----------


## Madison320

> Government "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.  Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a success.


Yeah, governments have a pretty low batting average, I'll give you that. Beats the hell out of zero though doesn't it?

----------


## Madison320

> It's not a different discussion.  The Constitution has not worked to restrain the govt from violating the rights of the people. The state works with impunity in its endless foreign and domestic wars, it wastes resources on pet projects, and it destroys any notion of "rights" via personal behavior prohibitions, eminent domain, and taxation.
> 
> Your "natural rights" wouldn't be supported _for free_ in a stateless society. But they aren't supported for free now. You have to pay exorbitant amounts for sub-par service, to enforce "rights" that you don't necessarily agree with.
> 
> But your rights would be supported in a responsive manner by voluntarily funded, efficient institutions that care about the well being of their subscribers. You would get the best price for the best service, or you could switch providers.
> 
> Sounds better than enormous prices for the crappiest service imaginable and a prohibition of switching providers!


If all you say is true why are aren't there any successful anarchies in existence?

----------


## Madison320

> Ah, I see.  So then you are not interested in any actual understanding or knowledge, only in flexing your rhetorical skills and waving your epeen around?
> 
> If you asked for the solution to a complex mathematical equation, which I could not myself solve, and I provided you with a source which contained the solution, is that solution invalid simply because I, your humble servant, did not deliver it to you of my own cognition?
> 
> Grow up.


Damn, you're rude. Just tell me where all the successful anarchies are. Yeah, I know governments suck, but I see alot of them that are a hell of a lot better than Somalia.

----------


## otherone

The purpose of the state is to protect the Rights of the individual.  With Anarchy, the Rights of the individual are protected by the individual (not that this is a bad thing).  The problem, however, is that humans are genetically tribal.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Damn, you're rude. Just tell me where all the successful anarchies are. Yeah, I know governments suck, but I see alot of them that are a hell of a lot better than Somalia.


Tell me where the successful minimal governments are.  If the only thing you are interested in is what exists, and what you _can_ do, why are we having this conversation?  The war on drugs exists, deal with it.  NDAA, Patriot, etc. exist, therefore they are right.  

Your line of reasoning is shallow and devoid of any rational pursuit of what is right and just.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> The purpose of the state is to protect the Rights of the individual.  With Anarchy, the Rights of the individual are protected by the individual (not that this is a bad thing).  The problem, however, is that humans are genetically tribal.


There is nothing wrong with tribalism.  Humans are indeed social creatures, anarchism =/= anti-socialism.  Anarchism = anti-rulers.  Anarchism = anti-force.  Anarchism = voluntary interaction.

The only just authority is that which is derived from voluntary, mutual consent.

----------


## otherone

> There is nothing wrong with tribalism.  Humans are indeed social creatures, anarchism =/= anti-socialism.  Anarchism = anti-rulers.  Anarchism = anti-force.  Anarchism = voluntary interaction.


For tribalism to exist, there needs to be those who are not members of the tribe.  And while those of the tribe enjoy 'voluntary interaction', those who compete for resources with the tribe most certainly do not.  You know....like prison gangs.....

----------


## mczerone

> With force, yes.
> 
> So you are back at square one.


We're not at square one. We're at the first point of conflict.

You say one unaccountable agency should have a monopoly on force, subject only to the will of tyrants.

I say that competing agencies should each be free to use justifiable force, subject to market pressures of stable customer bases, competition, and the looming threat that another agency will judge the force to be unjustified.

Force sometimes is rightly used. The State shouldn't be the decision maker.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> One point for consideration is that if the enforcers were any good, they would (A) be well armed, and (B) have no hesitation in using those weapons - otherwise they wouldn't be much good at what they do. *At some point the enforcers realize that they don't need to work for the peanuts you pay them, they can just steal your stuff because they can.*


Sounds like cops to me.

----------


## mczerone

> One point for consideration is that if the enforcers were any good, they would (A) be well armed, and (B) have no hesitation in using those weapons - otherwise they wouldn't be much good at what they do. At some point the enforcers realize that they don't need to work for the peanuts you pay them, they can just steal your stuff because they can.


Yeah, that's what the State does.

But what if you weren't bound to one agency?  What if you could go to Brinks and say "my old agency is trying to take my stuff, will you defend me from Wells Fargo?"

----------


## mczerone

> I would not put the full blame on the Constitution, rather on the politicians and the citizens of this country. What did Thomas Jefferson once write, "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
> 
> It's because our politicians have abused it and we, as a society, have been to lazy too check up on them (politicians). 
> 
> Is the Constitution perfect? No, absolutely not. Nothing is.


So how do you find "good" solutions to the problems of societal management?

Do you lock a given geographical area into a monopoly system so that everyone thrives or dies together with no market signals showing how well the system is working?

Or do you allow people to freely choose, constantly getting feedback from others in their community who have chosen other paths, to see how well their system holds up against different options?

Just because there are no "perfect" systems doesn't mean that we should settle on the status quo instance of imperfection.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> For tribalism to exist, there needs to be those who are not members of the tribe.  And while those of the tribe enjoy 'voluntary interaction', those who compete for resources with the tribe most certainly do not.  You know....like prison gangs.....


I'm confused, are you agaisnt competition?

----------


## mczerone

> That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...
> 
> Ron Paul is ADVOCATING a return to Constitutional government. 
> 
> If he was an anarchist, or whatever less provocative term you prefer, he would ADVOCATE for that instead.
> 
> Game. Over.


Every time he says "We should question the role of government" he is advocating anarchy. Every time he voted as the sole "no" vote in congress, he was advocating anarchy. Everytime he says that wars don't solve problems he is advocating anarchy. Every time he appeals to his religion in guiding his morals, he is advocating anarchy.

He's saying, in essence, "you enemies of anarchy have this Constitution that limits your tyranny. I'll work within your system and I'll use any tools provided to me to hold you to that document."

----------


## UMULAS

We are for Competition, hence why we have a market.

Sorry RiseAgainst, but Anarchy = ideology

Ideology =/= Reality

I'm still waiting for you to refute my post...

----------


## PierzStyx

> An armed population is the very best defense. A very well armed population.
> 
> Ask the Russians about attacking Afghanistan..
> 
> or observe the abject failure of the US doing the same stupid thing.
> 
> Now think of a country the size of the US if there was NO arms control and folks could have anything they wanted.
> That is defense.


But the Russians killed many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of Afghans that wouldn't have needed to die if they'd had a more organized front against the Russians.

----------


## No Free Beer

[QUOTE= I'll work within your system and I'll use any tools provided to me to hold you to that document."[/QUOTE]

Precisely..."to hold you to that document."

That document means there is government.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Every time he says "We should question the role of government" he is advocating anarchy. Every time he voted as the sole "no" vote in congress, he was advocating anarchy. Everytime he says that wars don't solve problems he is advocating anarchy. Every time he appeals to his religion in guiding his morals, he is advocating anarchy.
> 
> He's saying, in essence, "you enemies of anarchy have this Constitution that limits your tyranny. I'll work within your system and I'll use any tools provided to me to hold you to that document."


Way to 1. Not understand anarchy and 2. Put words in the man's mouth. Nothing you said is true.

----------


## mczerone

> If all you say is true why are aren't there any successful anarchies in existence?


The same reason there weren't any democratic republics before the Founders seceded from the throne.

It doesn't mean they wouldn't be successful - there just needed to be a sparking event to shift the paradigm.

If your argument were sound, why aren't we bowing to the Queen?

----------


## mczerone

> Precisely..."to hold you to that document."
> 
> That document means there is government.


Yeah, and if it were the charter for Blackbeard's pirate ship, it would mean that pirates exist. It doesn't mean that I couldn't hold it up to Blackbeard and say "you agreed not to rape and pillage the mainland".

Recognizing that govt exists doesn't mean you aren't advocating for it's abolition.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> We are for Competition, hence why we have a market.


You have no idea what a market is if you think anyone has one.  




> Sorry RiseAgainst, but Anarchy = ideology
> 
> Ideology =/= Reality


Sorry UMULAS, Statism=ideology.  You fail your own test.  Reality is not something that just is, it is the result of what was, and as such can be influenced to be what will be.




> I'm still waiting for you to refute my post...


What, this gem?




> Look, many communists and anarchists read a lot and think a lot, why? So that way they can try to perfect themselves on their ideology. Anarchism is just another ideology that would work if
> 
>    : There would be no enemies
>    : No one would sin
>    : There is infinite resources
>    : Everyone lives happily together
> 
> Just like Anarchism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and 100+ ideologies, they only work * in one's mind.*
> 
> And you saying I don't think is very weak since I did think about the consequences of Anarchy; call me crazy, but I love policeman, fireman, regulated food, highways, public schools and much more. Though I lean into libertarianism, I still believe that we should have a state.




You believe in statism, an ideology.  And then you tell me ideologies do not work?  Cognitive dissonance, they name is UMULAS.

You haven't thought through anything, you're reactionary and emotional.  You throw out the same boring, tired, weak minded straw men that have been put to bed by thousands of years of actual thought by some of the greatest minds on earth.  But I know, reading is so difficult, and it might actually require you to open your mind and expose your cognitive dissonance to painful air.

----------


## mczerone

> Way to 1. Not understand anarchy and 2. Put words in the man's mouth. Nothing you said is true.


1. How don't I understand anarchy?  What am I missing?

2. What exactly is Ron advocating when he calls on members of congress to put their own money up to honor Rosa Parks with a medal instead of using the state to issue it?  What exactly is he advocating when he says that the needy and the philanthropists should use community organizations and churches instead of state welfare systems? I admit that I'm inferring his true motives from his actions, but my conclusions are entirely supported by the evidence.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But the Russians killed many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of Afghans that wouldn't have needed to die if they'd had a more organized front against the Russians.


 But the Afghans had pretty primitive weapons.  (Mostly AK's and mortars, IIRC)  As Pete pointed out, we have quite ready access to far more (and far better) weaponry.

----------


## Noble Savage

The problem is that humans were created as nomadic hunter gatherers not sedated mass consumers.

----------


## onlyrp

> And why couldn't I hire a private enforcer of those contracts?


You definitely can. So it'll boil down to who has more money or better guns, wouldn't it?

----------


## TheTexan

Any government is only a representation of its people.  Because most people by nature like to control others, most governments such as ours are going to be tyrannies.  It used to be that those who value liberty and freedom could set sail for distant lands to separate themselves from these people, and this works until tyranny lovers invariably move there and turn it to $#@!.

Now there's nowhere to go.  Everywhere is a tyranny.  This is why you don't see any anarchies today.

We need to stake out some land somewhere and raise the flag of Liberty, masters be damned.

----------


## mczerone

> The problem is that humans were created as nomadic hunter gatherers not sedated mass consumers.


Elaborate?

With our new communication technologies there is less need for war.  We don't take our tribe leader's word for things when he says that the other tribes are non-human savages.

We can talk to anyone, trade with anyone, and see that the Warpigs are the only savages.  People the world around just want to peacefully make their livings. And we can do that as sedated mass consumers or nomads as long as we recognize that each person is a person.

----------


## mczerone

> You definitely can. So it'll boil down to who has more money or better guns, wouldn't it?


Not really. There might be one "big" defender/enforcer, but if it started being tyrannical, all of the rest could cooperate to resist the aggression. 

And if you were really scared of this happening, maybe you'd invest in two or three enforcers to make sure that there was always some parity.

But even in the worst case scenario, you'd be left with nothing worse than today.

----------


## Madison320

> Tell me where the successful minimal governments are.  If the only thing you are interested in is what exists, and what you _can_ do, why are we having this conversation?  The war on drugs exists, deal with it.  NDAA, Patriot, etc. exist, therefore they are right.  
> 
> Your line of reasoning is shallow and devoid of any rational pursuit of what is right and just.


Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, the US for a couple hundred years.

But I asked you first. Your turn.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, the US for the couple hundred years.
> 
> But I asked you first. Your turn.


There goes your cognitive dissonance again.  The US _had_ a minimalist government, but an all powerful tyranical state took it over.  By _your_ very reasoning, this proves once and for all that minimalist government is unfit to exist.  

Next topic please?

----------


## Madison320

> There goes your cognitive dissonance again.  The US _had_ a minimalist government, but an all powerful tyranical state took it over.  By _your_ very reasoning, this proves once and for all that minimalist government is unfit to exist.  
> 
> Next topic please?


Why can't you answer the question?

----------


## Madison320

I'm going to out on a limb and say that almost everyone on this website has major issues with big government. The point is that the alternative of anarchism is worse than even a moderately sized government. The anarchists remind me of people that complain about using oil for energy. Yeah, oil sucks, it's dirty, it's limited in supply but it's still way better than a windmill. 

So again I ask, name a successful anarchy. Somalia? Sudan?

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Show me a society free of rape, murder, and theft. Just because they don't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

----------


## crh88

> I'm going to out on a limb and say that almost everyone on this website has major issues with big government. The point is that the alternative of anarchism is worse than even a moderately sized government. The anarchists remind me of people that complain about using oil for energy. Yeah, oil sucks, it's dirty, it's limited in supply but it's still way better than a windmill. 
> 
> So again I ask, name a successful anarchy. Somalia? Sudan?


I don't feel like getting involved with much of this discussion, but it is very entertaining. However, I wanted to make one quick point:

I think your idea of anarchism is a bit antiquated and closed-minded. Anarchists here are advocating for anarchy in an advanced society, not a return to primitive conditions (the way you think of anarchy). It doesn't exist anywhere because no one has tried it yet, not in the way that the anarchists here are advocating for it. That point was made earlier, but I'm not sure that you understood it. The oil/windmill example you use is a great comparison. No one wants to go back to windmills, but _wind turbines_ are a completely different matter. Extremely similar in nature, but more much advanced and effective. Try to think of modern anarchist theory that way. The world isn't the same place it was 500 years ago, or even 50 years ago.

----------


## otherone

> I'm confused, are you agaisnt competition?


Violent competition?  Based on the necessity to join a local 'club' to avoid obliteration?  Why is this desirable?

----------


## Wesker1982

*Historical Examples*

Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston
The Mild, Mild West by John Tierney
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill
Ireland's Success with the Free Market and Anarchism from _For a New Liberty_, I think.
Property Rights In Celtic Irish Law by Joseph R. Peden
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 by Murray Rothbard 
The Jurisprudence Of Polycentric Law by Tom W. Bell (includes Historical examples of polycentric legal systems) 
Law _Prior_ to the State (Polycentric Law) by Tom W. Bell 
Customary Legal Systems with Voluntary Enforcement & The Rise of Authoritarian Law by Bruce L. Benson (from The Enterprise of Law) 
Voluntaryism and Protective Agencies in Historical Perspective by Carl Watner 
The English Experience With Private Protection by Roderick T. Long




Anarchy in Somalia by Bob P. Murphy
Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? by Benjamin Powell
Somali Anarchy Is More Orderly than Somali Government by Benjamin Powell

----------


## otherone

> The world isn't the same place it was 500 years ago, or even 50 years ago.




I'm sorry...what were you saying?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Violent competition?  Based on the necessity to join a local 'club' to avoid obliteration?  Why is this desirable?









*But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?*

----------


## otherone

You realize that "warlords" are nothing without minions?

----------


## crh88

> I'm sorry...what were you saying?


You're right, the world is exactly the same as it was 500 years ago. I have no idea how we're even communicating right now. Must be black magic! I better go get back to fields before my lord has me flogged again!

I'm really not sure what the point of your comment was. Nasty pictures are fun?

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Why can't you answer the question?


Can't answer your red herring, which you yourself can't answer in defense of limited government?  You're not interested in discussion or expanding your understanding, you have your pre-conceived notion and you're doing your best to try and steer the conversation in a way which validates the result you want.

When you are interested in seeking a rational course for human existence, _whatever_ form that may take, then please let me know.

----------


## otherone

> You're right, the world is exactly the same as it was 500 years ago. I have no idea how we're even communicating right now.


Do you honestly believe technology changes human nature?  What is the difference between 3rd century genocide and 20th century genocide? Efficiency?  Black Magic?

----------


## RiseAgainst

> You realize that "warlords" "tyrants" are nothing without minions serfs?


Agreed.

As typical of statists, in your haste to 'destroy' anarchy at all costs you do far more damage to your own position as a statist.  The vast majority of every statist argument that has ever been brought up on this forum is far more an argument *for* nihilism than it is *against* anarchy or *for* statism.

----------


## otherone

> As typical of statists, in your haste to 'destroy' anarchy at all costs you do far more damage to your own position as a statist.


All costs?  Really?  The purpose of government is to protect the Rights of the individual.  Has it worked?  Not really.  How can anarchy protect my Rights? Sell me.  I have no allegiance to any system.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> All costs?  Really?  The purpose of government is to protect the Rights of the individual.  Has it worked?  Not really.  How can anarchy protect my Rights? Sell me.  I have no allegiance to any system.


No 'system' can protect your rights.  You, or those you voluntarily cooperate/contract with, must defend them.  The difference between anarchy and statism is that anarchy does not VIOLATE your natural rights, while statism does.  That which violates your rights CANNOT protect your rights.

Freedom is NOT simple, it is NOT easy, it is NOT 'safe'.  However, it is far preferable to the alternative.

----------


## otherone

> The difference between anarchy and statism is that anarchy does not VIOLATE your natural rights, while statism does.


So anarchy is immune from the corrupting influence of human nature?

----------


## otherone

LOL...."doomsday preppers" is on Natty G right now...scary folk.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

I have no problem with paying taxes as long as it goes to having my fundamental rights protected.

I have no desire to fend off strays and attackers 24/7 in an anarchist system.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> So anarchy is immune from the corrupting influence of human nature?


I must have missed where I said that, or maybe I just didn't say it.

Look, NO ONE is claiming anarchy is a perfect utopia where we all hold hands and sing about buying each other a coke.  The simple fact is that if you believe in an individuals right to self ownership, which is the very basis for all natural rights, then any system which is based on force by it's very nature violates that right.  The only thing that is compatible with self ownership and natural rights is voluntary interaction based on the non agression principle.

----------


## TheTexan

> I have no problem with paying taxes as long as it goes to having my fundamental rights protected.
> 
> I have no desire to fend off strays and attackers 24/7 in an anarchist system.


Minarchism really isn't that much different from anarchism.  The only difference is, in a minarchism you're born into a contract, and with anarchism, you're not.  These things you want to pay taxes for, you can still do that in a voluntary society.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> I have no problem with paying taxes


Good for you.  You are free to do so of your own accord, however do not presume this gives you the right to stick a gun in someone elses face and force them to pay into your scheme as well.




> as long as it goes to having my fundamental rights protected.


Again, you are free to voluntarily do whatever you want, but this is a load of bull.  That which by the very basis of it's existence violates your rights CANNOT protect your rights.




> I have no desire to fend off strays and attackers 24/7 in an anarchist system.


And I have no desire to have force initiated on me by a government, nor have it initiate force on others 'on my behalf' in a statist system.  I am willing to allow you to live in your system without forcing you to partake in mine.  Are you willing to offer me the same in return?

----------


## otherone

What 'force'? Cops? I don't agree to that. Victimless crime? I don't agree to that.  Income tax? I don't agree to that.  The purpose of government is to protect my Rights. Is this possible? I believe so...just as you believe a stateless society can remain so.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Good for you.  You are free to do so of your own accord, however do not presume this gives you the right to stick a gun in someone elses face and force them to pay into your scheme as well.
> 
> 
> Again, you are free to voluntarily do whatever you want, but this is a load of bull.  That which by the very basis of it's existence violates your rights CANNOT protect your rights.
> 
> 
> And I have no desire to have force initiated on me by a government, nor have it initiate force on others 'on my behalf' in a statist system.  I am willing to allow you to live in your system without forcing you to partake in mine.  Are you willing to offer me the same in return?


Voluntary government doesn't work. So, when it comes down to it, I am somewhat of a statist.

I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.

Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.

There is no perfect system, minarchism allows me much freedom without chaos.

BUT I will say this: In my ideal society you could own property and secede, but if you left that property you would be bound to the law of society, without your consent.

----------


## TheTexan

> Voluntary government doesn't work. So, when it comes down to it, I am somewhat of a statist.
> 
> I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.
> 
> Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.
> 
> There is no perfect system, minarchism allows me much freedom without chaos.
> 
> BUT I will say this:* In my ideal society you could own property and secede, but if you left that property you would be bound to the law of society, without your consent.*


That's really all we ever ask.  What you just said basically make it a voluntary arrangement.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's really all we ever ask.  What you just said basically make it a voluntary arrangement.


+a bunch

----------


## Wesker1982

> So anarchy is immune from the corrupting influence of human nature?


_The chief difficulty with this criticism is that no libertarianexcept possibly those under Tolstoyan influencehas ever made such an assumption....._

----------


## Cabal

> So, when it comes down to it, I am somewhat of a statist.


There is no somewhat. There is statist or not. You are a statist.




> I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.


By initiating force you've already thrown rights out the window.




> Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.


How would you know what you'd prefer to anarchy? How would you know chaos would emerge from anarchy? What kind of anarchy are we speaking of? The devil is in the details, and you don't seem to offer any--just blanket assertions with no context or basis.




> There is no perfect system


Right, so stop trying to enforce a system at all.

----------


## kuckfeynes

> So why doesn't it exist? 
> 
> Your mistake is failing to recognize the difference between mutually voluntary actions and force.


When I said anarchy, I figure people here know I mean market anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, which allows for plenty of mutual voluntary action. In fact it depends on it.

It doesn't exist because most people are either easily manipulated or generally apathetic. They realize these things only in crisis. Doesn't mean it will always be that way. I'll give you our odds of changing something that seems to be human nature are not great... but I don't believe anyone on this site is here for the great odds.

----------


## TheTexan

> There is no somewhat. There is statist or not. You are a statist.
> 
> 
> 
> By initiating force you've already thrown rights out the window.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know what you'd prefer to anarchy? How would you know chaos would emerge from anarchy? What kind of anarchy are we speaking of? The devil is in the details, and you don't seem to offer any--just blanket assertions with no context or basis.
> ...


Woah, hold your horses there cowboy.  He's on our side.




> In my ideal society you could own property and secede


This actually makes him a voluntaryist, even though he may not be aware of that yet.

----------


## Travlyr

Anarchy is a nomadic philosophy. There is no nation and therefore no national defense.

----------


## Madison320

> *Historical Examples*
> 
> Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston
> The Mild, Mild West by John Tierney
> An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill
> Ireland's Success with the Free Market and Anarchism from _For a New Liberty_, I think.
> Property Rights In Celtic Irish Law by Joseph R. Peden
> Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 by Murray Rothbard 
> The Jurisprudence Of Polycentric Law by Tom W. Bell (includes Historical examples of polycentric legal systems) 
> ...


Thank you for answering that,

The only modern day anarchy that I see listed above is Somalia.

I wouldn't call that a success even in comparison with its neighbors. Something is wrong with your theory.

----------


## Madison320

The good news is that I consider anarchists to be on my side (minarchist). I'm confident that they don't actually believe their own BS. What I mean by that is that anarchists will work together with minarchists to reduce the scope of government, But I'm confident they'd chicken out when it comes to dismantling the court system or police department in their town.

----------


## No Free Beer

You fail to see that there wouldn't be contracts or laws to protect your rights and your property. 

You also fail to see that it would turn into mob rule, very very quickly.

Welcome to democracy.

All this anarchy stuff sounds so good philosophically, but in the real world...it would NEVER work.

For anyone to say that a representative government hasn't worked, please look again. 

Just because people have abused power, doesn't mean that it's the idea of law and government that is the problem, it's the people. 

All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.

----------


## Madison320

> You fail to see that there wouldn't be contracts or laws to protect your rights and your property. 
> 
> 
> All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.




"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." ... Ayn Rand

----------


## Wesker1982

> I wouldn't call that a success even in comparison with its neighbors. Something is wrong with your theory.


I am assuming you didn't actually read it then. 

_The standard statist put-down  "If you Rothbardians like anarchy so much, why don't you move to Somalia?"  misses the point. The Rothbardian doesn't claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss. Rather, the Rothbardian says that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an institution of organized violence and theft will only make things worse._

I suggest actually trying to understand the philosophy before trying to critique it. 




> But I'm confident they'd chicken out when it comes to dismantling the court system or police department in their town.


You must be new around here. If the police and courts are not violently monopolized, it does not follow that they would therefore not be provided. It does not follow that people would not want courts and police at all. 




> You fail to see that there wouldn't be contracts or laws to protect your rights and your property.


In order to make this argument, you would have to demonstrate that absent of violent monopolization, people in society A who are 99% non-violent and peaceful, would all of the sudden desire no means to organize society. 




> You also fail to see that it would turn into mob rule, very very quickly.


Not if the State is gradually abolished through education. If people understand that the State is not necessary for law and order, then they will turn to voluntary alternatives. 




> Just because people have abused power, doesn't mean that it's the idea of law and government that is the problem, it's the people.


Your problem is that you are assuming law and order is the same thing as government. All of us advocate law and order, the important part is that it is not coercively monopolized. 

I will break it down into two groups.

Group 1 wants law and order to be violently monopolized. As in, they want it to be provided by a group of territorial monopolists who acquire their income by physical coercion (taxation) and violently destroy any potential competition in their territory. 

Group 2 desires law and order. They desire police and courts. They do not want it to be *violently monopolized*. 




> All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.


If you are purposefully ignoring all work that specifically details the rationality behind it, I guess I can see how you come to that conclusion.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_and_Market (available for free online)
https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=297

----------


## Wesker1982

Also, I am posting a lot of links to videos and stuff because I have typed all this stuff out before. 

You should check out:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3425413
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3430302
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3431569

----------


## Black Flag

> Ask the Native Americans how it worked out for them.


Yeah, the same way it worked out for the National Socialist too.

Any idiotic argument for or against National Defense fails if one merely points to the failure of a particular form of defense that fails.

Clue up - every darn form of defense has failed at some point.

There does not exist a perfect defense system - so making that requirement to replace another, overly expensive, and funded by theft is dumb.

----------


## Black Flag

> Voluntary government doesn't work.


You're right.
There is no such thing a voluntary non-voluntary entity of human organization.
It is self-contradictory.




> I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.


What fundamental right requires you to use violence on non-violent people?





> Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.


Government is not  order, but disorder - called war.

----------


## Black Flag

No Free Beer



> All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.


No, it is not.

You sit with a mindset that believes if someone has a plan, that plan must be a good enough to solve a problem - hence, you love government because they have a lot of plans for your life.

But because you have only a superficial review, you do not understand that their plans do not work. But that point does not impact you, because you stopped your review at merely the question "Do they have a plan?" - and did not ask "Will the plan even work?"

Anarchist - all of them - did not arrive at their philosophy by emotional rhetoric - unlike how you arrived at your philosophy of the State.

All Anarchists arrived at their philosophy by an act of *Reason* - by applying first principles of Human Rights upon Human Action, Anarchy is the logical and reasoned outcome:

Non-violent voluntary association of People.

It is your Statist viewpoint that actually is irrational - as it is self-contradictory and hypocritical...which is why Anarchists abandoned it.

----------


## Black Flag

> The good news is that I consider anarchists to be on my side (minarchist). I'm confident that they don't actually believe their own BS. What I mean by that is that anarchists will work together with minarchists to reduce the scope of government, But I'm confident they'd chicken out when it comes to dismantling the court system or police department in their town.


Madison

Point 1: Minianarchist = Government Statist and contradiction and hypocrisy.

Your mantra:

"Freedom for me, but not for you"

You want all the philosophy of Anarchy *only for you* (Give me my freedom), but do not want it for your neighbor ("We need laws to control HIM!")

And you are right, hypocrisy and contradiction exists for many people who claim they are anarchists - and often, they abandon their principles when circumstances become difficult.

Hence, they were always lying to themselves in the first place.

----------


## No Free Beer

> No Free Beer
> 
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> You sit with a mindset that believes if someone has a plan, that plan must be a good enough to solve a problem - hence, you love government because they have a lot of plans for your life.
> 
> But because you have only a superficial review, you do not understand that their plans do not work. But that point does not impact you, because you stopped your review at merely the question "Do they have a plan?" - and did not ask "Will the plan even work?"
> 
> ...


Clearly, by my presence on this site, I love government.

I love how the word "statist" is thrown around so loosely around here...

----------


## TheTexan

> All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.


How's this for specific.  Add a constitutional amendment that says "Every individual has a right to secede and declare sovereignty on the land that he/she owns"

and with that single amendment, the anarchy would be complete.  That wouldn't be so bad, would it?  Would you support such an amendment?

----------


## otherone

> Clue up - every darn form of defense has failed at some point.


so...might makes right? what's your point?

----------


## Black Flag

> Clearly, by my presence on this site, I love government.
> 
> I love how the word "statist" is thrown around so loosely around here...


You support government.

Adding an adjective in front of it ("Mini" for example) does not change your support, merely the volume of support.

So, the term applies equally to those that want 100% government and those that want 1% - because the difference of principle between the two is ... zero.

Both believe non-violent human problems can be solved by using violence on humans.

Your only debate: which non-violent humans do we plunder or bludgeon.

----------


## Black Flag

> so...might makes right? what's your point?


No, it shows the argument "Good luck with that defense against a determine enemy, therefore, we need government to defend us" is puerile.

----------


## No Free Beer

> How's this for specific.  Add a constitutional amendment that says "Every individual has a right to secede and declare sovereignty on the land that he/she owns"
> 
> and with that single amendment, the anarchy would be complete.  That wouldn't be so bad, would it?  Would you support such an amendment?


That is not anarchy though. You are passing legislation through a form of government in order to achieve anarchy for an individual. You are seeking permission from government for individuals to "get off the grid."

How would I feel? I don't know. If you live within borders, you must respect their laws. Now, if an amendment to the US Constitution stated that you as an individual had that opportunity, I would not stand in your way. 

But, I am just a statist, according to Blackflag, what do I know...?

----------


## No Free Beer

> You support government.
> 
> Adding an adjective in front of it ("Mini" for example) does not change your support, merely the volume of support.
> 
> So, the term applies equally to those that want 100% government and those that want 1% - because the difference of principle between the two is ... zero.
> 
> Both believe non-violent human problems can be solved by using violence on humans.


Once again, another word is used rather loosely around here

"violence"

----------


## TheTexan

> That is not anarchy though. You are passing legislation through a form of government in order to achieve anarchy for an individual. You are seeking permission from government for individuals to "get off the grid."
> 
> How would I feel? I don't know. If you live within borders, you must respect their laws. Now, if an amendment to the US Constitution stated that you as an individual had that opportunity, I would not stand in your way. 
> 
> But, I am just a statist, according to Blackflag, what do I know...?


Oh but it is anarchy.  Government then becomes a voluntary arrangement.  And because I am free as an _individual_ to secede, I am also free to secede as a _community_.  I don't have to "live off the grid."

The right of individual secession is truly at the core of any voluntary society.

Anarchy does not mean "without order" it simply means "without the initiation of force".  You can still have your order of taxes, and courts, and police departments, and so on, in an anarchy.  But once you remove that initiation of force that governments create, it becomes an anarchy.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Oh but it is anarchy.  Government then becomes a voluntary arrangement.  And because I am free as an _individual_ to secede, I am also free to secede as a _community_.  I don't have to "live off the grid."
> 
> The right of individual secession is truly at the core of any voluntary society.


Yes, your end result is anarchy. But the process for you to achieve voluntary arrangements is hardly anarchism. It was through a governmental process.

My point is this. 

I am being called a statist by someone because I believe in a form of government (limited) and you and that person believe in anarchism, which is fine. But, here is what I find so funny...you hate government because you believe it acts through violence. But, you petitioned your government to achieve your end result. If an amendment was passed which benefited you, your petition worked. You influenced the government. Was there "violence" involved? 

Do you see my point?

----------


## TheTexan

> Yes, your end result is anarchy. But the process for you to achieve voluntary arrangements is hardly anarchism. It was through a governmental process.


If petitioning my government gets me my freedom, so be it.  If I were to try to secede as an individual, right now, I'd be shot.  I'm not left with a lot of options here.




> My point is this. 
> 
> I am being called a statist by someone because I believe in a form of government (limited) and you and that person believe in anarchism, which is fine. But, here is what I find so funny...
> Do you see my point?


You can be a statist all you like, so long as you respect my right to secede as an individual.  I have no problems with that, nor do I look any less upon you for wanting the state.




> you hate government because you believe it acts through violence. But, you petitioned your government to achieve your end result. If an amendment was passed which benefited you, your petition worked. You influenced the government. Was there "violence" involved?


Like I said, if I tried it now, I'd be shot.  And the chances of getting that amendment are slim to none.

The right to secede is a natural right that all people have.  If I exercise this right though, I am shot.  So yes, violence is involved.

----------


## No Free Beer

> If petitioning my government gets me my freedom, so be it.  If I were to try to secede as an individual, right now, I'd be shot.  I'm not left with a lot of options here.
> 
> 
> 
> You can be a statist all you like, so long as you respect my right to secede as an individual.  I have no problems with that, nor do I look any less upon you for wanting the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, if I tried it now, I'd be shot.  And the chances of getting that amendment are slim to none.
> ...


You would be shot if you tried to petition your government?

----------


## TheTexan

> You would be shot if you tried to petition your government?


Secession is a natural right, meaning I shouldn't need to petition anyone to exercise it.  As much as you have a right to life, I have a right to secede.

Do you think you should have to petition your government for a right to live?

----------


## otherone

> No, it shows the argument "Good luck with that defense against a determine enemy, therefore, we need government to defend us" is puerile.


Insults aside, how does the fledgeling US defend itself against the British without agreeing to a central organization? How can that organization operate without an agreed-upon authority?  As bxm042 says, _The right of individual secession is truly at the core of any voluntary society._    When one is complicit in governance, then the state is moral.   A society with no means of protection becomes absorbed by one that has.

----------


## Madison320

> You support government.
> 
> Adding an adjective in front of it ("Mini" for example) does not change your support, merely the volume of support.
> 
> So, the term applies equally to those that want 100% government and those that want 1% - because the difference of principle between the two is ... zero.
> 
> Both believe non-violent human problems can be solved by using violence on humans.
> 
> Your only debate: which non-violent humans do we plunder or bludgeon.


Do you believe in natural law? That there is a difference between acts of force and non-force? For example that there is a difference between mutually agreeable trade vs murder?

----------


## Madison320

> How's this for specific.  Add a constitutional amendment that says "Every individual has a right to secede and declare sovereignty on the land that he/she owns"
> 
> and with that single amendment, the anarchy would be complete.  That wouldn't be so bad, would it?  Would you support such an amendment?


Fine as long as you agree that in a dispute with someone outside your property you will submit to the government court that has jurisdiction.

So again I ask if anarchist theory is correct than why aren't there any successful ones?

----------


## green73

(Don't have time to read thread; please forgive if redundant...). The answer is easy: A well-armed citizenry is all that is needed. In fact, the only time liberty has ever arisen is when the people were armed. A force cannot take over and occupy an armed people.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Secession is a natural right, meaning I shouldn't need to petition anyone to exercise it.  As much as you have a right to life, I have a right to secede.
> 
> Do you think you should have to petition your government for a right to live?


I never said anything about you seceding. What I was getting at was, "do you believe that you would be shot if you were to petition your government?"

----------


## TheTexan

> I never said anything about you seceding. What I was getting at was, "do you believe that you would be shot if you were to petition your government?"


I think you missed the point.  But, to answer your question, no, at this time anyway, petitioning the government is usually a fairly safe endeavor.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I think you missed the point.  But, to answer your question, no, at this time anyway, petitioning the government is usually a fairly safe endeavor.


ok......?

----------


## TheTexan

> ok......?


If I understand you correctly, what you're trying to say is that if the government tells me it's illegal for me to tie my shoes, as long as they let me petition them to beg them to let me tie my shoes, that makes it ok?

Just so we're on the same page.

----------


## No Free Beer

> If I understand you correctly, what you're trying to say is that if the government tells me it's illegal for me to tie my shoes, as long as they let me petition them to beg them to let me tie my shoes, that makes it ok?
> 
> Just so we're on the same page.


No. 

What I was saying was that you use the term "violence" rather loosely. You said that if you were to go to the government and try to secede, they would shoot you. 

I responded by asking you if you petitioned your government, would they shoot you?

You said, "no."

My point being that you as an individual have the right to petition your government, in a peaceful manner. No one is going to shoot you for trying to petition your government, dude.

Thus, making your whole argument for anarchy pointless (based off of your definition of violence).

----------


## crh88

The anarchists in this thread have a lot of patience. Just wanted to give you guys props!

----------


## TheTexan

> My point being that you as an individual have the right to petition your government, in a peaceful manner. No one is going to shoot you for trying to petition your government, dude.


By your logic, if I place you in a cage, as long as I let you beg me for freedom, it's not "violence."

----------


## No Free Beer

> By your logic, if I place you in a cage, as long as I let you beg me for freedom, it's not "violence."


Now you are picking and choosing what text of mine you are replying to. 

But I will still respond to what you have said.

By that logic (which you posted), why would you even petition your government? Why don't you just go full-blown anarchy now? Why even ask for permission, mr big shot?

----------


## TheTexan

> ... why would you even petition your government? Why don't you just go full-blown anarchy now? Why even ask for permission, mr big shot?


Excellent question!!!  See my signature below.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Excellent question!!!  See my signature below.


Don't worry about others, worry about yourself. 

Just do it. 

Your arguments are full of hypocrisy.

----------


## TheTexan

> Don't worry about others, worry about yourself. 
> 
> Just do it. 
> 
> Your arguments are full of hypocrisy.


Working on it

----------


## No Free Beer

> Working on it


Good.

Enjoy.

And I really mean that. I hope it works out for you.

----------


## Black Flag

> That is not anarchy though. You are passing legislation through a form of government in order to achieve anarchy for an individual. You are seeking permission from government for individuals to "get off the grid."


Anarchy is merely the absence of the right to rule over other men - not an absence of law.

Anarchists cannot dispense with the laws of gravity, nor the laws of economics.

We certainly can dispense with the idea that men have a right to rule men over men.






> But, I am just a statist, according to Blackflag, what do I know...?


You do not know what you are.

----------


## Black Flag

> Once again, another word is used rather loosely around here
> 
> "violence"


Children understand the term, but you do not.

Violence is not a loosely defined term - what is loose is your understanding of such terms as you have been subjected to so much 
_Revolution within the Form_ you do not understand words any more.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Revolution_within_the_form

Violence:
physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

----------


## No Free Beer

> Anarchy is merely the absence of the right to rule over other men - not an absence of law.
> 
> Anarchists cannot dispense with the laws of gravity, nor the laws of economics.
> 
> We certainly can dispense with the idea that men have a right to rule men over men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Elaborate...

BTW, I prefer the term minarchist.

Having laws that protect an individuals rights is not statism, buddy.

----------


## Black Flag

> Yes, your end result is anarchy. But the process for you to achieve voluntary arrangements is hardly anarchism. It was through a governmental process.
> 
> My point is this. 
> 
> I am being called a statist by someone because I believe in a form of government (limited)



Correct - but you do not understand what "government" is.

You convolute government to be "organization", thus anything from the boy scouts to a group of wives meeting to discuss tuperware to the US government is "government".

But no one confuses the boy scouts to be equal to the US marines (maybe you do)

No once confuses the local Lions Club to be the US Congress.

Thus, your definition of government is *incomplete*.

Government is the entity that monopolizes the initiation of violence within a defined geographical area.

----------


## Black Flag

> Elaborate...
> 
> BTW, I prefer the term minarchist.
> 
> Having laws that protect an individuals rights is not statism, buddy.


Correct - but that is not what you want - you want to FORCE others to agree to your set of laws regarding violence. 

You may not think you are, but we will see that soon enough

----------


## No Free Beer

> Correct - but that is not what you want - you want to FORCE others to agree to your set of laws regarding violence. 
> 
> You may not think you are, but we will see that soon enough


Go on...

I would like you to explain your ideal society.

How would laws protecting individual rights be "force"?

----------


## kuckfeynes

I wish just one person could tell me how health care and insurance fall under the category of goods and services, but defense and justice do not. Either you accept that everything is a good or service, and apply a market-based philosophy across the board, or admit that your philosophy is inconsistent and based on your own mental construct of how you believe society should be run.

----------


## Madison320

> I wish just one person could tell me how health care and insurance fall under the category of goods and services, but defense and justice do not. Either you accept that everything is a good or service, and apply a market-based philosophy across the board, or admit that your philosophy is inconsistent and based on your own mental construct of how you believe society should be run.


Sure. I don't duck questions like anarchists do. Suppose I buy a car. I voluntarily trade money for the car. No force is involved. Both parties consent. The free market is the best way to handle this. Suppose I steal a car or am accused of stealing a car. Now there's a dispute between two parties that need to be resolved by force or threat of force. Resolving a dispute is fundamentally different from a trade because it requires force (or threat of force). 

Anarchists divide politics into 2 groups. People that want government (statists) and people that dont (anarchists). I think that's wrong. I think you should divide the 2 groups by those that believe in natural law (force vs non force) and people that don't. Minarchists believe there's a difference between force and non-force and that government's only role is to prevent acts of force. Liberals and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't distinguish between force and non-force.

Now let me ask you a question that your fellow anarchists are too scared to answer. If anarchism works so well, why aren't there any good ones in existence?

----------


## Cabal

> Liberals and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't distinguish between force and non-force.

----------


## Sam I am

> The first time I heard the concept of anarcho-capitalism was about 20 years ago. I thought it sounded like a good idea at first. Eventually I decided it had some serious structural flaws and could never work. I've had long debates online with anarchists mainly focusing on resolving disputes. I never brought up national defense, I thought that was too obvious. Anyway I don't want to get into the "court system" side of the debate, been there, done that. I'm curious about the national defense side of the argument. So the questions for you anarchists out there, how would you provide for national defense?
> 
> By the way, I'm a libertarian, just not an anarchist.


They get conquered by another state, and the conquer-ers handle national defense for them.

----------


## Cabal

> They get conquered by another state, and the conquer-ers handle national defense for them.


Translation: Since it is [supposedly] inevitable that some State will want to [for some theoretical, speculated reason] invade the territory of NA (even though there would be no centralized government system in place to conquer by which to seize control of the resource of tax livestock), at the cost of their own resources, and 'take us all over'--an endeavor which, in the past, has proven a failure in the absence of centralized government (reference Great Britain); it is in our best interest to instead submit to rulers of our own choosing, assuming them more benevolent because they are born within a certain geographical location.

Error. Logic fail. Error. Abort, abort, abort.

----------


## Madison320

> Translation: Since it is [supposedly] inevitable that some State will want to [for some theoretical, speculated reason] invade the territory of NA (even though there would be no centralized government system in place to conquer by which to seize control of the resource of tax livestock), at the cost of their own resources, and 'take us all over'--an endeavor which, in the past, has proven a failure in the absence of centralized government (reference Great Britain); it is in our best interest to instead submit to rulers of our own choosing, assuming them more benevolent because they are born within a certain geographical location.
> 
> Error. Logic fail. Error. Abort, abort, abort.


I love this idea that without a state there wont be anything to invade. Did you think the invaders want to take over the government? LOL! They want the stuff! They want to drive your car, swim in your pool, rape your daughter, that sort of thing. 

What difference does it make why countries (or geographic areas) are invaded? It happens. And it's easier if there's no military force. That's all you need to know. That's why there aren't any anarchies which blows your theory out of the water. Which is why anarchists will never answer the question of why there are no successful anarchies.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I love this idea that without a state there wont be anything to invade. *Did you think the invaders want to take over the government? LOL! They want the stuff! They want to drive your car, swim in your pool, rape your daughter, that sort of thing. 
> *
> What difference does it make why countries (or geographic areas) are invaded? It happens. And it's easier if there's no military force. That's all you need to know. That's why there aren't any anarchies which blows your theory out of the water. Which is why anarchists will never answer the question of why there are no successful anarchies.


This is a very superficial view.  If you just take something (say a car), it's gone.  However, using the State apparatus, you can make slaves of masses of people and they will make as many cars for you as you want (or they'll suffer the consequences of your tyranny).  If some foreigners are just interested in "taking stuff", they could easily be beaten back (rationally self-interested property owners would demand the means for defense).  "Stuff" is temporal.  Human livestock, however, can exploited for many generations (just about indefinitely).

This is why it is aptly said that "The State is a criminal gang writ large".  This is why no invading State is content to pillage and leave.  They prefer to make conquered territories satellites.  (think of the permanent bases in Afghanistan)

ETA: This uncontrollable nature of the State is why there are no "successful" minarchies (as minarchists define "successful").

----------


## Black Flag

> Go on...
> 
> I would like you to explain your ideal society.
> 
> How would laws protecting individual rights be "force"?


What "Right" are you protecting?

Would you agree the only justified use of violence is to protect yourself from an initiation of violence?

----------


## Travlyr

> What "Right" are you protecting?
> 
> Would you agree the only justified use of violence is to protect yourself from an initiation of violence?


Please explain how laws of the land are violent.

----------


## TheTexan

> Please explain how laws of the land are violent.


I earn a living, the state takes it from me by force.

You may say the Constitution does not allow this, but I say - oh it does, because it is happening, now.

----------


## Travlyr

> I earn a living, the state takes it from me by force.
> 
> You may say the Constitution does not allow this, but I say - oh it does, because it is happening, now.


Who is obeying the Constitution?

----------


## Black Flag

> Please explain how laws of the land are violent.


Do you believe you have a right to attack me because I cross the street in the middle of the road?

----------


## TheTexan

> Who is obeying the Constitution?


We are obeying the Constitution.  They aren't.  The contract is broken, but there is nothing we can do about it.  Without a dissolution clause built into the contract, this will happen, every time.

----------


## Travlyr

> We are obeying the Constitution.  They aren't.  The contract is broken, but there is nothing we can do about it.  Without a dissolution clause built into the contract, this will happen, every time.


Article VI Clause 3

----------


## Travlyr

> Do you believe you have a right to attack me because I cross the street in the middle of the road?


Where in the Constitution is that law?

----------


## TheTexan

> Article VI Clause 3





> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


That's not a dissolution clause.

Without a way to dissolve the contract (i.e., secession), this Oath is entirely unenforceable.  I think the evidence of this should be quite clear by now

----------


## Black Flag

> Which is why anarchists will never answer the question of why there are no successful anarchies.


There are no successful States either.

That's the problem with Statists - they apply their perverted measure of success to others, but refuse those same measures upon themselves.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's not a dissolution clause.
> 
> Without a way to dissolve the contract (i.e., secession), this Oath is entirely unenforceable.  I think the evidence of this should be quite clear by now


Until 1963 elected officials and appointed judges were bound to their oath with a penal bond.

----------


## Travlyr

> There are no successful States either.
> 
> That's the problem with Statists - they apply their perverted measure of success to others, but refuse those same measures upon themselves.


Even Lysander Spooner KNEW the importance of limited government. Even Lysander Spooner knew that. Why don't you?

----------


## TheTexan

> Until 1963 elected officials and appointed judges were bound to their oath with a penal bond.


You realize that our elected leaders stopped caring about the Constitution long before 1963, right?

----------


## Black Flag

> Who is obeying the Constitution?


"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

By what right do a bunch of strange men so declare upon themselves their just compensation to take my property without my consent?

----------


## Black Flag

> Even Lysander Spooner KNEW the importance of limited government. Even Lysander Spooner knew that. Why don't you?


Because I think for myself and do not let the dead Lysander do that for me.

----------


## Travlyr

> You realize that our elected leaders stopped caring about the Constitution long before 1963, right?


Yes. April 1861. The American government was overthrown.

http://moneyfactory.gov/historytimeline.html

----------


## Black Flag

> Where in the Constitution is that law?


All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

----------


## TheTexan

> Yes. April 1861. The American government was overthrown.
> 
> http://moneyfactory.gov/historytimeline.html


Looks to me like this more supports my argument, than yours.

----------


## Travlyr

> Because I think for myself and do not let the dead Lysander do that for me.


YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF?

Then answer this question.

How does land law not create government?

----------


## Black Flag

> YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF?
> 
> Then answer this question.
> 
> How does land law not create government?


_It does, and that is the point_

It is a bunch of men declaring they have a right to attack non-violent men at their whim, and declare such an attack as legitimate.

----------


## Travlyr

> Looks to me like this more supports my argument, than yours.


Constitutional government is limited by definition. That is what the Magna Carta did, and that is what the Constitution did. When it was overthrown, then it no longer was in force.

----------


## Travlyr

> _It does, and that is the point_
> 
> It is a bunch of men declaring they have a right to attack non-violent men at their whim, and declare such an attack as legitimate.


Land Law.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Even Lysander Spooner KNEW the importance of limited government. Even Lysander Spooner knew that. Why don't you?


He also knew that "social contract theory" is an impossibility. (see "No Treason")

----------


## TheTexan

> Constitutional government is limited by definition. That is what the Magna Carta did, and that is what the Constitution did. When it was overthrown, then it no longer was in force.


And how was it overthrown, my good sir?

----------


## Travlyr

> And how was it overthrown, my good sir?


Greenbacks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Constitutional government is limited by definition.* That is what the Magna Carta did, and that is what the Constitution did. When it was overthrown, then it no longer was in force.


On paper, absolutely.  In practice, not so much.

----------


## Travlyr

> And how was it overthrown, my good sir?


Cooke and Chase.

----------


## TheTexan

> Greenbacks.


Yes, but what was the event you're referring to?

----------


## Travlyr

> On paper, absolutely.  In practice, not so much.


Silly Boy.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.p....-Constitution

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes, but what was the event you're referring to?


Study history. 1861 & 1862. The U.S. Government was overthrown. It was completed in 1913.

Brother Jonathan.

----------


## Travlyr

The enemy of liberty is aggression. Counterfeiters must be aggressive to keep their monopoly. The State is benign.

----------


## TheTexan

> Study history. 1861 & 1862. The U.S. Government was overthrown. It was completed in 1913.
> 
> Brother Jonathan.


So, the war of Northern Aggression was the beginning of the downturn?  I agree.

The South felt the Constitutional contract had been broken.  They seceded.  The North decided they would not let this happen, and went to war.

The Constitution has been trampled on since, because there is no recourse.  Secession was their recourse, but that option has been taken off the table -- by force.

Guarantee the right of secession, and all of this could have been avoided.

----------


## Black Flag

> Land Law.


Explain what you mean by "Land Law"

----------


## otherone

> Guarantee the right of secession, and all of this could have been avoided.


Any government without consent of the governed is immoral.  The question is whether minarchy leads to tyranny, and whether anarchy leads to tyranny. 
Given human nature, I'm inclined to say 'yes' on both accounts.

----------


## Travlyr

> So, the war of Northern Aggression was the beginning of the downturn?  I agree.
> 
> The South felt the Constitutional contract had been broken.  They seceded.  The North decided they would not let this happen, and went to war.
> 
> The Constitution has been trampled on since, because there is no recourse.  Secession was their recourse, but that option has been taken off the table -- by force.
> 
> Guarantee the right of secession, and all of this could have been avoided.


No. The Constitution was overthrown by bankers in 1861. The National Banking Acts of 1863 & 1864. The 14th amendment.


> Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, *shall not be questioned*. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Seriously? The Debts "Shall Not Be Questioned?" The bankers started counterfeiting operations in 1861, paid for the Civil War with paper money (Greenbacks), and were paid back in Gold (President Grant) and the debts "*Shall Not Be Questioned!?!*" It is time to WAKE THE $#@! UP! WAKE UP!

----------


## Travlyr

> Explain what you mean by "Land Law"


I chose to drive 4 stakes into the ground. I claim to "own" the land enclosed by the 4 stakes. You challenge my right to own that land? Land Law.

----------


## TheTexan

> No. The Constitution was overthrown by bankers in 1861. The National Banking Acts of 1863 & 1864. The 14th amendment.
> Seriously? The Debts "Shall Not Be Questioned?" The bankers started counterfeiting operations in 1861, paid for the Civil War with paper money (Greenbacks), and were paid back in Gold (President Grant) and the debts "*Shall Not Be Questioned!?!*" It is time to WAKE THE $#@! UP! WAKE UP!


Again, that would have not been an issue, if Lincoln hadn't started a war on people peacefully separating from the Union.

After they won the war of Northern Aggression, they could get away with anything they wanted, because they took away the only recourse.  This is just more evidence of that.

----------


## Travlyr

> Again, that would have not been an issue, if Lincoln hadn't started a war on people peacefully separating from the Union.


Lincoln had no idea. He was killed. He didn't even campaign for president. He was chosen, used, and killed.

----------


## Travlyr

Anarchy is a nomadic philosophy.

----------


## TheTexan

> Anarchy is a nomadic philosophy.


Sort of.  In that, once the government you belong to is no longer fit to rule you, you can form a new one.

What's so bad about that?

----------


## Travlyr

> Sort of.  In that, once the government you belong to is no longer fit to rule you, you can form a new one.
> 
> What's so bad about that?


I personally like homeownership. A home provides me with possibilities for a garden, garage, a warm, dry, secure place to be. Anarchy is nomadic. It's okay... but it's not for me.

----------


## TheTexan

Anarchy is basically a system of governance where revolution does not require violence.  No more, no less

----------


## TheTexan

> I personally like homeownership. A home provides me with possibilities for a garden, garage, a warm, dry, secure place to be. Anarchy is nomadic. It's okay... but it's not for me.


You have anarchy all wrong my good sir.  I would go into detail, but alas, I have other matters to attend to.  I'm sure someone else can oblige you.

----------


## Travlyr

> Anarchy is basically a system of governance where revolution does not require violence.  No more, no less


No it is not! Anarchy is "no rulers." Which essentially means "no rules" because "rules without without a ruler" are useless. Just ask any parent.

----------


## Travlyr

> You have anarchy all wrong my good sir.  I would go into detail, but alas, I have other matters to attend to.  I'm sure someone else can oblige you.


Anarchy is stupid.

----------


## otherone

> I personally like homeownership. A home provides me with possibilities for a garden, garage, a warm, dry, secure place to be.


It's where I keep all my stuff.

----------


## TheTexan

> Anarchy is stupid.


No, you're stupid.  Seriously though, I gotta go 

Hopefully you do take some time to look further into the subject, because it seems your disagreement with it stems from a basic lack of understanding of it.

----------


## otherone

> Anarchy is stupid.


Whatcha' drinkin', tonight, buddy?

----------


## Travlyr

> No, you're stupid.  Seriously though, I gotta go 
> 
> Hopefully you do take some time to look further into the subject, because it seems your disagreement with it stems from a basic lack of understanding of it.


No. You do not understand the world in which you live.




> On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
> September 23, 2004
> 
> Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul
> 
> "The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.
> 
> The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.
> 
> ...

----------


## Madison320

> There are no successful States either.
> 
> That's the problem with Statists - they apply their perverted measure of success to others, but refuse those same measures upon themselves.


OK, I'll admit "successful" is subjective. But all you got is Somalia! Ha Ha ha! At least we've got Hong Kong, the US, New Zealand, Singapore to name a few. 

Your theory is wrong!

I forget to mention. You still didn't answer the question (for about the 10th time). Why are there only one or two crappy, short lived, anarchies and why are there so many places with governments that are far superior?

Brawk, buk buk buk, braawwwk!!!

----------


## Travlyr

> Whatcha' drinkin', tonight, buddy?


Anarchy is Utopia. Live it in Heaven. Don't expect it on Earth.

----------


## otherone

> Anarchy is Utopia. Live it in Heaven. Don't expect it on Earth.


Or maybe even...STUtopia.....snap...

----------


## Travlyr

> Or maybe even...STUtopia.....snap...


It aint happinin here on Earth. Sorry.

----------


## otherone

> It aint happinin here on Earth. Sorry.


Why are you apologizing to me?  I'm no hipster anarchist.

----------


## No Free Beer

If all these anarchists had balls, they would secede themselves from the laws of the US Constitution.

But, they are all youknowwhats. 

End of discussion.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why are you apologizing to me?  I'm no hipster anarchist.


Ha... ha.. I love you man. Everyone who understands that anarchy is Utopian is my friend. That was a general statement to all. Utopia is not destiny. Utopia is a dream.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Ha... ha.. I love you man. Everyone who understands that anarchy is Utopian is my friend. That was a general statement to all. Utopia is not destiny. Utopia is a dream.


This. Anarchists are delusional.

----------


## otherone

> Ha... ha.. I love you man. Everyone who understands that anarchy is Utopian is my friend. That was a general statement to all. Utopia is not destiny. Utopia is a dream.


I've never considered anarchy to be realpolitik, but rather a moral stance.  A constitutional republic, *with the consent of the governed*, is the best possible form of government.  But once this is achieved, the same fervor that advocated it's inception needs to actively defend it's preservation.  Apathy is tyranny.

----------


## Travlyr

> I've never considered anarchy to be realpolitik, but rather a moral stance.  A constitutional republic, *with the consent of the governed*, is the best possible form of government.  But once this is achieved, the same fervor that advocated it's inception needs to actively defend it's preservation.  Apathy is tyranny.


Unfortunately, that is the deal. 



> "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.

----------


## kuckfeynes

> Now let me ask you a question that your fellow anarchists are too scared to answer. If anarchism works so well, why aren't there any good ones in existence?


You're a minarchist, right? I can ask you the exact same question.
In fact you can ask this question of anyone whose political ideals do not currently exist in the world.
It is a red herring as many here have pointed out over and over and over again.
If the best form of governance or non-governance already existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edit: Also to answer your question about force, just so I don't get lumped in with your blanket accusation of "anarchists always dodge questions"... Your construct of force vs non-force is a false one. If government is required, force is required. It really is that simple. If I don't pay up for whatever it is the government is trying to do, be it defense, justice, or universal health care, I get thrown in jail. That is force. Again, everything is a product or service. Nothing is free. If you steal a car from me in Ancapland, I'll call up my agent of force and pay him to hunt you down and/or mediate restitution with your agent of force. The most trusted agents will be the ones most supported by the market, and it would be each individuals' responsibility to make sure they are insured appropriately. And if you are in the business of stealing cars, I'll be pretty confident that you are not going to be well-insured against my agency of force.

----------


## Madison320

> You're a minarchist, right? I can ask you the exact same question.
> In fact you can ask this question of anyone whose political ideals do not currently exist in the world.
> It is a red herring as many here have pointed out over and over and over again.
> If the best form of governance or non-governance already existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


That's an awesome non answer! I'm impressed. You should be a politician! Well maybe not, since you're an anarchist.

I've answered this a few times already but I'll do it again because I, unlike anarchists, have no problem answering questions!

Hong Kong, the US, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, how's that? Maybe not perfect but sure beats the hell of Somalia doesn't it?

Maybe if I ask you a different way. I'm honing my question to prevent escape routes. Maybe eventually you guys won't be able to figure out a way to duck it. 

Why are there only one or two crappy, short lived, anarchies and why are there so many places with governments that are far superior?

----------


## onlyrp

> Unfortunately, that is the deal.


are you basically saying, I'll support the government until I can change it to my way?

----------


## kuckfeynes

> That's an awesome non answer! I'm impressed. You should be a politician! Well maybe not, since you're an anarchist.
> 
> I've answered this a few times already but I'll do it again because I, unlike anarchists, have no problem answering questions!
> 
> Hong Kong, the US, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, how's that? Maybe not perfect but sure beats the hell of Somalia doesn't it?
> 
> Maybe if I ask you a different way. I'm honing my question to prevent escape routes. Maybe eventually you guys won't be able to figure out a way to duck it. 
> 
> Why are there only one or two crappy, short lived, anarchies and why are there so many places with governments that are far superior?


First, read edit that I posted while you were again attacking me ad hominem instead of trying to have an honest discussion.

If those governments are your definition of minarchy, you have a very different definition of most minarchists I know.

Somalia, Haiti... Haha, gotta love that old argument. So a state collapses and it's anarchy's fault? Right, makes sense. http://mises.org/daily/5418

The root of your problem is that your definitions (anarchy, force) are ambiguous and mixed up. A collapsed state is not anarcho-capitalism. It is what is popularly referred to as "anarchy," when what people really mean to say is "chaos." The closest anyone has ever come to the ideology we are discussing was right here on this soil.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's an awesome non answer! I'm impressed. You should be a politician! Well maybe not, since you're an anarchist.
> 
> I've answered this a few times already but I'll do it again because I, unlike anarchists, have no problem answering questions!
> 
> Hong Kong, the US, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, how's that? Maybe not perfect but sure beats the hell of Somalia doesn't it?
> 
> Maybe if I ask you a different way. I'm honing my question to prevent escape routes. Maybe eventually you guys won't be able to figure out a way to duck it. 
> 
> Why are there only one or two crappy, short lived, anarchies and why are there so many places *with governments that are far superior?*


Is the_ illusion_ of freedom really "far superior" to places of questionable freedom, such as Somalia?  At least Somalis generally don't delude themselves about their situation.  Tell me about the virtues of your state when you know or are related to is broken by the State to the point of committing self-immolation.

----------


## Black Flag

> Any government without consent of the governed is immoral.


Government is always immoral because not everyone consents.




> The question is whether minarchy leads to tyranny, and whether anarchy leads to tyranny. 
> Given human nature, I'm inclined to say 'yes' on both accounts.


What leads to tyranny is the belief that using violence on non-violent people is a right.

How you possibly can believe that a philosophy that abhors such violence lead to tyranny, while believing that a philosophy that imbeds violence does not - is utterly bizarre.

----------


## Black Flag

> OK, I'll admit "successful" is subjective. But all you got is Somalia! Ha Ha ha! At least we've got Hong Kong, the US, New Zealand, Singapore to name a few.


Hmmm... it is even admitted by the CIA that Somalia is more successful without a government then it ever was with one.

The problem of your argument is that you do not understand it is relative. You point to Somalia, I point to N. Korea ... that's yours too!.. as is Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Pol Pot, Soviet Union, and every tyranny in history.


But we do know that countries that have less government do better than those that have more - the relative example.

As such, your argument fails .. as does your governmental philosophy.




> . Why are there only one or two crappy, short lived, anarchies and why are there so many places with governments that are far superior?


Far superior...doing what? Killing hundreds of millions of people .. yep we agree!

And as far as examples of "anarchist society" they lasted over 350 years - which, by the way, will be longer than this mistake called the United States.

As usual, _your measures are flawed_ - and when your own measures are applied to yourself, they fail horribly.

But because you are ego centric, you cannot see this.

----------


## Black Flag

> No it is not! Anarchy is "no rulers." Which essentially means "no rules" because "rules without without a ruler" are useless. Just ask any parent.


You do not understand at all.

Rulers exist under the belief their world view is the only correct one.

You live under rules without a ruler - called Natural Law.

You push a failed document constantly, yet you do not even understand its roots.

----------


## Black Flag

> Ha... ha.. I love you man. Everyone who understands that anarchy is Utopian is my friend. That was a general statement to all. Utopia is not destiny. Utopia is a dream.


I chuckle when the ignorant bring up Utopia, when they do not even know what Utopia is.

Utopia was created in a story by St. Thomas More - who envisioned a peaceful society where everyone thought the same, dressed the same, learned the same things, believed in the same God, and mindlessly obeyed authority.

He thought that was the primary conditions necessary for human peace.

Sorry, travlyr, you are the one in love with Utopia - not anarchists.

Anarchists arrive at their philosophy by *Reason* - unlike your position, which is based on empty rhetoric.

----------


## No Free Beer

> You do not understand at all.
> 
> Rulers exist under the belief their world view is the only correct one.
> 
> You live under rules without a ruler - called Natural Law.
> 
> You push a failed document constantly, yet you do not even understand its roots.


Mr. Anarchist, then why do you vote for a man who supports this failed document?

If you are such an anarchist, as you state, why don't you put your money where you mouth is?

----------


## TheTexan

> Government is always immoral because not everyone consents.


This isn't necessarily true.  It's mostly a matter of semantics, but the initiation of force isn't a mandatory part of the definition of government.

I subscribe to this definition of anarchy: "[from wikipedia] a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority."

As long as a government allows individuals to secede, there is consent, and this satisfies all the requirements of anarchy.

It just so happens that every government on this planet is currently a violently enforced government, but that doesn't have to be the case.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Mr. Anarchist, then why do you vote for a man who supports this failed document?
> 
> If you are such an anarchist, as you state, why don't you put your money where you mouth is?


Paul's a voluntarist who talks about the Constitution to appeal to people, that's probably why Black Flag is a supporter

----------


## onlyrp

> You do not understand at all.
> 
> Rulers exist under the belief their world view is the only correct one.
> 
> You live under rules without a ruler - called Natural Law.
> 
> You push a failed document constantly, yet you do not even understand its roots.


is that the only law you wish to, or should live under?

----------


## Black Flag

> Mr. Anarchist, then why do you vote for a man who supports this failed document?


I do not vote for any man so to grant him some legitimacy to rule over other people.




> If you are such an anarchist, as you state, why don't you put your money where you mouth is?


I put more than mere money on the line, sir.

That is the nature of freedom.
When one demands his freedom, it is delivered good and hard. 

Most people like the good, but fear the hard parts more, so they abdicate the responsibility for their decisions to someone willing to make those decisions for them.

That way, when things go wrong, they can blame someone else for their troubles. I suppose for many, that soothes them in their deep loss and suffering, believing it was someone else who is responsible for it.

----------


## Black Flag

> is that the only law you wish to, or should live under?


It is, sir, the only law you live under.

Anything is either an illusion or an abstraction created from natural law.

----------


## Black Flag

> Paul's a voluntarist who talks about the Constitution to appeal to people, that's probably why Black Flag is a supporter


Salut, Sgt.

----------


## Black Flag

> This isn't necessarily true.


Sorry, sir, it is always true.

There is this demand to require consent to act, but act anyway regardless of consent.




> It's mostly a matter of semantics, but the initiation of force isn't a mandatory part of the definition of government.


It is the fundamental core component of all government - and as such, mandatory.

Follow:
(1)Without initiation of violence government cannot exist.
(2)If a government does not initiate violence, then alternatives to itself will begin to form within the same geography such government already exists.
(3)The rise of alternatives can be wholly peaceful - and their existence contradicts the application and creation of fiat law by the former government.
(4)As more and more alternatives rise, the original government becomes less and less potent and important.
(5)The only way such a government can maintain its existence is to suppress competition to itself.
(6)It must initiate violence to prevent competition.




> I subscribe to this definition of anarchy: "[from wikipedia] a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority."


Fair enough, but that is not what anarchy means.
The other "archy" corrupted the definition because they do indeed fear it.

Archy is Greek meaning "right to rule"

So "mon-archy" is right of one to rule.
Theo-archy is right of God to rule.
Olig-archy is right of elite to rule.
Demo-archy is right of the mob to rule, etc.

"An" means "No"

An-archy means "no right to rule".

The other archy battle each other so to seize the right to rule - but they universally ally themselves against the one that refuses them all. 




> It just so happens that every government on this planet is currently a violently enforced government, but that doesn't have to be the case.


It is the only one that can exist - since it cannot maintain itself against competition without it.

If you are familiar with Dr. Hans Hoppe, he has many essays presenting this argument very powerfully.

----------


## TheTexan

> Follow:
> (1)Without initiation of violence government cannot exist.


I hate very much to put the rest of your perfectly good post to waste, but this presents a circular reasoning problem.  If you presume that without violence government cannot exist, you will of course come to the conclusion that government is always immoral.

I reject that government cannot exist without force, at least based on the argument you presented here.  If you say that government can't exist without force _in practice_ as opposed to _in theory_, you may be able to make an argument on that premise.

----------


## Black Flag

> I hate very much to put the rest of your perfectly good post to waste, but this presents a circular reasoning problem.  If you presume that without violence government cannot exist, you will of course come to the conclusion that government is always immoral.
> 
> I reject that government cannot exist without force, at least based on the argument you presented here.  If you say that government can't exist without force _in practice_ as opposed to _in theory_, you may be able to make an argument on that premise.


I have already posted logic - government cannot exist in the face of competition - the logic dissolution ends with the individual, and claiming a "government of one" is redundant and rather idiotic - therefore government must suppress competition to itself, which requires violence.

----------


## TheTexan

> I have already posted logic - government cannot exist in the face of competition - the logic dissolution ends with the individual, and claiming a "government of one" is redundant and rather idiotic - therefore government must suppress competition to itself, which requires violence.


I am to understand that you are in favor of anarchy, correct?  Pretty sure, but just checking, before I proceed

----------


## Black Flag

> I reject that government cannot exist without force, at least based on the argument you presented here.  If you say that government can't exist without force _in practice_ as opposed to _in theory_, you may be able to make an argument on that premise.


Sir, _theory_ must be tested to reality, not some bizarre illusion made up in fantasy land.

Your theory FAILS in its application - no government can exist without violently enforcing itself and its edicts upon non-violent people. 

Sorry that fact got in the way of your theory.

----------


## TheTexan

> Sir, _theory_ must be tested to reality, not some bizarre illusion made up in fantasy land.
> 
> Your theory FAILS in its application - no government can exist without violently enforcing itself and its edicts upon non-violent people. 
> 
> Sorry that fact got in the way of your theory.


So you are an anarchist, then?

----------


## Black Flag

> I am to understand that you are in favor of anarchy, correct?  Pretty sure, but just checking, before I proceed


I do not measure my philosophy or argument based on a label that is already fused with so much confusion about its meaning.

I am in favor of freedom and the application of the natural laws of human rights.

----------


## TheTexan

> I do not measure my philosophy or argument based on a label that is already fused with so much confusion about its meaning.
> 
> I am in favor of freedom and the application of the natural laws of human rights.


As am I.

However, the arguments you have presented so far, actually advocate against these natural rights.  While you think you're advocating against this egregiously and heinously unacceptable word 'government' you're actually advocating against anarchy.

This is because a government which allows you to opt out, is a voluntary arrangement, and harms no natural rights, which you initially accepted.  However, you said this does not work, because a government that allows competition, will be taken over by one that does not.

There is no logical separation between a voluntary arangement of hiring services such as defense, courts, etc, separately, rather than purchasing them together as a package and calling it 'government'.  This 'government' word is just that: a word.

So by saying that the voluntary arrangement of a voluntary government is destined to fail, you're saying anarchism is destined to fail.  I reject that completely.

I recognize that a voluntary government itself may fail, and be replaced by _another_ voluntary government, but I see no reason to believe that it must be replaced by a government of non-voluntary nature.  To do so is to reject anarchism itself.

----------


## onlyrp

> Sorry, travlyr, you are the one in love with Utopia - not anarchists.
> 
> Anarchists arrive at their philosophy by *Reason* - unlike your position, which is based on empty rhetoric.

----------


## onlyrp

> It is, sir, the only law you live under.
> 
> Anything is either an illusion or an abstraction created from natural law.


Ok, so "thou shalt not kill" is that natural law, abstraction created? Or illusion?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Nice to see a few new advocates of statelessness here in the philosophy subforum.  Welcome!  

A few tips  first, discussing topics with Travlyr is utterly pointless.  He is a troll who believes it is his job to round up the anarchists.  It is documented here somewhere dont have time to go looking for it at the moment.  Just for what its worth.  Feel free to engage him if you wish, but be forewarned: he is a dishonest interlocutor.  

Im not opposed to government; I _govern_ myself every day.  I allow my wife to _govern_ some of my behaviors, and I am better for it.  I am, however, opposed to the state  that entity in society which claims the right to impose its rules, etc., within a certain geographic region by coercive and if necessary physical force.  This is because I recognize that I am a distinct, sovereign human being.  I know that I am because no other human being is capable of possessing my mind, and my heart  this is what Orwell illustrated in _1984_.  One individual can coercively or physically force another individual to say or do some thing; but he cannot force you to think or feel some thing.  Since this is so, it is logically paradoxical to attempt to do so to other individuals, because I tacitly allow that it should be done to me, which in both cases violates the objective, observable fact of our distinct, sovereign humanity.  Thus the only logically consistent and  in my opinion, morally  legitimate associations with other individuals are voluntary ones.  All things follow from that, then.  If an individual has a right to his own life, then he has a right to the product of his life, or his property.  

All of society is organized upon some sort of fundamental, foundational philosophy with regard to how human beings treat each other.  A society which generally accepts that the state is a legitimate entity has adopted a foundational philosophy which accepts inherent violence and conflict, for the reasons stated above.  It should be the goal, then, of all moral and logically consistent people to advocate on behalf of the elimination of the state from society.  Just as today, society has generally accepted the state, it is entirely possible that someday, society may generally accept that it is moral and logically consistent to interact with other human beings on a voluntary basis.

Relatively stateless societies have existed in human history, including the example Rothbard cites in his brilliant work, _For a New Liberty_, (which ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES STATELESSNESS SHOULD READ to have all of their questions at least addressed) Medieval Ireland.  Other examples of stateless societies have been cited in this very subforum, as well.  

I think there are certain persuasive arguments made a _utilitarian_* basis on behalf of the state; yet it seems to me that the _utopians_ are those who assume that a society which allows for some group of humans to have rule over the rest of humans is somehow a preferable arrangement, vis-à-vis the initiation of violence.  

Also, St. Thomas More as a 16th century humanist who advocated for the enlightened authority of kings and execution for people who did not accept the intercession of the Church in their relationship with God, and whose head was chopped off once his utility* to the state had run its course.  Hes certainly no one to cite in regards to anarchists.

----------


## otherone

> 


lol.
The terms 'theory', 'reason', 'practice' and 'philosophy' are used fast and loose here.

----------


## Black Flag

> As am I.
> 
> However, the arguments you have presented so far, actually advocate against these natural rights.


No they do not - and as you offer no example otherwise, your statement is without merit.




> This is because a government which allows you to opt out, is a voluntary arrangement, and harms no natural rights, which you initially accepted.


Again, you are operating within a flawed and/or incomplete definition of government. You hold that it exists merely by agreement - when, if fact, no government ever in human history has existed within your definition.

Thus, you argue from fantasy as if it was reality.





> However, you said this does not work, because a government that allows competition, will be taken over by one that does not.


I did not say this, please read more carefully.

I said nothing about it being taken over.

I said it evaporates in the face of competition, as people organize and reorganize themselves freely - with the logic end being that most everyone ends up governing themselves.

If there is AN impediment against violence (called human rights) - why would normal people submit to being ruled by another?
Ed: upside down negation fixed.




> There is no logical separation between a voluntary arangement of hiring services such as defense, courts, etc, separately, rather than purchasing them together as a package and calling it 'government'.  This 'government' word is just that: a word.


That's the problem - you use words as if they are meaningless.

Confucius said, when asked how his Prince could stop the collapse of his nation:
*"First and most important, words must have meaning"*




> So by saying that the voluntary arrangement of a voluntary government is destined to fail, you're saying anarchism is destined to fail.  I reject that completely.


No, I am saying by holding poor and incomplete definition and understanding of 'government', your argument fails.

The problem is your bait-and-switch position, which many before have done.

"Government of the people" is such a grand lie, for it is used to enslave the people - because it is never of the people to the benefit of the people; it is some people parasiting from most of the people.

"Government formed to protect rights" is another grand lie. You cannot protect rights by destroying them.

And yours, voluntary government is a contradiction. Nothing about government is voluntary.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Nice to see a few new advocates of statelessness here in the philosophy subforum.  Welcome!  
> 
> A few tips  first, discussing topics with Travlyr is utterly pointless.  He is a troll who believes it is his job to round up the anarchists.  It is documented here somewhere dont have time to go looking for it at the moment.  Just for what its worth.  Feel free to engage him if you wish, but be forewarned: he is a dishonest interlocutor.  
> 
> Im not opposed to government; I _govern_ myself every day.  I allow my wife to _govern_ some of my behaviors, and I am better for it.  I am, however, opposed to the state  that entity in society which claims the right to impose its rules, etc., within a certain geographic region by coercive and if necessary physical force.  This is because I recognize that I am a distinct, sovereign human being.  I know that I am because no other human being is capable of possessing my mind, and my heart  this is what Orwell illustrated in _1984_.  One individual can coercively or physically force another individual to say or do some thing; but he cannot force you to think or feel some thing.  Since this is so, it is logically paradoxical to attempt to do so to other individuals, because I tacitly allow that it should be done to me, which in both cases violates the objective, observable fact of our distinct, sovereign humanity.  Thus the only logically consistent and  in my opinion, morally  legitimate associations with other individuals are voluntary ones.  All things follow from that, then.  If an individual has a right to his own life, then he has a right to the product of his life, or his property.  
> 
> All of society is organized upon some sort of fundamental, foundational philosophy with regard to how human beings treat each other.  A society which generally accepts that the state is a legitimate entity has adopted a foundational philosophy which accepts inherent violence and conflict, for the reasons stated above.  It should be the goal, then, of all moral and logically consistent people to advocate on behalf of the elimination of the state from society.  Just as today, society has generally accepted the state, it is entirely possible that someday, society may generally accept that it is moral and logically consistent to interact with other human beings on a voluntary basis.
> 
> Relatively stateless societies have existed in human history, including the example Rothbard cites in his brilliant work, _For a New Liberty_, (which ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES STATELESSNESS SHOULD READ to have all of their questions at least addressed) Medieval Ireland.  Other examples of stateless societies have been cited in this very subforum, as well.  
> ...


I find it funny, the "Anarchists" always talk about not using force, but anarchists all over the world disrespect property rights and use force against other individuals.

You think I'm bluffing? Go do some research on what's going on in Greece right now...

Hypocrites. Delusional. Irrational.

----------


## Black Flag

> Ok, so "thou shalt not kill" is that natural law, abstraction created? Or illusion?


It is a *consequence* of a natural law.

The natural law at play in human affairs is also known in different forms as the "Golden Rule".

"What you do to me grants me the right to do to you"

Toddlers in a play ground know this naturally - one hits another, the other hits back.

From this natural law, like all natural law, rises two -opposite- consequences

1. Freedom
 - for me to be free, I have to allow you to be free - the core basis of civilization

2. Might is Right
- I don't care if you try to punch me back, I'm bigger and stronger and I will pummel you into submission - the core basis of government

For civilization to flourish, "thou shalt not kill" and other laws against the initiation of violence come to exist. 

Social order is a successful solution to human problems as it gives a base standard for organization for cooperation. That which destroys social order degrades this basic standard of organization, which leads to smaller and smaller groups and tribalism.

Humans can exist here too - but not nearly as well; we die young - and not as many.

It is either civilization or it is government. The increase influence of one degrades the influence of the other.

----------


## Travlyr

> Nice to see a few new advocates of statelessness here in the philosophy subforum.  Welcome!  
> 
> A few tips  first, discussing topics with Travlyr is utterly pointless.  He is a troll who believes it is his job to round up the anarchists.  It is documented here somewhere dont have time to go looking for it at the moment.  Just for what its worth.  Feel free to engage him if you wish, but be forewarned: he is a dishonest interlocutor.  
> 
> Im not opposed to government; I _govern_ myself every day.  I allow my wife to _govern_ some of my behaviors, and I am better for it.  I am, however, opposed to the state  that entity in society which claims the right to impose its rules, etc., within a certain geographic region by coercive and if necessary physical force.  This is because I recognize that I am a distinct, sovereign human being.  I know that I am because no other human being is capable of possessing my mind, and my heart  this is what Orwell illustrated in _1984_.  One individual can coercively or physically force another individual to say or do some thing; but he cannot force you to think or feel some thing.  Since this is so, it is logically paradoxical to attempt to do so to other individuals, because I tacitly allow that it should be done to me, which in both cases violates the objective, observable fact of our distinct, sovereign humanity.  Thus the only logically consistent and  in my opinion, morally  legitimate associations with other individuals are voluntary ones.  All things follow from that, then.  If an individual has a right to his own life, then he has a right to the product of his life, or his property.  
> 
> All of society is organized upon some sort of fundamental, foundational philosophy with regard to how human beings treat each other.  A society which generally accepts that the state is a legitimate entity has adopted a foundational philosophy which accepts inherent violence and conflict, for the reasons stated above.  It should be the goal, then, of all moral and logically consistent people to advocate on behalf of the elimination of the state from society.  Just as today, society has generally accepted the state, it is entirely possible that someday, society may generally accept that it is moral and logically consistent to interact with other human beings on a voluntary basis.
> 
> Relatively stateless societies have existed in human history, including the example Rothbard cites in his brilliant work, _For a New Liberty_, (which ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES STATELESSNESS SHOULD READ to have all of their questions at least addressed) Medieval Ireland.  Other examples of stateless societies have been cited in this very subforum, as well.  
> ...


A Son of Misunderstanding Liberty is just pissed that he doesn't understand history and can't answer the question: How do land laws not form governments? It is an elementary question. Answer: They do. Statelessness is a nomadic philosophy. Anyone who owns a home, wants to own a home, or acreage should oppose it. The enemy is the Counterfeiter not the State.

----------


## Black Flag

> I’m not opposed to “government”; I _govern_ myself every day.  I allow my wife to _govern_ some of my behaviors, and I am better for it.


"Government" does not just come about by "governing."

Merely because one word is created from a root word does not make both words equal.

Government governs, but so does your wife. No one -utterly no one- confuses the two, however. Your wife is not the government.

Therefore, government has _more components that make it so_ then merely 'governing'.

It also has *a means of governing* which your wife does not use. This is the defining difference that everyone sees and why no one confuses your wife with the President, the boy scouts with Police Dept., nor the local service club with Congress.

By misrepresenting or ignoring the means, you end up with the wrong answer, and the wrong solution.

Otherwise, nice post. 

It's also refreshing to see someone else ENLIGHTENED about Utopia and St. More

----------


## Black Flag

> I find it funny, the "Anarchists" always talk about not using force, but anarchists all over the world disrespect property rights and use force against other individuals.
> 
> You think I'm bluffing? Go do some research on what's going on in Greece right now...
> 
> Hypocrites. Delusional. Irrational.


Because you misuse labels does not make your comment true.

The common tactic: label _the opposite_ and then point to the label's definition, show your mislabel, and claim "See its all a lie".

The truth on who lied --- you and your labeling.

----------


## Black Flag

Double post

----------


## Black Flag

> A Son of Misunderstanding Liberty is just pissed that he doesn't understand history and can't answer the question: How do land laws not form governments? It is an elementary question. Answer: They do. Statelessness is a nomadic philosophy. Anyone who owns a home, wants to own a home, or acreage should oppose it. The enemy is the Counterfeiter not the State.


No, sir.

Because you hold a poor or incomplete understanding of government, you convoluted erroneous cause and effects.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Because you misuse labels does not make your comment true.
> 
> The common tactic: label _the opposite_ and then point to the label's definition, show your mislabel, and claim "See its all a lie".
> 
> The truth on who lied --- you and your labeling.


The people who are destroying property and using force against other individuals in Greece call themselves, "Anarchists." Last time I checked, the term is Greek. 

Now, either your definition of anarchy doesn't exist, or the same thing that happens with government (limited or big) happens with anarchism...it gets co-opted and abused. Thus, nullifying your whole argument. 

So stop dodging its hypocrisy.

----------


## No Free Beer

To help you digest its hypocrisy: 

http://www.vice.com/read/athens-gree...square-day-two

"Explosions started around 2 PM in the middle of the large crowd. Panic spread quickly and in moments that familiar noxious fog was arching over our heads. *The anarchists were throwing explosives*; the police rushed them and in one dramatic flanking move, the communists charged from the front of Parliament to corner the anarchos. Gas flew, people scattered, and in minutes the Red Cross camp in the center of the square was full and panicked."

You can also go on Vice and watch the three part video, capturing everything. Vice also interviews the "Anarchists."

----------


## Travlyr

> No, sir.
> 
> Because you hold a poor or incomplete understanding of government, you convoluted erroneous cause and effects.


How do land laws not create government?

----------


## Black Flag

> The people who are destroying property and using force against other individuals in Greece call themselves, "Anarchists." Last time I checked, the term is Greek.


They are as confused about it as you - so I *Shrug* - you have companionship in your confusion.

I suppose if I slap a label on you calling you "Rose", you would suddenly pop up petals out of your nose, right?

----------


## Black Flag

> How do land laws not create government?


Sorry, no.
You made the statement, you show how it is done. I asked you once already and I am still waiting.

----------


## Travlyr

> Sorry, no.
> You made the statement, you show how it is done. I asked you once already and I am still waiting.


Land laws create governments. Kings call them kingdoms. Dictators call them theirs. Republics call it representative.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I find it funny, the "Anarchists" always talk about not using force, but anarchists all over the world disrespect property rights and use force against other individuals.
> 
> You think I'm bluffing? Go do some research on what's going on in Greece right now...
> 
> Hypocrites. Delusional. Irrational.


What a useful, constructive post.  

Run along now, and let the adults handle the discussion.

----------


## Black Flag

> Land laws create governments. Kings call them kingdoms. Dictators call them theirs. Republics call it representative.


Stop using conclusions as they were  cause/effect arguments.

You are saying "The rock hits the ground" ... I am asking why the rock was thrown in the first place. You keep answering "well, the rock hit the ground".

Explain how "land laws" create "government"

How does a "King" make a "Kingdom"?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> A Son of Misunderstanding Liberty is just pissed that he doesn't understand history and can't answer the question: How do land laws not form governments? It is an elementary question. Answer: They do. Statelessness is a nomadic philosophy. Anyone who owns a home, wants to own a home, or acreage should oppose it. The enemy is the Counterfeiter not the State.


I'm not playing with you, Travlyr.  Your games (misdirection, ignoring definitions, etc.) are well documented for anyone to heed before they engage with you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Sorry, no.
> You made the statement, you show how it is done. I asked you once already and I am still waiting.


Good luck with that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> "Government" does not just come about by "governing."
> 
> Merely because one word is created from a root word does not make both words equal.
> 
> Government governs, but so does your wife. No one -utterly no one- confuses the two, however. Your wife is not the government.
> 
> Therefore, government has _more components that make it so_ then merely 'governing'.
> 
> It also has *a means of governing* which your wife does not use. This is the defining difference that everyone sees and why no one confuses your wife with the President, the boy scouts with Police Dept., nor the local service club with Congress.


You obviously have never met my wife.  

Just kidding - I understand what you're saying.  I think it's often useful for the sake of debate to differentiate between "government" and "the state". 




> By misrepresenting or ignoring the means, you end up with the wrong answer, and the wrong solution.
> 
> Otherwise, nice post. 
> 
> It's also refreshing to see someone else ENLIGHTENED about Utopia and St. More


Cheers!  :thumbs:

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> They are as confused about it as you - so I *Shrug* - you have companionship in your confusion.
> 
> I suppose if I slap a label on you calling you "Rose", you would suddenly pop up petals out of your nose, right?


LOL Exactly.

----------


## Black Flag

> You obviously have never met my wife.  
> 
> Just kidding - I understand what you're saying.  I think it's often useful for the sake of debate to differentiate between "government" and "the state".


I salute the attempt and would have to agree it is probably "easier" to dialogue with others in such a manner since people hold very poor definition of government, but probably understand "the State" better.

I think I will use your tactic in the future, and relieve myself of 10,000 words trying to explain the essence of government to people who probably won't understand anyway.


Cheers!  :thumbs: back at ya!

----------


## No Free Beer

> What a useful, constructive post.  
> 
> Run along now, and let the adults handle the discussion.


rebuttal?

----------


## otherone

> rebuttal?


Actually, I know the Anarchist rebuttal!

_1) You're stupid
2) Read some book for the rebuttal
3) Government is a bunch of evil poopie-heads
4) You're an immature baby
5) Constitutional Republics aren't practical, but some medieval Ireland thing is.
6) Your facts are no match for my insults_

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> rebuttal?


You didn't make a point.  What would I possibly rebut?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

And furthermore, what sort of discussion are you looking for when you call people "hypocritical, delusional", etc.?  

Be honest - you're just interested in antagonizing.

----------


## Madison320

> First, read edit that I posted while you were again attacking me ad hominem instead of trying to have an honest discussion.
> 
> If those governments are your definition of minarchy, you have a very different definition of most minarchists I know.
> 
> Somalia, Haiti... Haha, gotta love that old argument. So a state collapses and it's anarchy's fault? Right, makes sense. http://mises.org/daily/5418
> 
> The root of your problem is that your definitions (anarchy, force) are ambiguous and mixed up. A collapsed state is not anarcho-capitalism. It is what is popularly referred to as "anarchy," when what people really mean to say is "chaos." The closest anyone has ever come to the ideology we are discussing was right here on this soil.


Ok, so according to you, there are no anarcho-capitalist places in existence. But if there were, they'd be awesome! You guys are too deep for me.

I'm sticking with reality. A government with a constitution designed to protect rights is in reality the best way to maximize personal liberty.

----------


## Black Flag

> Ok, so according to you, there are no anarcho-capitalist places in existence. But if there were, they'd be awesome! You guys are too deep for me.
> 
> I'm sticking with reality. A government with a constitution designed to protect rights is in reality the best way to maximize personal liberty.


Yet there is no such thing as a government that protects rights -- they all destroy them.

...you live in a fantasy that prevents you from achieving your goal.

----------


## Wesker1982

I have a few questions for the advocates of limited government (i.e. limited state-socialism).

1. Have you read _For a New Liberty_ by Murray Rothbard? 
2. Have you studied the other in-depth material that has been around for _decades_ that is dedicated to explaining how a Voluntaryist society could function? 
3. If the objections to Voluntaryism were false, and Voluntaryism is possible and was more prosperous and more free than a Constitutional Republic, *would you even want to know*?

I am not asking these in substitution for arguments. For I have typed hundreds of paragraphs responding to common and redundant objections to freedom. The purpose behind these questions is to *expose the frauds*. Now, I do not think that if you still support limited monopolization (i.e. limited government) you are necessarily guilty. There are some people who would answer yes to #3 and NO to #1 and #2, but plan on getting around to it.

But if answered _honestly_, the questions will make clear distinctions between those who want as much liberty _as possible_ vs those who only pay lip service to it. 

I think a lot of the limited state-socialists around here would say YES to #3, but have no intention to say YES to #1 and #2. This, imo, clearly makes you a *fraud*. For just knowing of the fact that such a theory of freedom exists, but indeed refusing to seriously consider it, makes it obvious that you are just another state-socialist. This, of course, does not mean that you have to agree with and be persuaded to the point of conversion. No. What it means is that, knowing that such a theory exists and is very popular among respected figures in the freedom movement such as Thomas E. Woods, Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Robert P. Murphy, Jeffrey Tucker, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Ron Paul, etc. while refusing to give it serious consideration, demonstrates that you do not want as much freedom as possible. You are more concerned with holding onto your preconceived notions indoctrinated into your mind during your youth, rather than finding the truth. 

Again, it does not mean that you have to agree and become convinced. But it does prove that the answer to #3 would have to be a clear *NO*, which makes you clearly anti-liberty. For you could not possibly claim to be pro-liberty unless you advocate as much freedom as you view *possible*. And you can't claim the theory of Voluntaryism is impossible unless you actually understand it.  

I have never met anyone who has said YES to #1 and #2 who did not become a Voluntaryist. If someone like that does exist and is just unconvinced, it is a respectable position. But anyone claiming YES to #3 but refusing to actually seriously consider it, is obviously a *fraud*.

----------


## No Free Beer

> And furthermore, what sort of discussion are you looking for when you call people "hypocritical, delusional", etc.?  
> 
> Be honest - you're just interested in antagonizing.


I gave a specific example of how your ideology is hypocritical. 

The anarchists say that force = government. Yet, the actual individuals that make up anarchism use force to disrespect property rights and other people's Rights.

Example: Greece (right now)

You don't have a rebuttal for that because you are wrong.

My point is this, all forms of governing, or lack thereof, get abused and co-opted by individuals. 

So your whole point in favor of anarchy is nullified. 

But, go on...dodge what I say with some vague/broad put down...

----------


## No Free Beer

> I have a few questions for the advocates of limited government (i.e. limited state-socialism).
> 
> 1. Have you read _For a New Liberty_ by Murray Rothbard? 
> 2. Have you studied the other in-depth material that has been around for _decades_ that is dedicated to explaining how a Voluntaryist society could function? 
> 3. If the objections to Voluntaryism were false, and Voluntaryism is possible and was more prosperous and more free than a Constitutional Republic, *would you even want to know*?
> 
> I am not asking these in substitution for arguments. For I have typed hundreds of paragraphs responding to common and redundant objections to freedom. The purpose behind these questions is to *expose the frauds*. Now, I do not think that if you still support limited monopolization (i.e. limited government) you are necessarily guilty. There are some people who would answer yes to #3 and NO to #1 and #2, but plan on getting around to it.
> 
> But if answered _honestly_, the questions will make clear distinctions between those who want as much liberty _as possible_ vs those who only pay lip service to it. 
> ...


Rothbard isn't a God. He is a man, just like any other. Don't invest everything into one man or woman.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Rothbard isn't a God. He is a man, just like any other. Don't invest everything into one man or woman.


I do not believe he is, and never made the claim. Nice dodge.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I do not believe he is, and never made the claim. Nice dodge.


My point was that you are investing a lot into what one man said.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I gave a specific example of how your ideology is hypocritical. 
> 
> The anarchists say that force = government. Yet, the actual individuals that make up anarchism use force to disrespect property rights and other people's Rights.
> 
> Example: Greece (right now)
> 
> You don't have a rebuttal for that because you are wrong.
> 
> My point is this, all forms of governing, or lack thereof, get abused and co-opted by individuals. 
> ...


I love people who "debate" like this.  "You don't answer because you are wrong."  lol  My whole argument is nullified?  LOL

Busch league.  

Those people in Greece - the ones who are mad because their GOVERNMENT MONEY RAN OUT - may call themselves "anarchists", but by definition they are not: if they want something from government, they want government to exist.  

They may call themselves tomato plants, too.  And I suppose if they did, you would dutifully associate those fruit plants which produce red, tangy, fleshy fruits with them?  :LOL:

Again, give me something to "rebut", and I will.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I do not believe he is, and never made the claim. Nice dodge.


This guy reminds me of Jake Ralston... 

It's because Rothbard makes a comfortably expressed argument for what is a logically consistent philosophical viewpoint that we cite him, not because we think he's a God.  What an absurd statement.

----------


## fisharmor

> Explain how "land laws" create "government"





> I'm not playing with you, Travlyr.  Your games (misdirection, ignoring definitions, etc.) are well documented for anyone to heed before they engage with you.


BF you should heed ASOL's attitude... I myself have carefully gift-wrapped Travlyr's ass before handing it to him on the property issue.
I'm not going to do it again today.
I'll just leave the statists with a synopsis:
Stateless societies have existed in the past.
They respected property right.
They were usually more enlightened than comparable states of their period in that women/minorities could also own property.
We win that argument based on HISTORICAL FACT.

However back on topic, I will repeat my one reservation about anarchism (I am an anarchist myself).
It is this:
History's most successful stateless society was Ireland.
English forces systematically murdered and starved 40% of the population of Ireland in order to cement statism there.
So after you read this, go about your day and count the people you run into.  Every third one is suddenly dead (that's actually less than 40%).
That means you're not only affected: you're probably actively digging graves - by hand - to help get rid of the piles and piles of bodies.
This is Auschwitz sort of $#@! we're talking about here.

In the face of that, they folded.
They withstood Vikings, Normans, several rounds of English... but yeah, when more than a third of the entire island's inhabitants were offed, anarchism died in Ireland.
Their stateless way of life was there well before Patrick showed up.
They had managed to keep that way of life for more than a thousand years.

Obviously, anarchism is bull$#@! and can't handle "national defense"....

----------


## mczerone

> I gave a specific example of how your ideology is hypocritical. 
> 
> The anarchists say that force = government. Yet, the actual individuals that make up anarchism use force to disrespect property rights and other people's Rights.
> 
> Example: Greece (right now)
> 
> You don't have a rebuttal for that because you are wrong.
> 
> My point is this, all forms of governing, or lack thereof, get abused and co-opted by individuals. 
> ...


Since the opposition is dodging you, here's your rebuttal:

First, the anarchism that is being proposed here is not the anarchism in practice there. The anarchism here is defined in a particular way, as "voluntarism". You define anarchism as "people acting irresponsibly." The anti-state people here have repeatedly made the effort to use different terms to define the worldview, but it is the arguers that keep using a confusing word.

Second, even if you claim Greece as an example of "statelessness" - you are 100% wrong in assessing the problems Greece has right now. The riots and economic situation there are cause by the programs of the State! They don't have free-market patrols keeping the peace. They have police-state anti-riot cops that escalate the situation more than diffuse it. They don't have a free-market retirement system that is bound by privately enforced contracts. They have a state-run system that gives the incentive to make big promises and default on them, causing anger and hatred and envy. They don't have a free-market currency system that would prevent wild market distortions and currency collapse. They have a multi-State scheme imposed on them that can be manipulated away on some politician's whim.

Lastly, If you meant that without some powerful state to quell rioters who fashion themselves "anarchists" there would be no way to stop them, you are also wrong. We're saying that you should be able to spend every last dollar you have to get opposition forces to the rioters in place. It's your responsibility to protect your property, and you would be surprised by what could be accomplished by people coming together and voluntarily defending their livelihoods. We're just saying that you can't force us to support your choices, and must let us choose how to defend our property, how to stop rioters, and how much we want to spend doing so in the face of other scarce options.

There, are you sold on "anarchy" now, or will you come up with some other excuse?

----------


## Black Flag

> Obviously, anarchism is bull$#@! and can't handle "national defense"....


Exactly - an argument against anarchism that rests on "it can't defend itself" is an argument of folly.

Defense is merely a deterrent - it is not a guarantee of survival - no matter who you are or what political organizational philosophy you operate with.

To argue that "hey, Nation states can defend themselves" merely need to review the number of failed nation states to see that argument is false.

Thus, can people defend themselves _regardless of political philosophy?_. *Yes*

Does there exist a perfect defense? *No*

----------


## kuckfeynes

> Rothbard isn't a God. He is a man, just like any other. Don't invest everything into one man or woman.


LOL, that's like writing off Newton's laws of physics because you think too many scientists are too obsessed with them.
The fact of the matter is, one man articulated these ideas thoroughly (albeit on the shoulders of giants), and he gets the credit for it.
I'd think by now a Ron Paul supporter would have been on the receiving end of the "cult" accusation enough to know not to make it against other people trying to have an honest discussion.

----------


## Travlyr

Individual secession is achieved by "owning a piece of land" where you can live without anyone coming onto your land without authority ... a friend, a family member, or a sheriff with a duly signed warrant has authority. That comes from respect of natural law and rule of law. Rule of law is required for contractual disputes as is sound money. If you wish to be nomadic ... then statelessness may be your answer. But if you wish to live a free, secure, peaceful & prosperous life while owning your own home, then rule of law and respect for honest sound money exchange is required.

----------


## Noble Savage

man was created to be a nomadic hunter gatherer once he puts down roots his demise is his domestication

----------


## Pericles

> This is a very superficial view.  If you just take something (say a car), it's gone.  However, using the State apparatus, you can make slaves of masses of people and they will make as many cars for you as you want (or they'll suffer the consequences of your tyranny).  If some foreigners are just interested in "taking stuff", they could easily be beaten back (rationally self-interested property owners would demand the means for defense).  "Stuff" is temporal.  Human livestock, however, can exploited for many generations (just about indefinitely).
> 
> This is why it is aptly said that "The State is a criminal gang writ large".  This is why no invading State is content to pillage and leave.  They prefer to make conquered territories satellites.  (think of the permanent bases in Afghanistan)
> 
> ETA: This uncontrollable nature of the State is why there are no "successful" minarchies (as minarchists define "successful").


If I want something, I basically have 3 options (A) buy it (B) make it myself (C) steal it. Most people will do whichever of the 3 is easiest for them.

----------


## Black Flag

> Individual secession is achieved by "owning a piece of land" where you can live without anyone coming onto your land without authority ... a friend, a family member, or a sheriff with a duly signed warrant has authority.


Why do you believe a man with a funny hat and a piece of tin on his shirt with a piece of paper written and signed by some guy in an office has "authority" to come on your property,..... and I don't?




> Rule of law is required for contractual disputes as is sound money.


Why do you believe you need to use violence on non-violent people just because you made a bad deal with a dishonest person?

----------


## kuckfeynes

> Individual secession is achieved by "owning a piece of land" where you can live without anyone coming onto your land without authority ... a friend, a family member, or a sheriff with a duly signed warrant has authority. That comes from respect of natural law and rule of law. Rule of law is required for contractual disputes as is sound money. If you wish to be nomadic ... then statelessness may be your answer. But if you wish to live a free, secure, peaceful & prosperous life while owning your own home, then rule of law and respect for honest sound money exchange is required.


Ancap =/= lawlessness. If it is truly "natural law," the market will provide for the enforcement of it. If you want a sheriff for protection against me, an unruly neighbor, pay for it yourself. Maybe I don't like your sheriff and think he is corrupt, and want to pay for my own protection. Maybe I commit what you perceive to be an act of aggression, and I disagree, and you send your agent of force to get me. He is going to have to mediate with my agent of force. However, it will not be an even-keeled negotiation, someone will have the upper hand, because one will be more supported by the market than the other. Maybe they will need a third party to do so, such as a judge. Whatever agency has more market support will have the upper hand in selecting a judge. Et cetera, et cetera. 

Everything is doable by the market, and it wouldn't be that much different than a government enforcing "natural law," except that agency turnover would be much greater, as no agency would ever be able to become too corrupt without losing the public's trust, and thus their market share.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why do you believe a man with a funny hat and a piece of tin on his shirt with a piece of paper written and signed by some guy in an office has "authority" to come on your property,..... and I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe you need to use violence on non-violent people just because you made a bad deal with a dishonest person?


Do you understand that when I drive boundary stakes into the ground to mark my territory that you do not have the authority to aggress on my land? I plant the garden, I water my cattle, I water my garden, I protect my garden and livestock against aggressors. I do not want you to aggress on me. I can shoot your ass, or I can teach you to not trample on my plants or eat the livestock that I raise. That is hard work. It is better to teach you not to trample on my plants or eat my livestock than shoot your ass. Land law is government.. is agreement that I should teach you to respect my efforts rather than shoot your ass dead.

----------


## Black Flag

> If I want something, I basically have 3 options (A) buy it (B) make it myself (C) steal it. Most people will do whichever of the 3 is easiest for them.


The profits of violence is very high, though risky.

Thus, the best  and safest way to profit from violence is to legitimize it.

----------


## Black Flag

> Land law is government.. is agreement that I should teach you to respect my efforts rather than shoot your ass dead.


Government is not agreement, either.

----------


## Travlyr

> Government is not agreement, either.


Then I have to shoot your ass dead if you trample on my garden or if you steal my beef. And I will because I have children that rely on me to feed them.

----------


## Travlyr

> Government is not agreement, either.


Raise your own garden. Raise your own beef. Don't steal mine.

----------


## onlyrp

> It is a *consequence* of a natural law.
> 
> The natural law at play in human affairs is also known in different forms as the "Golden Rule".


How is that any more a consequence of natural law than oppressive government is?

What does golden rule have to do with natural law? Isn't the golden rule a prescription invented by humans artificially?




> "What you do to me grants me the right to do to you"


So if you're rich you grant me to be rich?




> Toddlers in a play ground know this naturally - one hits another, the other hits back.


I see you're an eye for eye person, and you learn your rules from children. 




> From this natural law, like all natural law, rises two -opposite- consequences
> 
> 1. Freedom
>  - for me to be free, I have to allow you to be free - the core basis of civilization
> 
> 2. Might is Right
> - I don't care if you try to punch me back, I'm bigger and stronger and I will pummel you into submission - the core basis of government
> 
> For civilization to flourish, "thou shalt not kill" and other laws against the initiation of violence come to exist.


And what's to say oppressive government wasn't meant for the same?




> Social order is a successful solution to human problems as it gives a base standard for organization for cooperation.


Social order is a means to the end of cooperation?





> That which destroys social order degrades this basic standard of organization, which leads to smaller and smaller groups and tribalism.
> 
> Humans can exist here too - but not nearly as well; we die young - and not as many.


What's wrong with tribalism and what is wrong with "die young"?




> It is either civilization or it is government. The increase influence of one degrades the influence of the other.


you mean only one can exist fully?

----------


## Travlyr

> Raise your own garden. Raise your own beef. Don't steal mine.


Raise your own garden. Raise your own aged beef. Do your own life. Leave me alone.

----------


## Wesker1982

> My point was that you are investing a lot into what one man said.


No. That is why there is *#2* in the question I asked. There is a lot of work done on the subject by other authors. Bob Murphy, Mary Ruwart, Morris and Linda Tannehill, Walter Block, Hans Hoppe, Bruce L. Benson, Roderick T. Long, David Friedman, Gustave Molinari, Peter Leeson, David Osterfeld, Roy A. Childs, Tom W. Bell, etc. to name a few. 

Besides, Rothbard's reputation does mean something. I am not saying one must agree with him, but someone this well respected by virtually every major name in the present freedom movement should warrant some attention. 

But anyways, there is a lot of work done on the topic by other people. It seems like most of the people who would rather have the Constitution vs Voluntaryism have not seriously looked into it. My point is that I don't buy that these people *really* care about liberty. They only care about it to the extent that it fits their preconceived and unchallenged beliefs. For if Voluntaryism *is* the answer, *they should want to know*. Without seriously looking into it, they can't claim they do want to know. All they can do is conclude that the Constitution is superior  based on intellectually laziness and blind faith in the State.

----------


## fisharmor

> But anyways, there is a lot of work done on the topic by other people.


I often think that if I fell into a quarter million dollars, I'd spend a year or two in Hong Kong interviewing people who lived in Kowloon Walled City, collecting pictures, finding out how things were done, and write a book.
Theory is nice but it was something of Friedman's I read a couple years ago, which described actual, historical, functional anarchies, that broke my head open: it caused the recognition that it not only _could_ work, it _has worked in the past._
Maybe I'll set up a chip-in and see what happens....

----------


## Wesker1982

> I often think that if I fell into a quarter million dollars, I'd spend a year or two in Hong Kong interviewing people who lived in Kowloon Walled City, collecting pictures, finding out how things were done, and write a book.
> Theory is nice but it was something of Friedman's I read a couple years ago, which described actual, historical, functional anarchies, that broke my head open: it caused the recognition that it not only _could_ work, it _has worked in the past._
> Maybe I'll set up a chip-in and see what happens....


Yes. Some of the authors I have listed above were noted specifically for their historical analysis of privately and voluntarily produced law.

Let me know if you set up that chip-in

----------


## Black Flag

> Raise your own garden. Raise your own beef. Don't steal mine.


Then you are an anarchist.

----------


## Black Flag

> What does golden rule have to do with natural law? Isn't the golden rule a prescription invented by humans artificially?


You are a person who believes human instinct is not natural, right?

Every culture, over all time, everywhere in the world has held to some form of the Golden Rule.




> So if you're rich you grant me to be rich?


I could, if I was rich and I wanted to.




> I see you're an eye for eye person, and you learn your rules from children.


No, that is merely the golden rule as applied by one hand.

The other is:
Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.

And, yes, children do seem a lot smarter than you. You have been untaught much by those you see as your authority.




> Social order is a means to the end of cooperation?


You are senseless.




> What's wrong with tribalism and what is wrong with "die young"?


Nothing, if that is what you want.

I do not want it, though.




> you mean only one can exist fully?


Re-read and this time carefully.

The increase in one degrades the other.

Civilization improves at the cost to government power.
Government power increases at the cost to civilization.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I love people who "debate" like this.  "You don't answer because you are wrong."  lol  My whole argument is nullified?  LOL
> 
> Busch league.  
> 
> Those people in Greece - the ones who are mad because their GOVERNMENT MONEY RAN OUT - may call themselves "anarchists", but by definition they are not: if they want something from government, they want government to exist.  
> 
> They may call themselves tomato plants, too.  And I suppose if they did, you would dutifully associate those fruit plants which produce red, tangy, fleshy fruits with them?  :LOL:
> 
> Again, give me something to "rebut", and I will.


They could claim the same thing about you.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Since the opposition is dodging you, here's your rebuttal:
> 
> First, the anarchism that is being proposed here is not the anarchism in practice there. The anarchism here is defined in a particular way, as "voluntarism". You define anarchism as "people acting irresponsibly." The anti-state people here have repeatedly made the effort to use different terms to define the worldview, but it is the arguers that keep using a confusing word.
> 
> Second, even if you claim Greece as an example of "statelessness" - you are 100% wrong in assessing the problems Greece has right now. The riots and economic situation there are cause by the programs of the State! They don't have free-market patrols keeping the peace. They have police-state anti-riot cops that escalate the situation more than diffuse it. They don't have a free-market retirement system that is bound by privately enforced contracts. They have a state-run system that gives the incentive to make big promises and default on them, causing anger and hatred and envy. They don't have a free-market currency system that would prevent wild market distortions and currency collapse. They have a multi-State scheme imposed on them that can be manipulated away on some politician's whim.
> 
> Lastly, If you meant that without some powerful state to quell rioters who fashion themselves "anarchists" there would be no way to stop them, you are also wrong. We're saying that you should be able to spend every last dollar you have to get opposition forces to the rioters in place. It's your responsibility to protect your property, and you would be surprised by what could be accomplished by people coming together and voluntarily defending their livelihoods. We're just saying that you can't force us to support your choices, and must let us choose how to defend our property, how to stop rioters, and how much we want to spend doing so in the face of other scarce options.
> 
> There, are you sold on "anarchy" now, or will you come up with some other excuse?


You must not have understood me and/or understand the situation in Greece.

Yes, we all know that a big reason why there are riots in Greece is because the government is falling apart. They don't have any money left. That is only part of it. 

Whether that's the case or not, this doesn't mean that *the anarchists are protesting/rioting because they want more government*, they are using the situation as an opportunity to make their case. Before you comment on my post, please understand the situation.

----------


## No Free Beer

Either way, we will agree to disagree. 

There is no way you are going to change my opinion on anarchy.

I think it is impractical and doesn't work.

----------


## Xerographica

> Either way, we will agree to disagree. 
> 
> There is no way you are going to change my opinion on anarchy.
> 
> I think it is impractical and doesn't work.


Well...it's always good to have options.  What about pragmatarianism?  Would that work?

----------


## No Free Beer

> Well...it's always good to have options.  What about pragmatarianism?  Would that work?


I think it's an interesting point of view. 

I am a fan of Constitutional government. One that is limited. I am no libertarian, though.

----------


## Cabal

> There is no way you are going to change my opinion on anarchy.


Then why are you here discussing it?

You can be as closed-minded as you want, but it doesn't make sense to concede that fact within a discussion where you've been entertaining (I use that term lightly in your case) opposing arguments. If you never had any intention of actually considering the arguments put forth, whatever they may be, then why even bother?

You say one thing, yet your actions are entirely contrary.

I'm sure those who bothered to engage you are thankful you took it upon yourself to waste their time as well.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Then why are you here discussing it?
> 
> You can be as closed-minded as you want, but it doesn't make sense to concede that fact within a discussion where you've been entertaining (I use that term lightly in your case) opposing arguments. If you never had any intention of actually considering the arguments put forth, whatever they may be, then why even bother?
> 
> You say one thing, yet your actions are entirely contrary.
> 
> I'm sure those who bothered to engage you are thankful you took it upon yourself to waste their time as well.


Who said that I didn't take what others said into consideration?

----------


## Black Flag

> You must not have understood me and/or understand the situation in Greece.


No, it is you who does not understand.

You labeling a bunch of yahoo's as "anarchist" does not make them so.

Let's have you go interview them and ask them their political philosophy first, before you grab the paint can and swab them with your particular colors.

----------


## Black Flag

> Either way, we will agree to disagree. 
> 
> There is no way you are going to change my opinion on anarchy.
> 
> I think it is impractical and doesn't work.


Bingo!

You've identified yourself very well.

You are "practical" - that is, you trade away your principles in favor of pragmatism.

If it makes sense for you to lie or kill so to save yourself, you'll do it - because that is what practical and pragmatic men do.

Principled men, however, choose differently - and that is why you cannot understand anarchism - it is a reasoned, principle stance against violence on the non-violent.

----------


## Xerographica

> I think it's an interesting point of view. 
> 
> I am a fan of Constitutional government. One that is limited. I am no libertarian, though.


Well...the trick is determining the proper scope of government.  The constitution only tells us what a committee of government planners thought about the proper scope of government.  That's tricky though because our current scope of government is also determined by a committee of government planners.  Then the only difference between a constitutionalist and a socialist is which committee should be allowed to determine the proper scope of government.

Personally...I just say that we should allow taxpayers to determine the proper scope of government.  I trust that the private sector can do most things better than the government can...so I'm pretty sure that most self-interested, utility maximizing taxpayers would not spend their hard-earned taxes on a wasteful government organization doing a job that the private sector can do better for less money. 

In other words...if we're certain that the private sector is so much better than the public sector...then why not allow the tax allocation decisions of 150 million taxpayers prove what we know to be true.  Yup...the proof is in the pudding.

----------


## No Free Beer

> No, it is you who does not understand.
> 
> You labeling a bunch of yahoo's as "anarchist" does not make them so.
> 
> Let's have you go interview them and ask them their political philosophy first, before you grab the paint can and swab them with your particular colors.


What if these people identified themselves as anarchists? Still not good enough?

Who are you to determine what exactly an anarchist is? 

That is my point.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Bingo!
> 
> You've identified yourself very well.
> 
> You are "practical" - that is, you trade away your principles in favor of pragmatism.
> 
> If it makes sense for you to lie or kill so to save yourself, you'll do it - because that is what practical and pragmatic men do.
> 
> Principled men, however, choose differently - and that is why you cannot understand anarchism - it is a reasoned, principle stance against violence on the non-violent.


First of all, you don't know me, so don't label me. 

You don't have a damn clue of what kind of man I am. So shut your mouth.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Well...the trick is determining the proper scope of government.  The constitution only tells us what a committee of government planners thought about the proper scope of government.  That's tricky though because our current scope of government is also determined by a committee of government planners.  Then the only difference between a constitutionalist and a socialist is which committee should be allowed to determine the proper scope of government.
> 
> Personally...I just say that we should allow taxpayers to determine the proper scope of government.  I trust that the private sector can do most things better than the government can...so I'm pretty sure that most self-interested, utility maximizing taxpayers would not spend their hard-earned taxes on a wasteful government organization doing a job that the private sector can do better for less money. 
> 
> In other words...if we're certain that the private sector is so much better than the public sector...then why not allow the tax allocation decisions of 150 million taxpayers prove what we know to be true.  Yup...the proof is in the pudding.


Well, a lot of what those "committee" members are doing now can easily be labeled as illegal. So, it's not the Constitution that is at fault, it's the people.

----------


## No Free Beer

Here are the videos I was talking about. There are three parts, roughly 8 minutes a piece.

http://www.vice.com/vice-news/teenage-riot-athens-1

Thank you.

----------


## Cabal

> First of all, you don't know me, so don't label me. 
> 
> You don't have a damn clue of what kind of man I am. So shut your mouth.

----------


## Xerographica

> Well, a lot of what those "committee" members are doing now can easily be labeled as illegal. So, it's not the Constitution that is at fault, it's the people.


Well...I mean...I would just feel safer if I didn't have to rely on a committee...any committee...to determine how my taxes should be spent.  I trust my decisions with my taxes a whole lot more than I would trust some committee's decisions with money that they didn't even earn.  Allowing a committee to spend money that they didn't toil, sweat and labor to earn is always a recipe for disaster.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Well...I mean...I would just feel safer if I didn't have to rely on a committee...any committee...to determine how my taxes should be spent.  I trust my decisions with my taxes a whole lot more than I would trust some committee's decisions with money that they didn't even earn.  Allowing a committee to spend money that they didn't toil, sweat and labor to earn is always a recipe for disaster.


I see your point

----------


## No Free Beer

> 


Cabal. you're cool.

----------


## Travlyr

> Then you are an anarchist.


$#@!. Don't you ever call me an anarchist. I am not an anarchist. I will not become an anarchist after I die. Ludwig von Mises became an anarchist 20 years after he died at the hand of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Do not do that to me. I firmly agree with Mises when he says,


> "Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.
> 
> Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises


We do not live in a world of angels and saints.

----------


## TheTexan

> We do not live in a world of angels and saints.


This is more of an argument against statism.  Statism can only work in a world of angels and saints, because only angels and saints would be able to control their urge to control others with force.




> The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion


Oh, but anarchists do have resort to compulsion, when and where necessary.  Compulsion does not require government.  It only requires this:



Which anarchists tend to have in _plenty_, ironically

----------


## Travlyr

> This is more of an argument against statism.  Statism can only work in a world of angels and saints, because only angels and saints would be able to control their urge to control others with force.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but anarchists do have resort to compulsion, when and where necessary.  Compulsion does not require government.  It only requires this:
> 
> 
> 
> Which anarchists tend to have in _plenty_, ironically


The misunderstanding is amazing. Government schooled, right? Amirite?

----------


## TheTexan

> The misunderstanding is amazing. Government schooled, right? Amirite?


Your face was government schooled

----------


## Travlyr

> Your face was government schooled


As are you. Anarchy is a nomadic philosophy. I want no part of it. Give me liberty, peace, and prosperity please.

----------


## Travlyr

It is unfortunate that Lew Rockwell is anti-fourth article. It is unfortunate that Lysander Spooner favors paper money. Those are unfortunate occurrences.

Paper money is theft, and anti-State is nomadic. $#@! um both.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The misunderstanding is amazing. Government schooled, right? Amirite?


Actually, she's right on this.  Interesting you omit from your quoting of Mises' "Liberalism" is his advocacy of microsecession.  If you actually read the rest of that book, you'll have a solid argument against statism (though not _for_ anarchism, per se).  I highly recommend you read this book.  
_We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to_
_abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state_
_proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the_
_apparatus of compulsion, government._ (Liberalism, pg 35)

He later discusses what we now call micro-secession:
_The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state_
_thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single_
_village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely_
_conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which_
_they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach_
_themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with._
_This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and_
_international wars._ (Liberalism, pg 109)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is unfortunate that Lew Rockwell is anti-fourth article. It is unfortunate that Lysander Spooner favors paper money. Those are unfortunate occurrences.
> 
> Paper money is theft, and *anti-State is nomadic*. $#@! um both.


Anti-state is very social-only voluntarily so.  Jesus was thoroughly anti-state.

----------


## otherone

> Jesus was thoroughly anti-state.


huh?

----------


## mczerone

> You must not have understood me and/or understand the situation in Greece.
> 
> Yes, we all know that a big reason why there are riots in Greece is because the government is falling apart. They don't have any money left. That is only part of it. 
> 
> Whether that's the case or not, this doesn't mean that *the anarchists are protesting/rioting because they want more government*, they are using the situation as an opportunity to make their case. Before you comment on my post, please understand the situation.


So you're saying that you understand the situation as anarchists calling for more govt? If that is the case you want me to rebut, I think my third answer is responsive to this concern:




> Lastly, If you meant that without some powerful state to quell rioters who fashion themselves "anarchists" there would be no way to stop them, you are also wrong. We're saying that you should be able to spend every last dollar you have to get opposition forces to the rioters in place. It's your responsibility to protect your property, and you would be surprised by what could be accomplished by people coming together and voluntarily defending their livelihoods. We're just saying that you can't force us to support your choices, and must let us choose how to defend our property, how to stop rioters, and how much we want to spend doing so in the face of other scarce options.


So even if they are honest to goodness anarchists who are confused in seeking more govt, govt is not the solution to keep them at bay.

Only free action, anarchic action, can be expected to keep the peace in a peaceful and lasting manner.

----------


## fisharmor

> First of all, you don't know me, so don't label me. 
> 
> You don't have a damn clue of what kind of man I am. So shut your mouth.


We know you to be the type of man who repeatedly denigrates positions he doesn't agree with, offers very little (if any) backing for his own position, and never shows evidence of having processed any of the rationale which supports the opposing positions.

If you don't believe you're that type of man, then you have every opportunity to change our opinion by changing your behavior.

----------


## fisharmor

> It only requires this:


A Glock 17?  Puh-leaze.  In the absence of a state, we'd all have Glock 18's.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> huh?


Responding to a comment about anti-statists being "nomadic".  I don't have time to type out a longer example.

----------


## Travlyr

Actually, I just want you to just leave me alone. I like you as an online friend but not as an advisor. I don't give a damn about your crap. Do not trespass on my property. Do not pass go... do not collect $200. Don't eat my cattle or trample on my garden. I do not wish to shoot your ass. I prefer that your government school teacher tell you these things in advance. I do not wish to shoot your ass. But I will if I have to. I lay claim to my property. You don't like that? Too f'n bad. Do Not Steal From Me. Do not infringe on my rights... please. Otherwise I will shoot your ass.

----------


## Travlyr

When I grew up we had dynamite dudes. We used dynamite to take tree stumps out. Dynamite was handy for fishing too. Dynamite was handy for a variety of things. Anyone could buy it at the hardware store. Unlike paint purchases today you didn't even need to provide an ID. You boys today don't have any idea what freedom is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> When I grew up we had dynamite dudes. We used dynamite to take tree stumps out. Dynamite was handy for fishing too. Dynamite was handy for a variety of things. Anyone could buy it at the hardware store. Unlike paint purchases today you didn't even need to provide an ID. You boys today don't have any idea what freedom is.


And in my grandpa's day, you could go to the pharmacy and get numerous drugs that are now considered "illicit".  No one alive today has any idea what freedom is like.

----------


## Travlyr

> And in my grandpa's day, you could go to the pharmacy and get numerous drugs that are now considered "illicit".  *No one alive today has any idea what freedom is like*.


I do.

----------


## TheTexan

> I do.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do.


You must have a much more limited idea of "freedom" than I do-or you're ~120 years old.

----------


## Travlyr

> 


Indeed. People of days gone by understood freedom. Today you get as much freedom as your masters allow.

----------


## Travlyr

> You must have a much more limited idea of "freedom" than I do-or you're ~120 years old.


Freedom is good. Can you buy dynamite at Lowes? Are you free?

----------


## Black Flag

> What if these people identified themselves as anarchists? Still not good enough?


If you called yourself an anarchist, would that make you one?




> Who are you to determine what exactly an anarchist is?


Ah! Now you've hit the root of it!

Anarchy is a *reasoned* position derived from understanding that no man rules another man.

----------


## Black Flag

> $#@!. Don't you ever call me an anarchist. I am not an anarchist. I will not become an anarchist after I die. Ludwig von Mises became an anarchist 20 years after he died at the hand of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Do not do that to me. I firmly agree with Mises when he says,
> We do not live in a world of angels and saints.


You either justify using violence on non-violent people
or
you don't.

Which one are you?

----------


## Travlyr

> If you called yourself an anarchist, would that make you one?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah! Now you've hit the root of it!
> 
> Anarchy is a *reasoned* position derived from understanding that no man rules another man.


Boy.

----------


## Travlyr

> You either justify using violence on non-violent people
> or
> you don't.


Stupid boy.

----------


## Black Flag

> Stupid boy.


You truly are idiotic. 
The moment you get trapped in your own incomprehensible understanding of life, you go mono-syllabic.

----------


## Travlyr

> You truly are idiotic. 
> The moment you get trapped in your own incomprehensible understanding of life, you go mono-syllabic.


Answer a simple question: How does land law not create government?

----------


## Travlyr

> Answer a simple question: How does land law not create government?


Oh I get it. You have no idea.

----------


## Travlyr

> Answer a simple question: How does land law not create government?


Answer a simple question.

----------


## Stupified

Are you talking to yourself?

----------


## Travlyr

> You are too stupid to answer a simple question.


??

----------


## Travlyr

Talking to a wall.

----------


## Travlyr

Honestly folks. Somebody please answer. How do land laws not not create governments? Someone? Anyone?

----------


## Travlyr

> Honestly folks. Somebody please answer. How do land laws not not create governments? Someone? Anyone?


Anyone at all? Of 6 billion people? Anyone?

----------


## Travlyr

> Anyone at all? Of 6 billion people? Anyone?


Anyone?

----------


## Stupified

The land doesn't give you any rights.

You get your rights either from your god, or from your society.

----------


## No Free Beer

> So you're saying that you understand the situation as anarchists calling for more govt? If that is the case you want me to rebut, I think my third answer is responsive to this concern:
> 
> 
> 
> So even if they are honest to goodness anarchists who are confused in seeking more govt, govt is not the solution to keep them at bay.
> 
> Only free action, anarchic action, can be expected to keep the peace in a peaceful and lasting manner.


Please read what I wrote again.

----------


## No Free Beer

> If you called yourself an anarchist, would that make you one?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah! Now you've hit the root of it!
> 
> Anarchy is a *reasoned* position derived from understanding that no man rules another man.


That is YOUR opinion on the definition of anarchism. Many would disagree.

----------


## Travlyr

My rights come from God. My God. I have my life because I was born.

----------


## Black Flag

> That is YOUR opinion on the definition of anarchism. Many would disagree.


Not an opinion, but by the word itself, sir.

If others hold an opinion other then the word, well, that means they are illiterate.

----------


## Stupified

> My rights come from God. My God. I have my life because I was born.
> If you don't like it. Too BAD!
> 
> I'm here. F'you.


Then stop talking about the "law of the land." That's bull$#@!.

----------


## Black Flag

> Honestly folks. Somebody please answer. How do land laws not not create governments? Someone? Anyone?


They don't.

You have yet to explain how; but if you do it properly you will find that it does not "create" government - government rises from a different causation.

----------


## Travlyr

> Then stop talking about the "law of the land." That's bull$#@!.


No it's not.

----------


## Travlyr

> They don't.
> 
> You have yet to explain how; but if you do it properly you will find that it does not "create" government - government rises from a different causation.


Yeah.

----------


## No Free Beer

Webster: 
a : absence of government 
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority 
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder 

dictionary.com
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3.
a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion;

There seems to be more than one real definition of anarchy.

----------


## Black Flag

> Yeah.


There goes Travlyr mono-syllabic again.

You cannot explain "how", because it doesn't.

----------


## Stupified

> dummy.


Excellently cultured response.


The "law of the land" is the law of physical dominance, nothing more. I think we can all agree that is not the way a civilized human society should work, so throw that antiquated thinking out the window.

----------


## No Free Beer

It was nice discussing this topic with you all. 

I don't feel like spending the next few days going over this. 

You have your opinion, I have mine. 

At least we are all here to support Dr. Paul.

Good night.

----------


## Travlyr

> There goes Travlyr mono-syllabic again.
> 
> You cannot explain "how", because it doesn't.


When two or more people agree to a law of the land, then they have made a rule that, when enforced, is enforced by a ruler. The laws of the land form a governing document.

----------


## Travlyr

> Excellently cultured response.
> 
> 
> The "law of the land" is the law of physical dominance, nothing more. I think we can all agree that is not the way a civilized human society should work, so throw that antiquated thinking out the window.


I don't agree. If you make the laws for your land, and I make laws for my land, then what is to stop me from saying that anyone, or anything, who trespasses on my land becomes my property? It is my land. I make the law. Common land laws can prevent that kind of immorality.

----------


## Stupified

> Dummy



Too dumb to mount a counterargument. Which, funnily enough, is what you were just bitching about two pages ago:




> You are too stupid to answer a simple question.

----------


## Black Flag

> Anarchy


An="no"
archy="right to rule"

But that is why labels are generally pointless ... 

And that is why, here, the dialogue is about philosophy, and not labels.

Unfortunately, without labels I think you will be lost.

----------


## Travlyr

> Too dumb to mount a counterargument. Which, funnily enough, is what you were just bitching about two pages ago:


Answer this question. Nobody has answered it. Maybe you can. How does land law not create government? All the intellects dodge it. Answer it.

----------


## Black Flag

> Answer this question. Nobody has answered it. Maybe you can. How does land law not create government? All the intellects dodge it. Answer it.


No, sir.
You are the one postulating it, you have to explain it.

But I am speaking to a guy who probably does not understand logic .....

----------


## Travlyr

> No, sir.
> You are the one postulating it, you have to explain it.
> 
> But I am speaking to a guy who probably does not understand logic .....


Simple question: How does land law not create government?

----------


## Travlyr

> Simple question: How does land law not create government?


Hummm?

----------


## No Free Beer

> An="no"
> archy="right to rule"
> 
> But that is why labels are generally pointless ... 
> 
> And that is why, here, the dialogue is about philosophy, and not labels.
> 
> Unfortunately, without labels I think you will be lost.


So, definitions don't matter? The only "definitions" that matter are yours, and yours alone.

How cute.

----------


## No Free Beer

> No, sir.
> You are the one postulating it, you have to explain it.
> 
> But I am speaking to a guy who probably does not understand logic .....


You dance around every counterargument. 

Philosophy can only take a man so far...

----------


## bluesc

Well, this thread went downhill fast..

----------


## Black Flag

> You dance around every counterargument. 
> 
> Philosophy can only take a man so far...


Philosophy runs into reality, and that is as far as you can go.

----------


## otherone

> Webster: 
> a : absence of government 
> b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority 
> c : a *utopian* society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
> 2
> a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder


[SARCASM]I can't believe what a dumbass Webster is. If he actually read  Thomas More's _Utopia_, he would never compare it to a stateless society.  dumbass[/SARCASM]

----------


## Travlyr

> Philosophy runs into reality, and that is as far as you can go.


Questions must be answered.

----------


## mczerone

> Please read what I wrote again.


Please reformulate what you wrote. Obviously I don't get it. Try to convince me.

----------


## Black Flag

> Questions must be answered.


And you have a plate full that you avoid - because you can't answer them - even the one that is central to your belief system.
(shrug)

----------


## bluesc

Travlyr, where would you consider yourself to be on the political compass?

I mean, I've always thought of you as a single issue voter (sound money), and a staunch anti-anarchist.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Please reformulate what you wrote. Obviously I don't get it. Try to convince me.


I *didn't* say they were protesting/rioting *because* they *wanted more government*, rather because *they were using that situation to further their cause.* 

I just think you misread what I wrote. My bad.

If you watched the video, you would have understood.

----------


## Stupified

> Answer this question. Nobody has answered it. Maybe you can. How does land law not create government? All the intellects dodge it. Answer it.


I already did. Your land law does not exist.

----------


## Black Flag

> I *didn't* say they were protesting/rioting *because* they *wanted more government*, rather because *they were using that situation to further their cause.* 
> 
> I just think you misread what I wrote. My bad.


Actually they are protesting because they want keep the status quo - which is lots of government handouts, which requires government.

What other cause do you think guys who demand more government money are trying to achieve?

----------


## mczerone

> Answer this question. Nobody has answered it. Maybe you can. How does land law not create government? All the intellects dodge it. Answer it.


What do you mean by "land law"?  Are you trying to put the cart before the horse here?

We've answered before how property owners can establish their own rules on their land.
We've answered before how private agreements can defend one's claim to a piece of land.
We've answered before how land laws can exist among voluntarily contracting groups of people, who can choose to leave this group and retain their land rights under another "law".

Simply pretending that your question hasn't been answered doesn't make it true that we haven't answered it.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Actually they are protesting because they want keep the status quo - which is lots of government handouts, which requires government.
> 
> What other cause do you think guys who demand more government money are trying to achieve?


Did you watch the videos or not?

Nevermind, don't answer that. 

I am scared to know the answer.

----------


## TheTexan

lol

----------


## Black Flag

> Did you watch the videos or not?
> 
> Nevermind, don't answer that. 
> 
> I am scared to know the answer.


If you really believe the riots in Greece is about "anarchy", you have been poorly educated and/or watch bad TV.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Then why are you here discussing it?
> 
> You can be as closed-minded as you want, but it doesn't make sense to concede that fact within a discussion where you've been entertaining (I use that term lightly in your case) opposing arguments. If you never had any intention of actually considering the arguments put forth, whatever they may be, then why even bother?
> 
> You say one thing, yet your actions are entirely contrary.
> 
> I'm sure those who bothered to engage you are thankful you took it upon yourself to waste their time as well.


I think his comments bear out my guess that he was just here to antagonize.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> *the anarchists are protesting/rioting because they want more government*


This logical paradox has opened a black hole, and Greece is presently being swallowed into it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What if these people identified themselves as anarchists? Still not good enough?
> 
> Who are you to determine what exactly an anarchist is? 
> 
> That is my point.


We could start with the meaning of the word.  

People who want government to provide for them cannot - by definition - be anarchists... because "anarchy" is a philosophy which advocates no rulers - by the very meaning of the word as has been shown in this thread more than once.    

You are a "Constitutionalist".  You could call yourself a "Socialist", but if you advocated for limited government based on the original wording of the Constitution, were against income taxation and wealth redistribution, would anyone really believe you're a socialist?  

Words are important.  Allowing the corruption of words is how "liberal" has come to mean "advocate of large, interventionist government to regulate the market, etc."; and how "conservative" has come to mean "advocate of measured domestic governmental intervention, and an expansive foreign policy".  This is why "conservative" talkshow hosts pillory Ron Paul, even though according to the actual meaning of the word, he is the most conservative Republican candidate.  It is no accident that the meaning of words like these has been corrupted.  

The first step is taking back language.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Anti-state is very social-only voluntarily so.  Jesus was thoroughly anti-state.


I wish the interwebz had a notifier that let me know when Travlyr passes away, so I can come here afterwards and start referring to him as an anarchist.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Simply pretending that your question hasn't been answered doesn't make it true that we haven't answered it.


This is Travlyr's M.O., in a nutshell.  I believe I warned some of you guys earlier...   

Also, as I've read through the remainder of the thread, I believe he was drinking last night.  lol

----------


## No Free Beer

> If you really believe the riots in Greece is about "anarchy", you have been poorly educated and/or watch bad TV.


No, I am not saying the protests in GENERAL are about anarchy, quite the contrary. But, there is an anarchist group (self labeled) and they are a bunch of young guys.

Again, WATCH THE VIDEOS!

----------


## No Free Beer

> This logical paradox has opened a black hole, and Greece is presently being swallowed into it.


I don't mean to be rude, but I sincerely believe some of you are either manipulating what I said on purpose, or you lack something up stairs.

Judging by the fact you are a Ron Paul supporter, it cannot be the latter. 

Please don't manipulate my words.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I think his comments bear out my guess that he was just here to antagonize.


I am far too busy to simply be on here to antagonize.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Actually they are protesting because they want keep the status quo - which is lots of government handouts, which requires government.
> 
> What other cause do you think guys who demand more government money are trying to achieve?


Some of you must be joking. I mean, as I stated in another post...either you are purposely manipulating my words or misinforming the others who didn't watch the video, or there isn't anything upstairs.

There is no way, by the fact that you are on this site, that it is the latter.

Stop being disingenuous.

And *WATCH...THE...VIDEO...*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Fine.  They are anarchists.  We are "advocates of statelessness".  Can we agree on that and settle the definitions?  

Again, just because they call themselves anarchists doesn not mean that they are in favor of a structure of society absent an involuntary, physically and coercively violent entity.  The etymology of the word "anarchy" from the Greek is, as has been presented previously, "without the right to rule".  

Honestly... If a group of people went around calling themselves monarchists, insisting on a system of government based upon the rule of the majority, does that mean that Queen Elizabeth is a democrat?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Anyone at all? Of 6 billion people? Anyone?


You do this all the time lol. Pretend like this is some achilles heel that everyone is avoiding, but when someone answers it, you ignore it and disappear. Then a couple weeks later, you repeat the same process.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Nobody has answered it....


Yeah, except for all those times when it was.




> All the intellects dodge it.


Except for all of those times when they didn't. 

LOL, seriously. I have bookmarked in my favorites the specific times it was answered. I could easily link the posts right here. But you know, I have done that exact thing many times. Why bother doing it again? Can you give me a good reason? Maybe a pinky swear that you will remember it this time?

----------


## Cabal

Personally, I don't take anyone seriously who comes into a thread, fills pages with consecutive posts calling people names, and then expects to have his regurgitated questions answered for the 100th time.

That's pretty much the definition of a troll, IMO.

----------


## Black Flag

> No, I am not saying the protests in GENERAL are about anarchy, quite the contrary. But, there is an anarchist group (self labeled) and they are a bunch of young guys.
> 
> Again, WATCH THE VIDEOS!


So what?

If a bunch of atheists labeled themselves Christian - would you claim they are, therefore, Christian, and therefore are the epitome of Christian ideals???

----------


## Black Flag

Back to the point

Can Anarchists defend themselves?

The answer is pretty clear: yes, to a better or worse extent than any nation state.

The claim that the defense may falter is irrelevant - as defense falters with nation states, too. No defense is assured, just like no attack is assured.

All defense is organized as a deterrence - raising the stakes upon the aggressor and place doubt upon his review of success.


The further argument that the nation state is naturally more aggressive and inflicts its violence upon its citizens and its neighbors more readily is without dispute. It merely means freedom lovers must always be aware, and never fall into the lies of the nation state's "peace if you disarm" propaganda.

----------


## Cabal

What is national defense offered by the State? It is several different organizations of people who generally choose to follow that career-path; usually acting separately with moderate levels of communication.

What is one of the possible solutions to national/territorial defense without a State? Several competing organizations of people who generally choose to follow that career-path; as well as a potentially more armed civilian population.

The market is more than equipped to handle the issue of national/territorial defense. As an added bonus, that same defense wouldn't be used to go gallivanting off over seas at the expense of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

----------


## otherone

> The market is more than equipped to handle the issue of national/territorial defense.


There is historical evidence of the efficacy of this approach.

----------


## Cabal

> There is historical evidence of the efficacy of this approach.


Well, we have 'defense' contractors today too; and I'm fairly certain there have been all kinds of different mercenaries throughout history.

Honestly, without a State with which to engage in interventionism and militarism overseas, I doubt there'd be a lot of call for any kind of persistent merc organization.

----------


## Madison320

> Actually, I know the Anarchist rebuttal!
> 
> _1) You're stupid
> 2) Read some book for the rebuttal
> 3) Government is a bunch of evil poopie-heads
> 4) You're an immature baby
> 5) Constitutional Republics aren't practical, but some medieval Ireland thing is.
> 6) Your facts are no match for my insults_


LOL!

I thought it was medieval Iceland? Ireland, Iceland? Either way it was the greatest place to live, ever.

----------


## onlyrp

> If you really believe the riots in Greece is about "anarchy", you have been poorly educated and/or watch bad TV.


They, as well as Arab countries, have much less fear and respect for police, government and law enforcement than Americans do, that I can say. I don't care what their agenda is, I care whether unarmed citizens fear speaking out or using force.

----------


## Black Flag

> They, as well as Arab countries, have much less fear and respect for police, government and law enforcement than Americans do, that I can say. I don't care what their agenda is, I care whether unarmed citizens fear speaking out or using force.


Greece has a history of political revolution, even in recent times - this is not new

----------


## Stupified

To respond to the original post and first page of replies, since I haven't done that: an anarchist, armed society is all well and good against an invading army with guns, but what happens when the invading army says "$#@! it" and starts dropping bombs?

----------


## Cabal

> To respond to the original post and first page of replies, since I haven't done that: an anarchist, armed society is all well and good against an invading army with guns, but what happens when the invading army says "$#@! it" and starts dropping bombs?


So anarchists don't know how to fly jets?

----------


## Madison320

[QUOTE=Stupified;4315680]To respond to the original post and first page of replies, since I haven't done that: an anarchist, armed society is all well and good against an invading army with guns, but what happens when the invading army says "$#@! it" and starts dropping bombs?[/QUOTE

You go into your garage, pull out your ACME anti-aircraft missiles. Problem solved.

That's why there aren't any anarchies.

----------


## Madison320

> So anarchists don't know how to fly jets?


You probably didn't realize how funny your post was!

----------


## Madison320

> I don't agree. If you make the laws for your land, and I make laws for my land, then what is to stop me from saying that anyone, or anything, who trespasses on my land becomes my property? It is my land. I make the law. Common land laws can prevent that kind of immorality.


That's right. And not just land laws, any laws. One important feature of a law is that it needs to be predefined. And the method for selecting a judge needs to be predetermined. If A and B get into a dispute A can't make up his own law and use his judge while B uses his own law and his own judge.

----------


## Cabal

> You probably didn't realize how funny your post was!


I see. So you're just another who is content to patronize, and berate everyone who disagrees with you? Why are you here again?

What prevents people from acquiring jets with which to secure airspace and flying them accordingly?

----------


## Madison320

> I see. So you're just another who is content to patronize, and berate everyone who disagrees with you? Why are you here again?
> 
> What prevents people from acquiring jets with which to secure airspace and flying them accordingly?


Honey, I'm home! I'm gonna be a little late for dinner, I'm going out back to work on the F-16, its got a bad thruster. Did you pick up those Sidewinders on the way to the grocery store?

Your theories have been tested in the real world. They don't work. That's why there are no anarchies. Well maybe Somalia. Depending on which anarchist you ask.

----------


## Black Flag

> To respond to the original post and first page of replies, since I haven't done that: an anarchist, armed society is all well and good against an invading army with guns, but what happens when the invading army says "$#@! it" and starts dropping bombs?


Why do you assume any group of people -let alone those who understand the costs and price of freedom - would sit around undefended against "bombs"?

Why do you assume that military organization can only occur if it is violent forced upon the people under a nation state?

Why do you assume that military organizations -such as the first ones that this nation created with private funding - is impossible?

----------


## Stupified

> So anarchists don't know how to fly jets?


How many people could afford jets? Not nearly enough to protect your borders.






> Why do you assume any group of people -let alone those who understand the costs and price of freedom - would sit around undefended against "bombs"?
> 
> Why do you assume that military organization can only occur if it is violent forced upon the people under a nation state?
> 
> Why do you assume that military organizations -such as the first ones that this nation created with private funding - is impossible?


Because the costs of modern military weapons is unattainable without a pool of resources specifically meant for defense (ie. a federal government). Where are you going to get that money? The rich capitalists? Maybe once, but never again. The Joe Schmoes toiling in the mud? Get real. 

Who is going to continuously fund the R&D of the military? The rich capitalists? Hello, men with private armies, we really hope you continue to keep the goodwill in our venerable little society. Please disband your army after the war. 



This is laughable.

----------


## Wesker1982

> One important feature of a law is that it needs to be predefined. And the method for selecting a judge needs to be predetermined. If A and B get into a dispute A can't make up his own law and use his judge while B uses his own law and his own judge.


This is a common basic elementary objection that has been refuted for literally decades. In fact, there is not one work dedicated to explaining a Voluntaryist society that I can think of that does not address this. If you are genuinely interested, myself and many others would explain it to you and point you towards the other works as well.

----------


## Madison320

Many years ago I read this by Ayn Rand but I didn't totally understand what she meant:

"A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses."

Now I think I understand what she means when she says that statists and anarchists "take the other side of the same coin". She means that both statists and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't differentiate between acts of force and voluntary trade. Statists use government to protect rights but also to violate them. Anarchists use the market for both. Only minarchists differentiate between force and non-force. Minarchists are the only ones who implement natural law.

----------


## Madison320

> This is a common basic elementary objection that has been refuted for literally decades. In fact, there is not one work dedicated to explaining a Voluntaryist society that I can think of that does not address this. If you are genuinely interested, myself and many others would explain it to you and point you towards the other works as well.


Refuted on paper, not in the real world.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Refuted on paper, not in the real world.


Not true. But before I even bother, you need to answer with a simple yes or no: If you are wrong, would you want to know about it?

----------


## otherone

> Why do you assume that military organizations -such as the first ones that this nation created with private funding - is impossible?


So a stateless society may have a proviso that allows a central authority to convene for the purpose of mutual defense?  Now I'm really confused.

----------


## Wesker1982

> So a stateless society may have a proviso that allows a central authority to convene for the purpose of mutual defense?  Now I'm really confused.


You can have organization without centralization. Roderick T Long writes about this and national defense here Defending a Free Nation

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Many years ago I read this by Ayn Rand but I didn't totally understand what she meant:
> 
> "A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses."
> 
> Now I think I understand what she means when she says that statists and anarchists "take the other side of the same coin". She means that both statists and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't differentiate between acts of force and voluntary trade. Statists use government to protect rights but also to violate them. Anarchists use the market for both. Only minarchists differentiate between force and non-force. *Minarchists are the only ones who implement natural law*.


That's not true.  But if it were-_why haven't_ minarchists implemented natural law?  (hint: it's not in the rational self-interest of minarchists to actually practice natural law)

----------


## Cabal

> Honey, I'm home! I'm gonna be a little late for dinner, I'm going out back to work on the F-16, its got a bad thruster. Did you pick up those Sidewinders on the way to the grocery store?
> 
> Your theories have been tested in the real world. They don't work. That's why there are no anarchies. Well maybe Somalia. Depending on which anarchist you ask.


Straw man much?

Provide an example of a test of voluntaryist theory that has failed.

ROFL @ Somalia. Wow. No wonder you get insulted so much. Yo, twenty years ago called, they want their fallacious argument back.




> How many people could afford jets? Not nearly enough to protect your borders.


Why would any one person need to be able to afford a jet?

I'm not suggesting individual civilians purchase aircraft and become fighter pilots. I'm not sure why you would think I would suggest such a thing.

----------


## Black Flag

> Because the costs of modern military weapons is unattainable without a pool of resources specifically meant for defense (ie. a federal government). Where are you going to get that money? The rich capitalists? Maybe once, but never again. The Joe Schmoes toiling in the mud? Get real.


How about you get real?

What is the largest navy on Earth?

Wrong. Its Maersk - it operates a fleet larger then the combined navies of USA and Russia.

Apple has a budget that would place it in the 26th largest nation on Earth (based on budget).

Exxon has a larger budget than Brazil.

The challenge you have to overcome is your economic illiteracy.

*Every gun, bullet, plane, ship and solider of a Nation State is provided by the economic resources of the market place*

To stand back to then claim that the economic resources of a market place would be unable to provide _what they already provide_ is rather bizarre.

----------


## Black Flag

> Many years ago I read this by Ayn Rand but I didn't totally understand what she meant:


Don't worry. Much of what she wrote is incomprehensible.

Regardless, review this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

----------


## Black Flag

Back to the point:

There is no fundamental economic law, nor capability, nor missing link to why an anarchist society cannot defend itself.

Much of this thread devolves into a dialogue of why anarchist society does not 'pop up' within the current paradigm.

This latter question is wholly irrelevant to the question of this thread; yes, there are many reasons why freedom is so hard to obtain, but none of these reasons dispute the ability of such free men to defend themselves.

----------


## No Free Beer

> I see. So you're just another who is content to patronize, and berate everyone who disagrees with you? Why are you here again?
> 
> What prevents people from acquiring jets with which to secure airspace and flying them accordingly?


You do the same thing, buddy.

----------


## Madison320

> How about you get real?
> 
> What is the largest navy on Earth?
> 
> Wrong. Its Maersk - it operates a fleet larger then the combined navies of USA and Russia.
> 
> Apple has a budget that would place it in the 26th largest nation on Earth (based on budget).
> 
> Exxon has a larger budget than Brazil.
> ...


But Maersk, Apple and Exxon don't have weapons do they?

How ironic is this? I looked up Maersk and found that one of their ships has hijacked by ... you guessed it ... Somali pirates!!! What's funnier than that? What you call "the biggest navy in the world" got their ship taken over by some ragtag Somali pirates, who happen to be anarchists! Oh the irony!

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

Maersk Alabama as seen from a P-3C Orion Aircraft during its 2009 hijacking. 
Main article: Maersk Alabama hijacking

On the morning of April 8, 2009 the 17,000-ton MV Maersk Alabama was en route to Mombasa, Kenya, when it was hijacked by pirates off the Somali coast. The company confirmed that the U.S.-flagged vessel had 20 U.S. nationals onboard. This was the first time that the US had to deal with a situation in which Americans were aboard a ship seized by pirates in over 200 years. By noon, the Americans were able to resist the pirates and regain control of the ship. However, the pirates retreated on a covered life boat and held the captain hostage for four days. On April 12, 2009, it was confirmed that the captain held hostage was freed by the US Navy, where SEAL sharpshooters killed three of the pirates. A fourth pirate surrendered earlier due to a medical injury.

Maersk Line estimates that piracy costs the company $100 million per year due to longer routes and higher speed, particularly near East Africa.[22]

As of 2010, all 83 Maersk tankers divert around the Cape of Good Hope south of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal.[23]

----------


## Black Flag

> But Maersk, Apple and Exxon don't have weapons do they?


They sure do .... but they, in this bizarre paradigm, would rather the government do their dirty work.

Why would you expect them to spend money on an army when they already own one?

----------


## Madison320

> So a stateless society may have a proviso that allows a central authority to convene for the purpose of mutual defense?  Now I'm really confused.


I was going down the same path. Suppose a bunch of anarchists decide to form their own island anarchy. They don't want to end up being annexed by Tonga like the last island experiment so they decide to create a military. Now they need to pick someone to lead this military, so they do what? Have an election? Can you do that in an anarchy?



"The Republic of Minerva was set up in 1972 as a libertarian new-country project by Nevada businessman Michael Oliver. Oliver's group conducted dredging operations at the Minerva Reefs, a shoal located in the Pacific Ocean south of Fiji. They succeeded in creating a small artificial island, but their efforts at securing international recognition met with little success, and near-neighbour Tonga sent a military force to the area and annexed it."

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

----------


## Black Flag

> I was going down the same path. Suppose a bunch of anarchists decide to form their own island anarchy. They don't want to end up being annexed by Tonga like the last island experiment so they decide to create a military. Now they need to pick someone to lead this military, so they do what? Have an election? Can you do that in an anarchy?


Why do you believe free men are completely unable to organize themselves?

You ever organize a pick-up baseball game? Did you find it utterly impossible?

----------


## Madison320

> Why do you believe free men are completely unable to organize themselves?
> 
> You ever organize a pick-up baseball game? Did you find it utterly impossible?


I need some specifics. Stick with the example. You've got a bunch of anarchists on their island. How are they going to organize their military? Somebody has to be in charge of it. Who decides how to use it?

I feel a book reference or an insult coming ...

----------


## Black Flag

> I need some specifics. Stick with the example. You've got a bunch of anarchists on their island. How are they going to organize their military? Somebody has to be in charge of it. Who decides how to use it?
> 
> I feel a book reference or an insult coming ...


Again, how did you organize the pick-up game of baseball?

Those that wanted to play came to play.

Those that did not went somewhere else.

Everyone split up, based on their favorite position (probably based on their ability), appointed a Captain, and begin playing.


You do know that the first military militia of the USA organized this way, right? It's not like it "never happened before".....

----------


## Black Flag

But more to another point:

I do not have to define how free men organize. I know they do, today - so I know they will, tomorrow.

You could not conceive of an iPhone, yet some free men did. I do not have to define for you how the next great product will come to market - I know that there is coming a next great product, because that is what free men do.


Karl Marx was asked your question:

"How will Communism work?"

He said:

"I have built the kitchen, what recipes and meals that might be cooked in it, I do not know, nor need to provide"

----------


## Stupified

> Again, how did you organize the pick-up game of baseball?
> 
> Those that wanted to play came to play.
> 
> Those that did not went somewhere else.
> 
> Everyone split up, based on their favorite position (probably based on their ability), appointed a Captain, and begin playing.
> 
> 
> You do know that the first military militia of the USA organized this way, right? It's not like it "never happened before".....


And if a pick-up baseball team played an MLB team, guess who would win?

Exactly. Your analogy actually favors our argument, congratulations. 



(I'll respond to your other post in a second)

----------


## otherone

> Somebody has to be in charge of it. Who decides how to use it?


Presumably, someone with expertise would be voted on to enact a previously decided military plan?  Perhaps involving free-serving militia?  The plan would have to have to ensure all involvement, both active and civilian, would be voluntary, and no one's property Rights would be infringed upon?

----------


## Black Flag

> And if a pick-up baseball team played an MLB team, guess who would win?
> 
> Exactly. Your analogy actually favors our argument, congratulations. 
> 
> 
> 
> (I'll respond to your other post in a second)


Ah... you better re-think your analogy......

Do you think MLB is a bunch of government-run, and government-trained yahoos?

No, they are a dedicated bunch of _free men_ organized by other _free men_ who participate in an action that 99.9999% of the rest of  humanity could not accomplish.

Why do you believe they could have only done this under government supervision???

----------


## otherone

> You do know that the first military militia of the USA organized this way, right? It's not like it "never happened before".....


Was the USA a stateless society at the time?

----------


## otherone

As to the OP:
The question is impossible to answer, as Anarchy implies there is no nation to defend.

----------


## Black Flag

> Presumably, someone with expertise would be voted on to enact a previously decided military plan?  Perhaps involving free-serving militia?  The plan would have to have to ensure all involvement, both active and civilian, would be voluntary, and no one's property Rights would be infringed upon?


Why would free men _force other free men_ to act against their wishes? What's the point of free men, then?

So, yep.... you don't want to fight in a group, trained - to resist an enemy and think your best interests is to fight them by yourself, good on ya!

----------


## Black Flag

> Was the USA a stateless society at the time?


Irrelevant.

The men organized voluntarily as free men, armed themselves, and/or provided supplies and arms by wealthy benefactors.

----------


## Black Flag

> As to the OP:
> The question is impossible to answer, as Anarchy implies there is no nation to defend.


Not true.

As Son of Liberty correctly pointed out, it is not the existence of a Nation that spawns evil ... it is the existence of the State that gives rise to evil.

There is a nation to defend, but it is not the State.

----------


## otherone

> Why would free men _force other free men_ to act against their wishes? What's the point of free men, then?


Huh?  Was this a response to my post?  If for instance, the British invaded, and the majority of freemen said...."It's someone's else problem."  Then is it moral that the entire society be subjugated under British Rule, as the majority chose NOT to defend themselves?

----------


## Stupified

> How about you get real?
> 
> What is the largest navy on Earth?
> 
> Wrong. Its Maersk - it operates a fleet larger then the combined navies of USA and Russia.
> 
> Apple has a budget that would place it in the 26th largest nation on Earth (based on budget).
> 
> Exxon has a larger budget than Brazil.
> ...


In your society:

Apple begins producing military weapons, vehicles, and armor? No? 

Who does then? A new company! Of course, of course. So, this new company is manufacturing all of our military resources (or several smaller companies, it doesn't matter). Who pays for their R&D? Who pays for their materials? Who pays for their scientists and engineers and manual laborers and robotics and electricity and every other bill they have? Who pays for the final outcome (guns, ammunition, tanks, planes, etc.)? _Apple?_ That's funny. The citizens? Unlikely unless you were to levy a temporary ta -- wait, nevermind. 

But let's say that someone does pay for your military. Let's say it was Apple. INSTANTLY the balance of power has changed. Apple is now the patron of that military defense company, and as such has a higher stake in the war, in the economy, and more power in its hands. Power corrupts, and power breeds power. Say goodbye to your utopia, because Apple is your government now.

----------


## otherone

> There is a nation to defend, but it is not the State.


Excuse my obtuseness, but what then defines a Nation other than the fact that those involved agree to name it such?  Does voluntary consent to creating a "nation" involve some kind of contract?  If an individual is "born into" a nation, what are the conditions to sever oneself from the relationship?

----------


## Black Flag

> Huh?  Was this a response to my post?  If for instance, the British invaded, and the majority of freemen said...."It's someone's else problem."  Then is it moral that the entire society be subjugated under British Rule, as the majority chose NOT to defend themselves?


*The fact, sir* is that is exactly what happened.

Less then 20% of Americans supported the Revolution.

The vast majority said either "it's not my problem" or "I rather like the Brits".

A majority is not necessary for free men to act. A majority is only required for slaves to begin to act.

----------


## Stupified

> Ah... you better re-think your analogy......
> 
> Do you think MLB is a bunch of government-run, and government-trained yahoos?
> 
> *No, they are a dedicated bunch of free men organized by other free men who participate in an action that 99.9999% of the rest of  humanity could not accomplish.*


Exactly. They are an _organized_ group of men doing what few other men could do. Sound like a military? It does to me. It also sounds like a far cry from a "pick-up group" which is what you compared an anarchist militia to.

----------


## otherone

> Irrelevant.
> 
> The men organized voluntarily as free men, armed themselves, and/or provided supplies and arms by wealthy benefactors.


So this can happen without being stateless?  If a government can not, does not, have the authority to use violence, why is this worse than anarchy?

----------


## Black Flag

> In your society:
> 
> Apple begins producing military weapons, vehicles, and armor? No?


They could, if they wanted to.

What's stopping them?

Rutger produces weapons, and they could choose to do computers. What would stop them if they wanted to do that?

----------


## otherone

> A majority is not necessary for free men to act. A majority is only required for slaves to begin to act.


You're begging the question.  If a society chooses a state, is it moral?

----------


## Stupified

> They could, if they wanted to.
> 
> What's stopping them?
> 
> Rutger produces weapons, and they could choose to do computers. What would stop them if they wanted to do that?



Well good then, I've already outlined the inevitable conclusion to that scenario:




> But let's say that someone does pay for your military. Let's say it was Apple. INSTANTLY the balance of power has changed. Apple is now the patron of that military defense company, and as such has a higher stake in the war, in the economy, and more power in its hands. Power corrupts, and power breeds power. Say goodbye to your utopia, because Apple is your government now.



Sorry friend, but human traits do not lend themselves to anarchy. Haven't you read Lord of the Flies?

----------


## Black Flag

> Who pays for their R&D? Who pays for their materials? Who pays for their scientists and engineers and manual laborers and robotics and electricity and every other bill they have?


Gasp!

The economic illiteracy is simply mind boggling.

Who pays for Apples R&D, materials, scientists and engineers ...*right now*?!?!





> But let's say


No, let's not say.

Start providing some rational argument and reasoning based on some fundamental principle - all you have been doing making up stories and baseless scenarios that are utterly meaningless.

----------


## Black Flag

> Sorry friend, but human traits do not lend themselves to anarchy. Haven't you read Lord of the Flies?


Oh, God....

Now you use a fantasy story as some sort of "proof".

----------


## Black Flag

> Exactly. They are an _organized_ group of men doing what few other men could do. Sound like a military? It does to me. It also sounds like a far cry from a "pick-up group" which is what you compared an anarchist militia to.


So, *you have some bizarre notion that only organized things come from government??*
or is it:
_every organization is government_

----------


## Black Flag

> Well good then, I've already outlined the inevitable conclusion to that scenario:


No, you have not.

You made up a story.

You have not reasoned why free men, who endeavor to be free, would irrationally change simply because they organize themselves and build tools for their defense?

----------


## Black Flag

> You're begging the question.  If a society chooses a state, is it moral?


A majority vote does not make something wrong into a right, evil into good, immoral into moral.

It merely means the majority made a choice.

PS: That is not begging the question - you are the one who posited a serious misunderstanding, and I corrected you.

----------


## Stupified

> Gasp!
> 
> The economic illiteracy is simply mind boggling.
> 
> Who pays for Apples R&D, materials, scientists and engineers ...*right now*?!?!


I'll humor you. Their customers. 


WHO BUYS THE JET PLANES IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY? Who foots the $50 mil/plane bill?

I feel like I have to scream in all caps in order to get you to address some of this $#@! I've been asking for five pages.






> Oh, God....
> 
> Now you use a fantasy story as some sort of "proof".


Sigh. It was a joke, hence the smiley face. It was also an attempt to reign the argument in and bring back the light hearted debate, but that obviously failed.

----------


## otherone

> A majority vote does not make something wrong into a right, evil into good, immoral into moral.
> 
> It merely means the majority made a choice.


I'm sorry....I wasn't clear.  In an anarchist society, let's say, 80% of the Freemen choose not to fight (perhaps they were bribed by the enemy?) and the anarchist "nation" is absorbed by an outside state.  Is this moral? The freemen "chose" money over Liberty...it's their choice, right?

----------


## Black Flag

> WHO BUYS THE JET PLANES IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY? Who foots the $50 mil/plane bill


Who foots the bill *right now*??

The customer.

PS: I am not a humorous guy, sorry. Things like that go right over my head.

----------


## otherone

> Haven't you read Lord of the Flies?


It's weird that you've brought this up...only yesterday I've taken this out of the library to read to my family.  The important point to take away from all of this is:
_politics is anthropology, not philosophy_.

----------


## Wesker1982

> You're begging the question.  If a society chooses a state, is it moral?


If 10/10 people choose it, it is not a State. The State must impose a territorial monopoly _through the initiation of force_ (this is why your non-violently acquired house it not a State), or else the governance we are talking about is Voluntaryism. If people are allowed to opt out (this does not mean giving up their justly acquired property at gunpoint), then we do not oppose whatever it is that you care to call it. 

If 9/10 people want it, and force the last guy, it is not moral.

A lot of time could probably be saved if a lot of you answered this question honestly: *Do you think the individual should have the right to secede, or do you think they should be violently forced to stay?*

----------


## otherone

> Who foots the bill *right now*??
> 
> The customer.


BY THEFT!
wasn't that the whole point of this?

----------


## Stupified

> Who foots the bill *right now*??
> 
> The customer.



...... Serious?

The customer is the government. Who pays for it by... taxing its population.

----------


## otherone

> A lot of time could probably be saved if a lot of you answered this question honestly: *Do you think the individual should have the right to secede, or do you think they should be violently forced to stay?*


HAH!!!!!
Absolutely the individual should have the Right to secede....and in the US, they could, up until the the 14th amendment!!!!

----------


## Stupified

> It's weird that you've brought this up...only yesterday I've taken this out of the library to read to my family.  The important point to take away from all of this is:
> _politics is anthropology, not philosophy_.



It's a pretty decent musing of how anarchy can go wrong (and more importantly, _why_). Obviously it's a little extreme, but I think Golding had a valid point.

----------


## Black Flag

> I'm sorry....I wasn't clear.  In an anarchist society, let's say, 80% of the Freemen choose not to fight (perhaps they were bribed by the enemy?) and the anarchist "nation" is absorbed by an outside state.  Is this moral? The freemen "chose" money over Liberty...it's their choice, right?


20% is more than enough.

Right now, the US military is only 1/300th..... 

And yes, if freemen wish to sell themselves to slavery - who has the right to stop them?

_1 Samuel 8 

 4 So all the elders gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”

 6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

 10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: 

He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 

Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, 

and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, 

and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 

He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 

He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 

He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 

Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 

He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.18 

When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”_

----------


## Black Flag

> It's weird that you've brought this up...only yesterday I've taken this out of the library to read to my family.  The important point to take away from all of this is:
> _politics is anthropology, not philosophy_.


All things come from ideas.

If the idea is flawed, so are the things.

----------


## Seraphim

Voluntaryism/An-cap has no nation. National defence is not necessary. What IS necessary is the protection of private property. 

I'd love to see exterior forces try to overtake an area that has self sufficient families who are NOT part of State tax farm.

Good $#@!ing luck. The exterior forces would $#@! themselves just thinking of it, let alone actually being able to do it.

----------


## otherone

> [i]1 Samuel 8 
> 
>  4 So all the elders gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”


dang...Black Flag's gone all OT on me.

----------


## Black Flag

> ...... Serious?
> 
> The customer is the government. Who pays for it by... taxing its population.


Correct - but the money comes from the people.

So, asking "where does the money come from" ... comes from the same people.

The only difference:
one is coerced, the other way is voluntary.

But the *ability and capacity is unchanged*

----------


## Black Flag

> dang...Black Flag's gone all OT on me.


No, just to show you your question is as old as the hills, and so is the answer.

It merely means your reading list is too short.

----------


## Stupified

> Correct - but the money comes from the people.
> 
> So, asking "where does the money come from" ... comes from the same people.
> 
> The only difference:
> one is coerced, the other way is voluntary.
> But the *ability and capacity is unchanged*



Do you think people would actually pay enough for all military expenses? Or do you think they would gripe and complain and think it was just a "scam" from some greedy corporation and that they'd be safer just hoarding their resources and protecting their family and neighbors?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

----------


## otherone

> No, just to show you your question is as old as the hills, and so is the answer.
> 
> It merely means your reading list is too short.


Hah...just my comprehension is inadequate...what does your passage mean?

----------


## Seraphim

I agree, but I would argue that the capacity is actually INCREASED.

Uncoerced activity is far more efficient as it is not trickled through wasteful beaurocracy AND the very fact that the productive are not taxed for their work means they are more productive (the result of knowing you will keep what you earn; INCENTIVE).




> Correct - but the money comes from the people.
> 
> So, asking "where does the money come from" ... comes from the same people.
> 
> The only difference:
> one is coerced, the other way is voluntary.
> 
> But the *ability and capacity is unchanged*

----------


## Seraphim

I will preface my rebuttal with; their resources are of no god damn concern to you. $#@! yourself if you don't like them SAVING their resources. HOARDING is a $#@!ing retarted, intellectually repugnant way of saying, SAVING.

Next; since the protection of private property always has been and always will be IMPORTANT to property owners, it is garbage to believe people will not adequately protect their property. Will some be lazy in such respect? YES. It is also their RIGHT to do so. Will some be somewhat overzealous with protecting their property? YES. It is there right to do so. 




> Do you think people would actually pay enough for all military expenses? Or do you think they would gripe and complain and think it was just a "scam" from some greedy corporation and that they'd be safer just hoarding their resources and protecting their family and neighbors?
> 
> I think we both know the answer to that one.

----------


## otherone

"Either we all hang together or we all hang separately"

----------


## Black Flag

> Do you think people would actually pay enough for all military expenses?


People pay $100+ billion a year in the USA for private security ...*right now*....in a paradigm where -theoretically- government should be doing such a darn good job, this would be unnecessary.

So, minus the coercion to pay for all the security apparatus *right now*, do you think this $100 billion would go up or down?

----------


## Stupified

> I will preface my rebuttal with; their resources are of no god damn concern to you. $#@! yourself if you don't like them SAVING their resources. HOARDING is a $#@!ing retarted, intellectually repugnant way of saying, SAVING.
> 
> Next; since the protection of private property always has been and always will be IMPORTANT to property owners, it is garbage to believe people will not adequately protect their property. Will some be lazy in such respect? YES. It is also their RIGHT to do so. Will some be somewhat overzealous with protecting their property? YES. It is there right to do so.


Please do not come into an argument that has spanned several pages without reading them first. Especially don't come into the argument the way you just did. $#@! yourself, sir. 


And with pleasantries out of the way, I can catch you up to speed:

We're debating the scenario of an attack containing more than just ground forces (like any modern day assault would). I am humbly proposing that you can't defend your private property if you're obliterated by a bomb.

----------


## Black Flag

> Hah...just my comprehension is inadequate...what does your passage mean?


Israel was free, and they acted as free men ... following a moral leader who lead by example and not by violence.

Israel demanded to be lead by a king; and the Lord warned them of the horrors that they would suffer under such a king, even if it was one of their own choosing.

Israel ignored the warning, and the Lord said "Fine, but don't be crying to me - its your choice to be slaves again".

... and they were.

Free men can chose slavery, and they get their wish granted.... once.

----------


## Seraphim

Ummmm...

My argument is easily applicable to the voluntary association of neighbours, towns, regions etc. All fall under the scope of private property and everything I said is applicable.






> Please do not come into an argument that has spanned several pages without reading them first. Especially don't come into the argument the way you just did. $#@! yourself, sir. 
> 
> 
> And with pleasantries out of the way, I can catch you up to speed:
> 
> We're debating the scenario of an attack containing more than just ground forces (like any modern day assault would). I am humbly proposing that you can't defend your private property if you're obliterated by a bomb.

----------


## Black Flag

> I am humbly proposing that you can't defend your private property if you're obliterated by a bomb.


You need to provide your rational for war, because at this point, you are arguing genocide.

War is not genocide, it is merely the extension of politics by other means. There is a goal, and it is rarely utter destruction and death, though that happens to be the means.

----------


## Stupified

> People pay $100+ billion a year in the USA for private security ...*right now*....in a paradigm where -theoretically- government should be doing such a darn good job, this would be unnecessary.
> 
> So, minus the coercion to pay for all the security apparatus *right now*, do you think this $100 billion would go up or down?


Is that figure is including things like home security systems and security lights? Because private property security won't be of any use against an external assault. 


The problem I have with private security (mercenaries) in an anarchist society is that I think those private security companies would have too much power. They'd essentially be a local police, except that they wouldn't even have to answer to federal authorities. Ever seen the movie Gangs of New York? Remember the scene where the opposing firefighting units brawl in the streets? That's how I envision an anarchist society with private security contracts.

----------


## otherone

> Free men can chose slavery, and they get their wish granted.... once.


Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I agree completely in regards to deciding one's own fate.  My point was, however, is that the 80% who capitulated left the 20% Liberty-minded screwed.  The 80% were morally righteous in $#@!ing over their remaining countrymen.

----------


## Stupified

> You need to provide your rational for war, because at this point, you are arguing genocide.
> 
> War is not genocide, it is merely the extension of politics by other means. There is a goal, and it is rarely utter destruction and death, though that happens to be the means.


The war I am theorizing would be a war for real estate and resources, and not a war fought over monetary concessions or something. And I know that war is not genocide, but look at the Vietnam War. We couldn't fight the guerrilla militia in the jungles, so we resorted to simply dousing large stretches of lands with napalm. That would be a likely course of action for our enemy if guerrilla units composed of towns/communities kept harassing their ground troops. 

It may all be hypothetical, but this is the type of theorizing you have to do in order to be confident in anarchy. You have to be prepared for the worst.

----------


## mczerone

> You're begging the question.  If a society chooses a state, is it moral?


"Society" is not an agent of force.

People are.  And if people choose to organize under a constitution to achieve some goals; GREAT!

But if you force other, non-cooperators, into this "state" then it is immoral. If you refuse to allow people to disassociate themselves and their property from the aegis of this institution, then it is immoral. If the people use their state to indemnify their immoral desires, then it is immoral.

----------


## Black Flag

> Is that figure is including things like home security systems and security lights? Because private property security won't be of any use against an external assault.


To answer your red herring: it is "all" private security, which probably includes putting locks on your door.

But that is irrelevant.

The point being, people see value in security and safety, and pay a hellva a lot of money for it ... today.... in a paradigm that eats through more than 3/4 of trillion a year on it via government.

To argue that without government, no one would pay flies head-on with the fact that they already do....

To argue that private firms would have too much power .... from what? Why would free men organize themselves to inflict the very essence of what they oppose?

Yes, do remember Gangs of *New York* - created by government action, in a city full of cops, etc.  

You are arguing against yourself. You argue only the State can keep you safe, and then point to times in history where .... they didn't.


I am not saying (and I can say no one else is either) that free men would be *better* or even win against a determined enemy. 
I am saying that you can't say that government would be better either, nor win against a determined enemy.

I am saying that free men have more than enough will and capacity to defend themselves -- and their success or failure at the time of testing is irrelevant.

----------


## otherone

> "Society" is not an agent of force.
> 
> People are.  And if people choose to organize under a constitution to achieve some goals; GREAT!
> 
> But if you force other, non-cooperators, into this "state" then it is immoral. If you refuse to allow people to disassociate themselves and their property from the aegis of this institution, then it is immoral. If the people use their state to indemnify their immoral desires, then it is immoral.


So....up until the 14th amendment, the Constitution WAS moral!

----------


## Black Flag

> Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I agree completely in regards to deciding one's own fate.  My point was, however, is that the 80% who capitulated left the 20% Liberty-minded screwed.  The 80% were morally righteous in $#@!ing over their remaining countrymen.


Well, the 20% ended up winning, this time.

Can't remember the fella or the exact quote, but he essentially said to his countrymen

Go and do not bother us and we will not bother you. We will fight for freedom without you, and indeed, we do not wish your company among us men...

----------


## Black Flag

> So....up until the 14th amendment, the Constitution WAS moral!


No, it never was, and never will be.

A group of guys who believe they can sign away my rights against my wishes can never be a moral decree.

----------


## Stupified

> To answer your red herring: it is "all" private security, which probably includes putting locks on your door.
> 
> But that is irrelevant.
> 
> The point being, people see value in security and safety, and pay a hellva a lot of money for it ... today.... in a paradigm that eats through more than 3/4 of trillion a year on it via government.
> 
> To argue that without government, no one would pay flies head-on with the fact that they already do....
> 
> To argue that private firms would have too much power .... from what? Why would free men organize themselves to inflict the very essence of what they oppose?
> ...



I think we will have to agree to tip hats and part ways then, for I do not see us ever coming to agreement. 


I believe that the days of "The Patriot" - one man against an invading army - are long gone due to ever advancing military technology.

----------


## otherone

> Well, the 20% ended up winning, this time.


What time?

----------


## otherone

> No, it never was, and never will be.
> 
> A group of guys who believe they can sign away my rights against my wishes can never be a moral decree.


But if you can secede, where's the problem?

----------


## Travlyr

> No, it never was, and never will be.
> 
> A group of guys who believe they can sign away my rights against my wishes can never be a moral decree.


If it is not a moral document, never has been, and never will be, then why doesn't everybody just ignore it and we'll enjoy anarchy.

----------


## Black Flag

> That would be a likely course of action for our enemy if guerrilla units composed of towns/communities kept harassing their ground troops. 
> 
> It may all be hypothetical, but this is the type of theorizing you have to do in order to be confident in anarchy. You have to be prepared for the worst.


Vietnam, correct .... and who won?

You cannot defeat an enemy who will not surrender, nor has a political center which you can attack.

The Apache resisted the US army for decades - they could not be defeated.

They had no center of political power - leaders appeared by their action, not by decree - and when one died, another leader naturally arose from the people.

The US government defeated them by giving them cattle ... and designated one Apache the power to allocate the cattle.

All Apache resistance collapsed within a year .... now that the government could control but one man, the government controlled them all.

This is a lesson - and the strength of such resistance as the 4th and 5th Generation Warriors - they have no center of political power, and hence, impossible to defeat by such political means as war.
...but we are seriously straying from the topic.

----------


## Black Flag

> I think we will have to agree to tip hats and part ways then, for I do not see us ever coming to agreement. 
> 
> 
> I believe that the days of "The Patriot" - one man against an invading army - are long gone due to ever advancing military technology.


And I argue, with fact, that the ever-advancing technology empowers the individual at the cost of the centralized State.

Today, a man can command the financial resources of a nation, and arguably can obtain weapons of magnitude in competition with any Nation state.

Technology is the rue of centralized power, which is why they have always sought to control it.

The Magna Carta came to be - along with the first breath of human rights - because of technology.
A long bow in the hands of a peasant was able to fell a knight at 300 paces... who had trained for 10 years, wearing today's financial equal of $2 million in armor.

The Declaration of Independence - a renewed breath of human rights - came to be because of technology.
The long gun, in the hands of a frontiersman, whose livelihood depended on his quick, deadly shot defeated the most powerful army the world had know to that time.

But the cat is out of the bag. Technology moves faster then than blundering bureaucrats can control it - the future is freedom of the individual, not slavery of the State.

----------


## Black Flag

> What time?


1776

----------


## Black Flag

> But if you can secede, where's the problem?


Didn't agree in the first place.

----------


## otherone

> 1776


Are you a minarchist, now?

----------


## otherone

> Didn't agree in the first place.


huh?

----------


## Black Flag

> Are you a minarchist, now? 
> .


Of course not.

But one must remember their time within their paradigm.

All the 'archy' that came before them -- and every one of the dissolved into tyranny.

It is reasonable for brilliant men to review them all and come to many different conclusions.

The one that held sway was: "It was because the people who were ruled had no say", so let's try that - let the governed govern.

Well, it failed too - for the same reason as all the rest.

The Right to Rule other men .... does not exist without inflicting violence on the non-violent.

Adding violence by doing violence where there was none increases violence.

Increase in violence disrupts social order.

Disruptions in social order collapses society.

Society in collapse revolts and replaces the old order.

...maybe next time, we will chose better than merely using another form violence over non-violent men.

PS: I didn't agree to the conditions, so claiming under the conditions I could leave simply does not apply

----------


## mczerone

> Are you a minarchist, now?


The Revolutionary War was not fought to institute a new government. It was fought to throw the shackles of the old one off.

The minarchy wasn't instituted until after the war, and notably quite a few former patriot leaders stayed home rather than attend the continental congresses.

----------


## otherone

> The Revolutionary War was not fought to institute a new government. It was fought to throw the shackles of the old one off.
> 
> The minarchy wasn't instituted until after the war, and notably quite a few former patriot leaders stayed home rather than attend the continental congresses.


So the individual state governments were "anarchy"?

----------


## Black Flag

> So the individual state governments were "anarchy"?


Compared to the Empire from which they were born... yeah, I'm sure that is how King George saw them...

----------


## otherone

> PS: I didn't agree to the conditions, so claiming under the conditions I could leave simply does not apply


So...you were born under the protection of a condition with which you don't agree, and having the option to disassociate is not adequate...what is your alternative?

----------


## Black Flag

> So...you were born under the protection of a condition with which you don't agree, and having the option to disassociate is not adequate...what is your alternative?


No man can make an agreement on my behalf, nor can I impose my agreement upon the future, nor the unborn.

Thus, I do not accept the such done to me.

----------


## Travlyr

The united States of America were not anarchy unless governments create anarchy.



> *IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America*
> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
> 
> He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
> 
> He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
> ...

----------


## mczerone

> So the individual state governments were "anarchy"?


Honestly I responded just thinking that you were implying that the rebels were fighting in order to establish a minarchy in the US.

But to answer your question:

As amongst each other - YES.  They may have been mini tyrannies within themselves, like Massachusetts, but once the King was overthrown there was no government making rules for who the people in the colonies needed to act with respect to people in other colonies.

----------


## mczerone

> The united States of America were not anarchy unless governments create anarchy.


The two passages you imply are important:

"...and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"...and to provide new Guards for their future security."

While "Government" in the first passage is capitalized, where does it say that ALL people are bound? It says that only those people who have declared their independence need to institute a new Govt. And why should they be bound to each other after throwing off the old govt?

In fact "Safety and Happiness" are distinctly personal, _subjective_ measures of quality of life - and to go along with "provid[ing] ... future security" - there is no way to institute a single system that meets every individual's needs in a manner that every individual is willing to support.

So to truly take the Dec. of Ind. to heart, you should embrace anarchy, where each individual person, or any group of people, can institute their own rules on their own lives and property.

----------


## otherone

> Honestly I responded just thinking that you were implying that the rebels were fighting in order to establish a minarchy in the US.


I'm just asking questions.  I don't see anything in the early US that wouldn't be an anarchist's dream...

----------


## Black Flag

> I'm just asking questions.  I don't see anything in the early US that wouldn't be an anarchist's dream...


And you'd probably be right.

As with all things, it is a matter of cost and a matter of tradeoffs.

The cost for the "little" bit still under coercion worth it? Probably not. Plus there was the whole wild west where one could migrate to .... and live free.... with all its reward and risk.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm just asking questions.  I don't see anything in the early US that wouldn't be an anarchist's dream...


Ron Paul reinforces that notion.



> "The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.
> 
> The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.
> 
> Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.
> 
> Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.
> 
> We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government." - Ron Paul


The 14th amendment was never properly ratified.

----------


## Black Flag

> Ron Paul reinforces that notion.
> 
> The 14th amendment was never properly ratified.


So, I am surprised you are so much a Constitutionalist - as it was written by Hamilton and decried by Jefferson.

Jefferson quipped of the Constitutional Congress, which he did not attend:
"Now they have a King, but one of their own choosing"

----------


## Travlyr

Ignoring the Constitution is not working.

----------


## Black Flag

> Ignoring the Constitution is not working.


Following every word - this is where you are.

It never could work.

It is irrational to believe that the entity charged with making and enforcing law would ever make and enforce a law to limit itself.

That is asking the devil to tie himself up with his own rope. Only the most naive would believe the knots he would tie could not be undone.

----------


## Travlyr

The Constitution pretty much worked for 85 years until counterfeiting operations began and warmongers undermined it.

----------


## Black Flag

> The Constitution pretty much worked for 85 years until counterfeiting operations began and warmongers undermined it.


It didn't last even 5 years.

The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington.

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress resistance to its laws.

----------


## TheTexan

How many years has it been since every square inch on this planet has been claimed by a State?  I don't know, but not very long.  You used to be able to just pack up your $#@! and leave.  Good luck with that now, even the oceans are claimed.

Even after all the land was taken, many lovers of liberty pinned their hopes on freedom on this experiment known as the United States.  This experiment failed with the war of Northern Aggression, and its failure has only become more apparent since.

So 150 years ago marked the first time in the history of man kind that Anarchism needed to be considered as a solution to the tyranny of the State.  

The need for a solution to the problem of the state is becoming more and more necessary with each passing year, and as they say, innovation is born out of necessity.

By the way, wasn't this thread supposed to be about national defense?

----------


## Black Flag

> By the way, wasn't this thread supposed to be about national defense?


The question was throughly answered.

There is no fundamental, practical, theoretical, or epistemological argument to why free men could not defend themselves to any degree necessary and equal to any nation state, should the need arise.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It didn't last even 5 years.
> 
> The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington.
> 
> The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress resistance to its laws.


*
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Black Flag again. * drat.   I'll +rep ya ASAP.

----------


## TheTexan

> There is no fundamental, practical, theoretical, or epistemological argument to why free men could not defend themselves to any degree necessary and equal to any nation state, should the need arise.


Right, but there's like 300 hundred different viable ways of doing it, and I'd rather be arguing over which way is best

----------


## ProIndividual

> Ignoring the Constitution is not working.


It cannot work because it can be ignored. There is no inherent magicin the paper and ink that stop the state from growing. A small state unleashes the free market from which the state simply gets a more wealthy society to extort when it grows again. If the state isn't abolished you doom future generations to the same fate. 

Make the state as illegal as any other mafia collecting protection money (tax)...problem solved.

----------


## Travlyr

> It cannot work because it can be ignored. There is no inherent magicin the paper and ink that stop the state from growing. A small state unleashes the free market from which the state simply gets a more wealthy society to extort when it grows again. If the state isn't abolished you doom future generations to the same fate. 
> 
> Make the state as illegal as any other mafia collecting protection money (tax)...problem solved.


As long as the document that created the state is ignored, then isn't it already abolished?

----------


## ProIndividual

OP, I think the best way to have private defense is a little above my pay grade (I'm not paid...lol). But I can say this:

W/o a state, you cannot through private business accumulate in any one company enough money to fund wars of aggression that are unpopular, empire around the world, etc. It would take the cooperation of several companies in the defense industry to pool those kind of resources (currently, trillions of dollars). So, we'd have a defense, but not one so easily turned into a centralized war machine of aggression. It also wouldn't turn on it's people, as each company has the incentive of going after it's competitors if they are deemed a threat or act aggressively unilaterally. They are confined to self defense and cooridination by the forces of the market, public opinion, and the natural law (that the state is unlawful).

I wouldn't fear Trillion dollar adventures overseas, crackdowns here at home, or wars between the private firms. All of that either goes against the profit motive, their ability to accumulate enough capital and resources, customer satisfaction (public opinion), or all of the above.

If some anarchist was also an expereinced soldier (perhaps became an anarchist after being a high ranking officer) or a defense contractor, then we'd get really good technical answers as to how this would look.

One thing is for sure...we don't need to hand sociopaths the ability to accumulate huge resources and taxes to fund aggressive wars, we don't need to hand them armies and police, and we don't need to hand them power. None of that makes us any safer.

----------


## Black Flag

> As long as the document that created the state is ignored, then isn't it already abolished?


Sir, do you see the State 'gone'?

Didn't think so.

The State does not exist because a piece of paper.

It exist because it can exercise violence at gun point.

Oh, and to add to the ancient history lesson, do not forget this destruction of the Freedom of Speech

"...restrict speech critical of the government with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798..."

So much for the "guarantee" of Freedom of  Speech

----------


## ProIndividual

> As long as the document that created the state is ignored, then isn't it already abolished?


Obviously not, or we'd arrest the politicians for continuing to extort (tax) us for protection money on the threat of kidnapping (prison). They still are in charge of the police and military, and own monopolies on both. They still use drones to surveil us...I could go on, but it's ad nauseum.

Of course they aren't abolished! How could you even ask that?!

----------


## Travlyr

> Sir, do you see the State 'gone'?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> The State does not exist because a piece of paper.
> 
> It exist because it can exercise violence at gun point.
> 
> Oh, and to add to the ancient history lesson, do not forget this destruction of the Freedom of Speech
> ...


What is your proposal to abolish the state?

----------


## Travlyr

> Obviously nit, or we'd arrest the politicians for continuing to extort (tax) us for protection money on the threat of kidnapping (prison). They still are in charge of the police and military, and own monopolies on both. They still use drones to surveil us...I could go on, but it's ad nauseum.
> 
> Of course they aren't abolished! How could you even ask that?!


As long as they ignore the Constitution, then they do not have legitimate authority. What is your proposal to abolish the state?

----------


## ProIndividual

> What is your proposal to abolish the state?


Simply make the state, like all other mafia, illegal. They are afterall, the largest criminal organization on the planet, they fund themselves via protection money, and are only distinguishable from the other mafias in that they brainwash kids to love them, build an idolic pseudo-religion around their symbols (flags, anthems, oaths, etc.), and have declared themselves legal while all other competitors (the other mafias) illegal.

If you can make one mafia illegal, you can make them all illegal. Extortion (tax) should be a crime no matter who does it. Just applying natural law to them like everyone else abolishes them in practice. No extortion, no funding, no funding, no state. If everyone stopped paying taxes tomorrow (or even most people) they couldn't borrow anymore, their monopoly on money would be gone (so printing money wouldn't help them, as no one would accept the money since it's so inflationary), and they couldn't force anyone to fund their oligarchy. All that needs to be done to get most people to stop paying taxes is to tell them they no longer have to and won't go to jail for not paying. 

Bye bye state. Hello liberty and natural law.

And BTW, even if they obey the Constitution...they still don't have legitimate authority. I didn't consent to it by being born here and some dead dudes 200 years ago making promises on my behalf. I'm not their cattle. Legitimate implies ethical...and ethically there is only one way to gain legitimacy...by getting my permission. Hence, no state is ever legitimate. 

If you want legitimate voluntary govt, have at it...but that doesn't imply geographic monopolies in which you can extort at will. It implies you and like minded people fund it by donation only.

----------


## Travlyr

Make them illegal eh? Under what authority?

I think I'll just keep supporting Ron Paul, sound money, limited government, and a foreign policy of freedom.

----------


## onlyrp

> The Constitution pretty much worked for 85 years until counterfeiting operations began and warmongers undermined it.


what a great constitution that allowed it.

----------


## onlyrp

> As long as they ignore the Constitution, then they do not have legitimate authority. What is your proposal to abolish the state?


I'm sure the bad guys lose a lot of sleep over breaking the rules, obviously they care about us and want to have 'legit' authority.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm sure the bad guys lose a lot of sleep over breaking the rules, obviously they care about us and want to have 'legit' authority.


I don't agree. That is the fight. They do not want us to make them obey their oath of office. Counterfeiting and warmongering are far too profitable for them.

----------


## Travlyr

> what a great constitution that allowed it.


Counterfeiting and warmongering are not allowed by the constitution. Debasement of currency is a capital crime.

----------


## Pericles

> Following every word - this is where you are.
> 
> It never could work.
> 
> It is irrational to believe that the entity charged with making and enforcing law would ever make and enforce a law to limit itself.
> 
> That is asking the devil to tie himself up with his own rope. Only the most naive would believe the knots he would tie could not be undone.


No - the enforcement mechanism is the militias of the several states. Gut the states militias, and there is no counter to federal power.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Make them illegal eh? Under what authority?
> 
> I think I'll just keep supporting Ron Paul, sound money, limited government, and a foreign policy of freedom.


I thought I mentioned that...natural law. Free market law is still law.

You can keep supporting limited mafia, a better monopoly on money, and a foreign policy led by sociopaths pretending it will be more free and less agressive...I on the other hand support Ron Paul because he at least recognizes that competition in currency (the end of the monopoly) is important to achieveing sound money, that limited mafia is just a step toward Voluntaryism (making the maifa illegal), and a foreign policy that doesn't exist except in self defense because it's not led by sociopaths due to it's monopolization as a service in the free market.

Spout memes until you're blue in the face, your slogans aren't making your beloved mafia any less criminal.

----------


## Black Flag

> What is your proposal to abolish the state?


Do absolutely nothing to it or for it.

You attack the State violently, you give it power and the State gets stronger
You attempt to change the State, you give it power and the State gets stronger

But if you neither defend nor attack nor use nor support the State, it withers.

----------


## otherone

> What is your proposal to abolish the state?



Let's fix the state!
1) Repeal the 17th amendment
2) Repeal the 14th amendment
Problem solved!

----------


## Travlyr

Yeah, doing nothing as suggested by Black Flag is not going to stop the illegitimate state. That's how we got where we are at.
Passing another law to eliminate the state as suggested by ProIndividual doesn't seem like a good plan either. Who is going to enforce it?

Forcing elected officials to obey the law as suggested by Ron Paul makes the most sense.
Bring the troops home
End the Fed
End the IRS
Repeal 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments.
And let the healing begin.

----------


## Black Flag

> Let's fix the state!
> 1) Repeal the 17th amendment
> 2) Repeal the 14th amendment
> Problem solved!


And you think anarchism is a fantasy!!

You cannot repair a system that has been organized to resist and  eliminate changes to itself.

----------


## Black Flag

> Yeah, doing nothing as suggested by Black Flag is not going to stop the illegitimate state.


Of course it will.

As Bastiat said, the moment you withdraw your consent, it fails.

----------


## Travlyr

> And you think anarchism is a fantasy!!
> 
> You cannot repair a system that has been organized to resist and  eliminate changes to itself.


But it can be eliminated by ignoring it?

----------


## Black Flag

> But it can be eliminated by ignoring it?


Absolutely!

The State exists only because people use it.

Stop using it, and it has no purpose.

----------


## Travlyr

> Absolutely!
> 
> The State exists only because people use it.
> 
> Stop using it, and it has no purpose.


I for one will not stop using it. Like I've said many times, I'm a homeowner. You offer nomadic philosophy. That didn't work out well for the natives. Until you offer something better, I'm sticking with Ron Paul. I've read his books and watched his speeches. He makes a lot more sense. Obey the Constitution to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity.

----------


## otherone

> I for one will not stop using it. Like I've said many times, I'm a homeowner.


If your house catches fire, DO NOT call the 'state'....take a nap instead.

----------


## otherone

> You cannot repair a system that has been organized to resist and  eliminate changes to itself.


You're not voting for Dr. Paul?

----------


## Black Flag

> If your house catches fire, DO NOT call the 'state'....take a nap instead.


No, I call on my neighbors ... called VOLUNTEER firemen... remember them?

----------


## Black Flag

> You're not voting for Dr. Paul?


He will never be in a position to receive any vote

----------


## otherone

> He will never be in a position to receive any vote


If you're not around Tuesday, April 3rd, you can still cast an absentee vote.

edit:  I assumed you lived in Texas.  When is/was your State's primary?

----------


## Black Flag

> If you're not around Tuesday, April 3rd, you can still cast an absentee vote.


1. He will never get to be in a position to be elected President
2. If he did, he would never win.
3. If he won, there is not one thing he could change.

Impossible x Impossible x Impossible = Impossible^3

----------


## otherone

> 1. He will never get to be in a position to be elected President
> 2. If he did, he would never win.
> 3. If he won, there is not one thing he could change.


LOL
Do you troll on other candidate's websites telling everyone how futile their efforts are?

----------


## Black Flag

> LOL
> Do you troll on other candidate's websites telling everyone how futile their efforts are?


So now the blunt truth is *trolling*?

Egads!

----------


## Madison320

> Again, how did you organize the pick-up game of baseball?
> 
> Those that wanted to play came to play.
> 
> Those that did not went somewhere else.
> 
> Everyone split up, based on their favorite position (probably based on their ability), appointed a Captain, and begin playing.
> 
> 
> You do know that the first military militia of the USA organized this way, right? It's not like it "never happened before".....


"Appointed a captain". That's sounds suspiciously like voting.

Let me repeat the scenario. A group of anarchists decide to form an island anarchy. They don't want to get annexed by a neighboring country like the Republic of Minerva in 1972.

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

So they decide to create a military. Somebody has to be in charge of that military. It doesn't just "happen out of thin air" like you want it to. You have to pick a leader. So you take a VOTE. So is it still an anarchy?

----------


## Black Flag

> "Appointed a captain". That's sounds suspiciously like voting.


Why do you believe "voting" is a concept foreign to anarchists?

----------


## Black Flag

> . It doesn't just "happen out of thin air" like you want it to. You have to pick a leader. So you take a VOTE. So is it still an anarchy?


In fact it does happen out of thin air.

The Apache never "votes" for their leader. He appears.

By his own action and example, the rest of his tribe follow him.

When Geronimo was tired of the abuse of his people at the hands of the US government, he stood up and said "I've had enough"
He went to his horse, and rode away to engage the US army. 

He ordered no one to follow him. He demanded nothing from anyone in his tribe.

His tribe followed him.

----------


## otherone

> So now the blunt truth is *trolling*?


In this context, yes.  This a grassroots support forum.  Discussing anarchy v. minarchy is one thing.  Telling everyone here they are wasting their time and money in support of RP is another .

----------


## Black Flag

> In this context, yes.  This a grassroots support forum.  Discussing anarchy v. minarchy is one thing.  Telling everyone here they are wasting their time and money in support of RP is another .


If you cannot face the truth, then you are -indeed- lost in a futile act.

----------


## Madison320

> In fact it does happen out of thin air.
> 
> The Apache never "votes" for their leader. He appears.
> 
> By his own action and example, the rest of his tribe follow him.
> 
> When Geronimo was tired of the abuse of his people at the hands of the US government, he stood up and said "I've had enough"
> He went to his horse, and rode away to engage the US army. 
> 
> ...


This is getting too weird for me.

----------


## TheTexan

There is only one requirement to fix the State.  Allow individuals to secede.  Allowing states to secede would be a good step in the right direction.  

So, IMO, the first step in fixing the State, is to try to secede, and see if they will let us.

Until we try, we have noone to blame but ourselves, IMO.

----------


## Black Flag

> This is getting too weird for me.


Why?

You wanted examples, there is a real world example.

----------


## Black Flag

> There is only one requirement to fix the State.  Allow individuals to secede.  Allowing states to secede would be a good step in the right direction.  
> 
> So, IMO, the first step in fixing the State, is to try to secede, and see if they will let us.
> 
> Until we try, we have noone to blame but ourselves, IMO.


What form does "secede" take? What would you do?

----------


## TheTexan

> What form does "secede" take? What would you do?


I'm open to suggestions on that.  What I think would work, if we actually concentrated our efforts on it, is the FSP.  While some of them may say it's not a "secession movement", it is a secession movement, by its very nature of trying to separate ourselves into our own group.

Every individual has a right to secede, but for the secession to have legitimacy in the eyes of the tyranny we live in, I think the secession has to be at the state level, though we could certainly try something smaller.

The bottom line is we need to start organizing ourselves into a geographic area.  Whether it's NH, a city in NH, another state, or even another country, it really doesn't matter.

----------


## Xerographica

> The bottom line is we need to start organizing ourselves into a geographic area.  Whether it's NH, a city in NH, another state, or even another country, it really doesn't matter.


In this post I explain why secession isn't really necessary...The Magna Carta Movement.

----------


## otherone

> I'm open to suggestions on that.


we can start by repealing the 14th amendment.  BAM....no longer a citizen of the US.....

----------


## TheTexan

> we can start by repealing the 14th amendment.  BAM....no longer a citizen of the US.....


Ya that's gonna happen.  I like where your head is at though.  If we were able to pull that off, it would fix this country, but no, I don't see that as a realistic possibility.

Plus the US would likely still claim jurisdiction over your property that you own, even though you reject citizenship.  Most likely deport you :/

----------


## otherone

> Plus the US would likely still claim jurisdiction over your property that you own, even though you reject citizenship.  Most likely deport you :/



Why do people forget that we don't live in the "United States".  The "United States" is a legal construct.  I live in Pennsylvania.  I don't live in all of the states. No one does. Upon eliminating US citizenship, we would only be a citizen of our State.  The USA would become a federation again, not a sovereign entity.

----------


## TheTexan

> Why do people forget that we don't live in the "United States".  The "United States" is a legal construct.  I live in Pennsylvania.  I don't live in all of the states. No one does. Upon eliminating US citizenship, we would only be a citizen of our State.  The USA would become a federation again, not a sovereign entity.


As long as the Federal Government has any authority whatsoever, this is simply a semantics argument you're making.  If the Constitution were simply a set of guidelines not to be enforced, then yes, you would be correct.  This also means states would have a right to secede.

However, if the Constitution does have any authority, it still remains as sovereign as it is today, only with less authority.  So if you're a citizen of a state, and that state is a member of the Federal Government, implicitly you are still a citizen of the Federal Government.

So the question comes back to secession again.  A state that cannot secede is not sovereign.  Would repealing the 14th amendment allow states to secede, in both theory and reality?

----------


## otherone

> As long as the Federal Government has any authority whatsoever, this is simply a semantics argument you're making.


Actually, the only authority the federal government has (or should have) is over the governments of the federated states.  It's not the "United Individuals of America".  




> So if you're a citizen of a state, and that state is a member of the Federal Government, implicitly you are still a citizen of the Federal Government.


It's not implicit at all, which is why it's in the 14th amendment.  People had no concept of the sovereignty of the united federation prior to the Civil War.  That's why folks like Robert E Lee, an officer in the US military, was not committing treason.  He was a Virginian, not an "American".  The 14th Amendment destroyed the union by creating an Empire.  As far as secession goes, that is a state government concern...it shouldn't affect us as we aren't _actually_ citizens of the US.  But yes, states should have the Right to secede.

----------


## TheTexan

> Actually, the only authority the federal government has (or should have) is over the governments of the federated states.  It's not the "United Individuals of America".  
> 
> 
> 
> It's not implicit at all, which is why it's in the 14th amendment.  People had no concept of the sovereignty of the united federation prior to the Civil War.  That's why folks like Robert E Lee, an officer in the US military, was not committing treason.  He was a Virginian, not an "American".  The 14th Amendment destroyed the union by creating an Empire.  As far as secession goes, that is a state government concern...it shouldn't affect us as we aren't _actually_ citizens of the US.  But yes, states should have the Right to secede.


If a state can't secede, it's not sovereign.  If the state isn't sovereign, you'd still implicitly be a citizen of the United States.

So I don't see where repealing the 14th would fix anything.  Maybe I'm just not getting it.

----------


## Travlyr

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!





> There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
>                                by
>                          David Lawrence
> 
>                     U.S. News & World Report
>                        September 27, 1957
> 
>      A MISTAKEN  BELIEF --  that there  is a valid article in the Constitution  known   as  the   "Fourteenth  Amendment"   --   is responsible for  the Supreme  Court  decision  of  1954  and  the ensuing controversy  over desegregation  in the public schools of America. No  such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths  of   the  States   of  the  Union  as  required  by  the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously  proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President  shared that  doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at  the time,  so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make  the amendment  an integral  part  of  the  Constitution. Actually, only  21 States  legally ratified  it.  So it failed of ratification.

----------


## otherone

> If the state isn't sovereign, you'd still implicitly be a citizen of the United States.
> 
>  Maybe I'm just not getting it.


I'm not communicating this well.  Let's say, allasuddenlike....BAM ...the federal government DISSAPPEARS.  You're a 'free man', right?  No, as you still are subject to the authority of your state.  So life goes on, everyone doing all their regular life stuff, for let's say, 20 years.  And then, out of the blue, Canada attacks Wisconsin (to gain access to all the cheese fields) and Michigan (because they're tired of the smell).   Wisconsin and Michigan can't defend against Canada on their own (well, maybe they could, but that's a different story), so their governments create a partnership.  And lets say Minnesota and North Dakota join them, and they form a federation....the "FSA"...."Frozen States of America."  The FSA is an agreement of governments, not individuals.  Each individual is subject ONLY to their respective state, each _government_ is subject (upon agreement) to the federation.    The federation itself has no authority over individuals.  Does this make sense?

----------


## TheTexan

> I'm not communicating this well.  Let's say, allasuddenlike....BAM ...the federal government DISSAPPEARS.  You're a 'free man', right?  No, as you still are subject to the authority of your state.  So life goes on, everyone doing all their regular life stuff, for let's say, 20 years.  And then, out of the blue, Canada attacks Wisconsin (to gain access to all the cheese fields) and Michigan (because they're tired of the smell).   Wisconsin and Michigan can't defend against Canada on their own (well, maybe they could, but that's a different story), so their governments create a partnership.  And lets say Minnesota and North Dakota join them, and they form a federation....the "FSA"...."Frozen States of America."  The FSA is an agreement of governments, not individuals.  Each individual is subject ONLY to their respective state, each _government_ is subject (upon agreement) to the federation.    The federation itself has no authority over individuals.  Does this make sense?


Right, I get that part.  The benefits of a state being sovereign I understand.

The part I don't understand, is that repealing the 14th doesn't seem to address the problem of secession, and a state that cannot secede is not sovereign.




> each government is subject (*upon agreement*) to the federation


If this comes as a package deal with the 14th then yes repealing the 14th may be an effective solution.

It makes logical sense that if an individual is not subject to the authority of the federal government, that the state shouldn't be either, but unfortunately our Judicial Branch isn't always logical.

They may decide that individuals aren't subject to the authority of the federal government, but states are.  Which means implicitly that individuals are subject to the authority of the federal government.

It just seems like it would be more straight forward, and likely easier, to get a right of secession amendment.  Which would accomplish many of the same things as repealing the 14th, but more importantly, this would guarantee each state's sovereignty.

----------


## onlyrp

> Counterfeiting and warmongering are not allowed by the constitution. Debasement of currency is a capital crime.


what are you gonna do about it? talk?

----------


## Travlyr

> what are you gonna do about it? talk?


Oh indeed I am going to talk about it. Until very recently many people did not understand that the Federal Reserve System is simply a criminal counterfeiting ring that has achieved the right to steal the wealth of the world. The more I talk about it ... the more people learn that the Feds are the ones responsible for unemployment, homelessness, and wars. Yeah, I'm not going to stop talking about it until we end the Fed. On a personal level I am determined to not keep much fiat currency in banks because as they print more fake currency then commodities will maintain their purchasing power. I intend to use commodities as a hedge against the inflation of the thieves.




> "By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." - Lord John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Consequences of Peace"





> "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison





> "Our goal is gradually to absorb the wealth of the world." - Cecil Rhodes, "The secret banking cabal"

----------


## TheTexan

> Oh indeed I am going to talk about it. Until very recently many people did not understand that the Federal Reserve System is simply a criminal counterfeiting ring that has achieved the right to steal the wealth of the world. The more I talk about it ...


Talking about it isn't going to do $#@!.  I talk about it, tell them every single reason why the Fed is immoral, how it's theft, doesn't work, doesn't need to exist, enriches the rich, etc...

They say:  "well there's probably a good reason for it."

I say "there's not"

They say "then why do we have it?"

I say "for all the reasons I just listed... the rich & powerful benefit, etc, insert spiel here..."

They say "well, there's probably a good reason for it."

Good luck with your talking about it...

----------


## Travlyr

> Talking about it isn't going to do $#@!.  I talk about it, tell them every single reason why the Fed is immoral, doesn't work, doesn't need to exist, enriches the rich, etc...
> 
> They say:  "well there's probably a good reason for it."
> 
> I say "there's not"
> 
> They say "then why do we have it?"
> 
> I say "for all the reasons I just listed... the rich & powerful benefit, etc, insert spiel here..."
> ...


I completely disagree. Repetition works. Back in the 80's, I pulled a $50 from my wallet and a $1. It dawned on me that whoever was making the bills had a total advantage over me. At the time it took me 1/2 day to make 50 bucks. Then one of my customers had a $10,000 bill framed on his wall. Salmon P. Chase is the $10k Federal Reserve Note poster child. Well it took me nearly 1/2 YEAR to make $10k but they could make $10,000 for the same cost as a $1? 

I went back to school to learn how that worked. What I learned was Keynesian bull$#@! of macro & micro economics. Not until I learned of Ron Paul did I learn that the counterfeiters were getting rich off my labor. Murray Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking", and Eustace Mullins' "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" and I've been a stanch Ron Paul supporter ever since. I'm not an anarchist because I own property and anarchy is a nomadic philosophy, but counterfeiters are the ones stealing the wealth from you and your family. Anarchy doesn't hold a candle to the thieves. They tell you that straight up.



> "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild international Banking Dynasty, 1790





> "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson





> "Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slave of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp, President, Bank of England (2nd richest man in England)


All people have to do is listen. Tell the world and tell them with confidence.

----------


## TheTexan

> All people have to do is listen.


The problem is people are so closed minded based on a combination of indoctrination and a natural tendency towards tyranny.

They're not going to listen.  They may listen to actions (such as secession) but they most certainly will not listen to words.

----------


## Travlyr

> The problem is people are so closed minded based on a combination of indoctrination and a natural tendency towards tyranny.
> 
> They're not going to listen.  They may listen to actions (such as secession) but they most certainly will not listen to words.


The liberty movement is moving forward by leaps and bounds. I went to my GOP county assembly last week and we garnered 75% of the vote.

----------


## TheTexan

> The liberty movement is moving forward by leaps and bounds. I went to my GOP county assembly last week and we garnered 75% of the vote.


Your anecdotal evidence doesn't match what's happening nationally

----------


## Travlyr

> Your anecdotal evidence doesn't match what's happening nationally


On TV, radio, and newspapers... yeah. They are lying to you. The Federal Reserve System is a group of criminal counterfeiters. They don't tell you that because Washington D.C. receives $3 trillion from the rest of America each year in income tax. Facts are facts. At our county assembly we won 75% of the delegates for liberty and most of the local candidates running were "End The Fed" people.

----------


## TheTexan

> On TV, radio, and newspapers... yeah. They are lying to you. The Federal Reserve System is a group of criminal counterfeiters. They don't tell you that because Washington D.C. receives $3 trillion from the rest of America each year in income tax. Facts are facts. At our county assembly we won 75% of the delegates for liberty and most of the local candidates running were "End The Fed" people.


I guess we'll find out at Tampa

----------


## Travlyr

> I guess we'll find out at Tampa


I'm not saying that Ron Paul wins the GOP. I hope he does, but what I am saying is that repetition works. More and more people are understanding who it is that holds the whip. The more people learn that the Federal Reserve System is simply a criminal counterfeiting ring of rich guys in Armani suits... the better.

----------


## ProIndividual

Travlyr..you asserted back a few pages that making the state illegal is no solution...but then why make any mafia illegal? And if you can see why any other mafia is illegal, what rationalization (and that's what it is) do you have for making an exception for your favorite mafia; the state?

BTW, we don't need to "pass a law" to make the mafia (state) illegal...we need to end the monopoly on law it hoolds via monopolization of social contracts in it's territorial demesne. Once the monopoly is over, and competition in social contracts and law are allowed in the same geographic area, mafia and all it's extortion, kidnapping, and murder are de facto outlawed according to natural law (or the utilitarian equivalent). 

Why would I EVER suggest passing a "law" through the very mafia I'm trying to outlaw? Why would I ever try to end the monopoly by asking the monopoly to end it?

Think a little bit here.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr..you asserted back a few pages that making the state illegal is no solution...but then why make any mafia illegal? And if you can see why any other mafia is illegal, what rationalization (and that's what it is) do you have for making an exception for your favorite mafia; the state?
> 
> BTW, we don't need to "pass a law" to make the mafia (state) illegal...we need to end the monopoly on law it hoolds via monopolization of social contracts in it's territorial demesne. Once the monopoly is over, and competition in social contracts and law are allowed in the same geographic area, mafia and all it's extortion, kidnapping, and murder are de facto outlawed according to natural law (or the utilitarian equivalent). 
> 
> Why would I EVER suggest passing a "law" through the very mafia I'm trying to outlaw? Why would I ever try to end the monopoly by asking the monopoly to end it?
> 
> Think a little bit here.


Be honest. You are the one claiming the way to eliminate the state is to make the state illegal. Not me. I favor rule of law as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul the "Champion of the Constitution."

----------


## Travlyr

Also, as a homeowner I want land law.

----------


## TheTexan

> Why would I EVER suggest passing a "law" through the very mafia I'm trying to outlaw? Why would I ever try to end the monopoly by asking the monopoly to end it?


I do think there should be a Constitution of sorts.  Non-binding, but as a general guideline of what to expect when you join the community.

Mine would have only 1 guideline:
"Every contract should have a means of dissolution" for this is the essence of liberty from which all other liberties rely upon.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Be honest. You are the one claiming the way to eliminate the state is to make the state illegal. Not me. I favor rule of law as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul the "Champion of the Constitution."


It's not my fault you buy into memes and refuse to think. Don't ask me rhetorical questions then next time. You asked how I'd abolish the state, you came back with the same memes you're dropping now. 

Outlawing the state is a matter of ending it's monopolies of coercion, not passing a law through your favorite mafia. You have offered no retort to any of the concepts besides "Ron Paul, appeal to authority, herp derp".

And as far as "land law"...you need to read anthropology...property rights PRECEED the state...it's a not magical unicorn that defends your property rights by destroying them. It just destroys them. Every tax makes you a property renter, not owner, to whatever type of property they're taxing (extorting).

----------


## ProIndividual

> I do think there should be a Constitution of sorts.  Non-binding, but as a general guideline of what to expect when you join the community.
> 
> Mine would have only 1 guideline:
> "Every contract should have a means of dissolution" for this is the essence of liberty from which all other liberties rely upon.


If you want a non-monopoly social contract, have at it..leave others who don't want to be judged by anything but harm and fraud out of it. You don't require territory to sign a social contract. 

I'm totally against masochistic governance beyond myself:




> If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, you have the right to govern yourself. If no one or their property is harmed in that self governance, then all compulsory external government is tyranny. --- Me


That's my idea of liberty...anti-democratic, anti-social contract, pro-individual sovereignty. But notice, I allow you to engage in masochistic social contracts if you want, but only with other willing participants with no regard to terrirtorial monopolies on social contracts and the law they perscribe. If you try to monopolize social contracts or law you essentially become a tyrant. Voluntaryism is fine by me, even though I'm an anarchist...but I ask the Voluntaryists not to start another state. 

state=sadism

voluntary government=masochism

self government=liberty (to me).

If you want less liberty than self govt, fine...just don't ban me from it. If you do=tyranny.

----------


## TheTexan

> ...


I wasn't talking about a social contract.  I was talking about a shared philosophy.  For a nation to work, anarchist or not, they must share a philosophy.

In the scope of anarchism, there are many guiding principles, but at the heart of it is NAP.  At the heart of NAP, is the idea that all people are sovereign to themselves.

In an anarchy, common law will differ from land to land, as will the form of governance, masochism, self government, how they handle property rights, whether they have property rights at all for that matter, how they police themselves, or whether they police themselves at all, etc, but among all of this is one unifying principle:

*Every arrangement must have a means of dissolution.*

First, and foremost, this means every individual has a natural right of secession.  It also means that if you enter into a contract with someone, there should be a means, either explicit or implicit, to get out of the contract.

So, for example, if you own a plot of land that is situated next to a communist enclave, and you decide to join them.  When you join them, your land then belongs to their community, because it is a communist community after all.

What happens if you don't like it?  If they are $#@!s about it, you lose your land, because they say it belongs to them.  You're forced to either stay there, or leave and be homeless.  For a lot of people this would not be a reasonable choice.

People will make dumb decisions.  They will trust themselves to varying levels and types of "voluntary" government.  But there are varying levels of "voluntary".  Once your livelihood depends on the contract you've agreed upon, it is really no longer voluntary.  Once it's no longer voluntary, they own you, they take advantage of you, and it becomes less and less voluntary.  This is how the State is created. 

So if you enter into the agreement to join your land with theirs, the agreement should have, either implicitly or explicitly, a way for you to leave the arrangement in a fair manner.  Unless otherwise agreed upon when you joined their community, you should have a reasonable expectation to get your land back when you leave.  If they've developed the land for you, that complicates things, but the basic principle is that you should be able to get out of the contract in a manner fair to both parties.

Again, just a guideline, or a shared philosophy.  This principle is central to both freedom and the prevention of the State.

----------


## Black Flag

> It's not my fault you buy into memes and refuse to think. Don't ask me rhetorical questions then next time. You asked how I'd abolish the state, you came back with the same memes you're dropping now. 
> 
> Outlawing the state is a matter of ending it's monopolies of coercion, not passing a law through your favorite mafia. You have offered no retort to any of the concepts besides "Ron Paul, appeal to authority, herp derp".
> 
> And as far as "land law"...you need to read anthropology...property rights PRECEED the state...it's a not magical unicorn that defends your property rights by destroying them. It just destroys them. Every tax makes you a property renter, not owner, to whatever type of property they're taxing (extorting).


:thumbs up:

----------


## ProIndividual

> In an anarchy, common law will differ from land to land


No, no ,no. In anarchism there is no geographic area with a certain law...there are contracts (or social contracts if you prefer). You can have one law, and your neighbors on either side can have second law and a third law. In fact, you can sign up for any extreme or the other based on whatever contract you prefer. Polycentric law isn't limited by area...except where they run into states at the edges of a free territory. But in that free territory, there is no land area that have specific laws for all those that enter it. Look up panarchism.

And the word "nation" is dangerous. It implies nationalism...a form of collectivism that always preceeds a state. I'm against nationalism and statism. So the idea an anarchist "nation" will occur bothers me. A free territory will exist, not a nation. But I agree, a shared philosophy must be shared initially (to abolish the state)...but not uniformly, obviously. Only 1/3 of Americans were for secession from England, and they seceded. We need but a large and loud minority to achieve abolition of the state. But once it's abolished, people will naturally take to anarchism (or panarchism) and Voluntaryism. Not many will choose to pay taxes if they don't have to...plus it'd be donation at that point, not tax anyways. After that happens, and the state is understood to be illegal, not many will accept their new entitlement to economic and social liberty being revoked to re-instate the state. It's kind of a self perpetuating social norm. In that way, we'll have our necessary philosophical understanding in society...but with no uniformity in law (social contract for most).

I say "for most" because I'll choose no social contract (private law) beyond harm and fraud. Some will choose much more or much less. Some will choose that they and all their voluntary participant contract-mates will be penalized for using drugs, for instance. Some will choose to make income redistribution a legal requirement under their voluntary social contract. I'll stick to harm and fraud only. Some will choose to have democratic functions, or worse, in their social contracts...I'll have none of that. Some will have leaders, I won't. But, in the end, none of these contracts have anything to do with geography.

So it's as easy to get out of law (social contract) as it is a religious institution or switch cable companies. It's got nothing to do with locality.

Watch the videos here, bottom of the page...at least the last 3, and read about panarchism and panarchist synthesis:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...66#post4316866





> What happens if you don't like it? If they are $#@!s about it, you lose your land, because they say it belongs to them. You're forced to either stay there, or leave and be homeless. For a lot of people this would not be a reasonable choice.


Well here we have a property rights issue, but not like you assert. If you decide to hand over ownership to anyone, you no longer have ownership. When you join a commune and decide "property is theft", you no longer own your home, you "possess" it. You can't reneg on that contract because you no longer like the deal. The collective now owns the property. You can leave anytime you want, with an expensive lesson learned. If you did the same but retained property rights (like a market anarchist community), then you can sell your property or not, whatever, as it is still yours. But you're suggesting this person break their agreement after they have already essentially given away their property to the collective commune...that's not possible. That's like saying you sell me your property, and live there as a renter. But you don't like my rules, and after you spend all the money I gave you to buy the property, now all of a sudden you want to claim it's yours again.

I don't think so.

This doesn't create a state....the land area claim of social contract monopoly (law monopoly in an area) does. The state is defined by monopolies, not reneg ability on deals you've made. If you donate your property to any collective (church, commune, union, etc.) you can't get it back. I'd suggest if you think you need a way out you don't hand over ownership rights. Otherwise we'll have people reclaiming used cars 6 months after the sale is completed. 

Monopolies in certain geographic areas, starting with social contract and it's laws, is how a state is initially formed. From there it's police to enforce the laws, fire, money, etc.

Nothing more is needed to prevent a state than abolition and outlawing of such coerced monopolies.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, no ,no. In anarchism there is no geographic area with a certain law...there are contracts (or social contracts if you prefer). You can have one law, and your neighbors on either side can have second law and a third law. In fact, you can sign up for any extreme or the other based on whatever contract you prefer. Polycentric law isn't limited by area...except where they run into states at the edges of a free territory. But in that free territory, there is no land area that have specific laws for all those that enter it. Look up panarchism.


I don't think you understood what I meant by common law.  Common law is the unwritten rule of how people resolve their differences when their natural rights are in conflict.  This absolutely will exist, everywhere, and it absolutely will vary, and there is no contract, explicit or implicit.  The only implicit contract is voluntarily living next to these people, but that can hardly be considered voluntary IMHO.

Once you agree to interact with others in your community, you are bound by the common law of the community.  For example, if you kill someone, _they_ will decide if it was justified, not you, for example.  This is derived from natural law, not from any government, or any organizational entity.

There is simply no getting around it.  Wherever you go, there will be common law.  The only way to avoid common law is to avoid interacting with people entirely.




> And the word "nation" is dangerous. It implies nationalism...a form of collectivism that always preceeds a state.


A nation who's culture is non-aggression?  I'm ok with that.




> I'm against nationalism and statism. So the idea an anarchist "nation" will occur bothers me. A free territory will exist, not a nation. But I agree, a shared philosophy must be shared initially


That's kind of the definition of a nation.  Sharing a culture.  Nation itself is not a scary word.  It's the State you're worried about.





> Well here we have a property rights issue, but not like you assert. If you decide to hand over ownership to anyone, you no longer have ownership. When you join a commune and decide "property is theft", you no longer own your home, you "possess" it. You can't reneg on that contract because you no longer like the deal. The collective now owns the property. You can leave anytime you want, with an expensive lesson learned. If you did the same but retained property rights (like a market anarchist community), then you can sell your property or not, whatever, as it is still yours. But you're suggesting this person break their agreement after they have already essentially given away their property to the collective commune...that's not possible.


Incorrect.  What you just said *will* lead to tyranny, because it creates an unbreakable reliance on the commune, and it breaks the principle that only people can own land.

What I mean by that, that only people can own land, is you're not selling your land to the community, you're selling the land to the people of the community.

So, what that also means, is that by selling the land to the people of the community, and simultaneously joining the community, you are in also effect selling the land to yourself.  To say otherwise implies there is a sovereign government capable of owning land.

So let's say this community has 39 people.  You add your land to theirs and make it 40.  When you add your land to theirs, it's implied in the contract that you are not selling your home to the 39 people, you're purchasing stock in the assets of the 40.

If you own stock in something, you have the right to liquidate that stock.  That's the bottom line.  You can agree to a contract where you explicitly give up any and all of your assets to join their community, but this is an entirely different contract than what I proposed.

On the first contract, you sold your land to the others in the community in exchange for partially owning the assets of the community as a whole.

On the second contract, you sold your land to the others in the community, for them to allow you to live on their property.

It's two entirely separate contracts.  The second contract, while voluntary, I don't think anyone would agree to it.  The first contract, *unless there is an explicit means of dissolution or an implicit agreement by shared philosophy*, there is a *significant* risk of losing your liberties as described.  

If that contract were interpreted as even _you_ interpreted it, you would have created a State by allowing a community to become sovereign.




> That's like saying you sell me your property, and live there as a renter. But you don't like my rules, and after you spend all the money I gave you to buy the property, now all of a sudden you want to claim it's yours again.


No sir, that is not what I said.  Only people can own property.  You can't sell it to a community.  If you sell your land to the people of a community, and become part of the community, you rightfully own a share of their assets unless stated otherwise by the contract.




> This doesn't create a state....the land area claim of social contract monopoly (law monopoly in an area) does.


Again, only people can own property.  Which implies that everyone in that commune owns property.  You would deny him of the property that he owns, because you believe he gave it to the community.  By siding with the community rather than the individual, you accidentally allowed the community to have sovereignty without being aware of it.

So it does create a State.  Even an enlightened individual such as yourself allowed this to happen, which is why this principle is so extremely important.

----------


## Lets_Race

> Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?


Question for non-anarchists: I disagree with your proposed government defense. *Should I be shot* for disagreeing with you?

----------


## ProIndividual

> I don't think you understood what I meant by common law. Common law is the unwritten rule of how people resolve their differences when their natural rights are in conflict. This absolutely will exist, everywhere, and it absolutely will vary, and there is no contract, explicit or implicit.


No, it won't. You can sign a legal contract in anarchism that allows you to murder other people who voluntarily also sign that contract. You can't stop such idiots without AGGRESSION. There is NO uniform standard of law, because anarchism is non-utopian. Utopia implies uniformity. If you have areas with laws subject to geography, you have minarchism. You can have Sharia Law in anarchism, but only among willing participants. Yep...you can cut someone's hand off for theft, if they agree to that ahead of time. Most sane people will choose contracts like described in the videos I asked you to watch...panarchism, if you will. But it is perfectly alowed to harm others in anarchism if they give their permission. We aren't banning boxing, just assault. We aren't banning S&M sex, just rape. If you wish to be assaulted or raped, you can be...as long as those doing so are also voluntary participants in these sociopathic activities. If you rape, assault, or murder people NOT voluntarily engaged in your contract, then you will pay penalties in renumeration AND likely retribution. What renumeration and retribution you pay is determined via the mechanisms in video number 4.

All law is contractual...even now. It's just a forced contract now. In panarchism (an anarchist legal order), social contracts will be voluntary have NO relation to geography within a free territory. If the whole world is a free territory, law has ZERO relation to geography. Law is only contractual. You can pay for defense services in law (insurance, police, etc.), or you can join a non-profit contract, or a mutual exchange contract (if poor) when seeking arbitration of disputes. 

Arbitration is a service. To suggest there is no contract is to suggest you can force others to arbitrate your disputes...that's decidely non-anarchist. No one can be forced to serve on juries like in the state, and no one can be forced to arbitrate as a judge. The entire system is contractual in anarchism. Please watch the videos I linked you too.




> Once you agree to interact with others in your community, you are bound by the common law of the community.


No you are not, that is minarchism. If you sign a contract that says "drugs are illegal to me and those in the contract, and exposure to drugs is a "crime" in our contract", then you will pay for that insurance. Your neighbor might be a pothead. You may be exposed to weed smoke, let's say. He isn't apart of your contract. He isn't going to held to any "law" in your contract. What happens is, your contract is a service wherein (let's assume for simplicity it's a pay-for contract, not non-profit; but you can extrapolate or watch the videos) you pay a premium for legal insurance. If you don't want to be exposed to drugs but live next to a pothead not in your contract, your legal service can't recoup funds from your exposure to drugs from your neighbor. So, your premiums for that legal service will be higher than if you didn't live next to a pothead. It's just legal insurance. 

If you did live next to another contract-mate in your same legal service, then your premium would decrease. But there is nothing making you live near other contract mates in anarchy. NOTHING. 

So, back to the example...how would your legal service handle this dispute resolution? You would be paid a pre-set claim amount on your legal insurance once it's established by the company that you've indeed been exposed unfairly to weed smoke. Your premiums would then go up, I'd expect. This makes it advantageous for you to either drop the anti-drug aspect of your contract, OR to move away from the exposure problem (your neighbor). NOTICE, at no time is your nonviolent neighbor ever governed for his drug use. It's got nothing to do with him whatsoever. He didn't sign your contract of silly drug rules. His contract says he can smoke weed all day long on his property, and if you happen to smell the smoke that's your problem with your contract company...not his. 

A third neighbor has a contract that says only harm is a crime. He is assaulted by the weed head neighbor one day. Since harm and fraud is never allowed in anarchism (coercion), you can only be harmed or defrauded (no matter what contract company you use) if it's self defense OR you signed a contract with another person(s) that allows you to be legally assaulted, BUT that only applies for you and those contract-mates. Since the pothead didn't sign any such contract with the assaulted neighbor (and neither did he), the pothead had governed the innocent neighbor without permission (coercion). In anarchy any governing of anyone else who is an adult sovereign w/o their permission or out of anything but self defense is prohibited (notice I didn't say it's totally prohibited if it's voluntary). 

So how is this resolved? Watch the videos. It specifically covers two people with different contracts, where one is assaulted, and the other is the assaulting party.

The point is simple: law is strictly contractual It's got nothing to do with social norms. Anarchism is specifically against social norms as a form of tyranny. Individuals are sovereign, not communities. I hope you'll verse yourself in anarchist legal order and stop asserting a form of minarchism is "anarchy"...it clearly isn't.




> A nation who's culture is non-aggression? I'm ok with that.


Again, look up nationalism..it's an imcompatible ideology with the philosophy of anarchism. It's no more compatible with anarchism than statism. Nationalism always preceeds or emerges in conjunction with statism. A FREE TERRITORY with no nationalist identity is okay...not a "nation" with a coercive culture. Not everyone wants non-aggression, and shouldn't be coerced into it. If they want to murder each other, all willing participants only, then it's legitimate in panarchism (anarchist legal order). You're trying to enforce uniformity, ie Utopia. Anarchism is the only known non-utopian philosophy...so this isn't compatible (although I agree on the NAP; I also reject aggression personally). But in order to be anarchy, you have to allow wlilling participants to harm each other of their own free will via aggression. You can't get two people to agree on everything, let alone a "nation" of millions. It's a utopian nonsense dream. I'ts minarchism. It will require aggression to enforce this "nation" of non-aggression, hence making it a state (and self contradictory).

This is the same problem left anarchist collectivists suffer from; calling it "anarchy" while asserting "property is theft". No uniform organizational method (like deomcracy or non-democracy for examples) or uniform economic system can exist in a non-aggressive society...hence, panarchist synthesis. With panarchism (law) and panarchist synthesis (organization methods and economic schools) you achieve anarchism...a non-aggressive world where everyone can have any system they like as long as all others are voluntarily participating. It has NOTHING to do with geography or social norms, essentially.




> Incorrect. What you just said will lead to tyranny, because it creates an unbreakable reliance on the commune, and it breaks the principle that only people can own land.


I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What you're asserting is minarchism, not anarchism. You want to be able to reneg on agreements...that's not allowed. You can't gift me a car contractually and then reneg on the deal later. Land property is no different. Your exceptions are decidely coercive. Imagine being a member of that collective and planting crops on that land, then you deciding to throw up a fence and saying "get off my land". It's tyranny...on your part. End of story. 

Your whole scenrio you decsctibe after that makes false assumptions. If you join an anti-market commune you voluntarily give up property rights...they are afterall anti-property. You are trying to enforce property rights on people who don't believe in them. That's a state. If you want to change your mind, and start to believe in property again, that's fine...but you can't reneg on your contractual legal agreement with them after-the-fact. You go on to talk about stock holders...there is NO PRIVATE PROPERTY to the contract you signed. Don't sign it if you want to retain property rights...because otherwise you have to AGGRESS against those anti-property anarchists and their contract in order to break the deal. If you want to get out of the contract you'd better have a clause in that contract allowing it, or you damn well better move and abandon your possession (not property) land.

Otherwise, you inevitably have a state. 

You're not describing anarchy...you're describing a decentralized and local state...and as such, you are enforcing YOUR idea of liberty on others. You can't do that and be an anarchist. Please, watch the videos and read about panarchist synthesis and panarchism generally.




> The second contract, while voluntary, I don't think anyone would agree to it.


You might not aggre to it, I might not agree to it...but someone would. Any variation in contract will be agreed to by someone. You can't make such assumptions...or you destroy liberty and non-uniformity (anarchism). You have to assume that ANY voluntary contract is legitimate...whether you or I find them stupid or masochistic, or not. Anarchism outlaws involuntary sadism, not voluntary masochism.




> No sir, that is not what I said. Only people can own property. You can't sell it to a community.


Who made this statist rule? Then churches can't exist, either can companies, or unions, or rotary clubs.  Obviously this is a minarchist state you're describing, not anarchy. Obviously this is not the case in anarchy. You CAN sell or give away (voluntary transfer) your property to anyone or any entity you like...that's liberty, that's anarchism, that's property rights. What you're describing is YOUR version of rules...not voluntary society (anarchy).

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make such arbitrary rules....at least not while being an anarchist in favor of anarchy.

Reconsider what you're saying...you're describing minarchy. Some state would be needed to enforce this rule you describe among people who do not VOLUNTARILY subject themselves to this rule. That's obviously anti-anarchy.




> Which implies that everyone in that commune owns property


Then it isn't a commune, logically. Communists don't believe in property rights, they believe in possesssion. Have you not read any anarcho communists? You're just making up rules and calling it "anarchy". It's small government statism...sorry, but it is. Anarchy is a society organized VOLUNTARILY...how are you going to organize a commune voluntarily when they aren't free as communists to exercise their belief that "property is theft" among only willing participants with like minds?

Answer: you can't.

You're describing a market minarchy...it's as clear as day. You're creating a state...not me.

I'll in detail define a state (minarchist or otherwise) according to Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner's criteria:




> The State draws it's authority from the following areas:
> 
> 1. The monopoly on social contracts (within a certain area only one standard of law is accepted)
>  2. The monopoly on violence (the liscence for force to enforce the statist standard of law within the area)
>  3. The monopoly on capital (having only one accepted currency with no competition allowed)
>  4. The monopoly on collective defense (using the statist law to compel or conscript someone to fight in a war(s))
>  5. The monopoly on intelligence (secrecy for the sake of the State, not for the sake of defense directly)
> 
> State - a form of collective government where one or more of the above State authorities are in place; compulsory government
> ...


You are clearly defining a state. I'm clearly not. I'm sorry, those are just the objective facts.

The good news? You can start advocating anarchism at any time. You can watch those videos, read about panarchism, panarchist synthesis, and Tucker's and Spooner's writings (among dozens of other anarchists) who inspired market anarchism among the likes of Rothbard and the anarcho capitalists (like Roderick Long who is in the hour and half video I linked you too; the first video).

*Anarchy is clearly a society organized purely voluntarily...which means a lack of uniformity, and a society that allows any associations among voluntary participants including organizational methods* (or lack thereof; like democracy or anti-democractic relationships) *and any economic systems* (like communism, socialism, free market, Parecon, etc.) *SIMULTANEOUSLY.*

----------


## TheTexan

> No, it won't. You can sign a legal contract in anarchism that allows you to murder other people who voluntarily also sign that contract. You can't stop such idiots without AGGRESSION. There is NO uniform standard of law, because anarchism is non-utopian.


To be honest I stopped reading your response after the fourth sentence.  It's clear you didn't even read what I said




> I don't think you understood what I meant by common law. Common law is the unwritten rule of how people resolve their differences when their natural rights are in conflict. This absolutely will exist, everywhere, and it absolutely will vary


In your second sentence, no natural right is in conflict, so there is no need for common law.  In the fourth sentence, I thought I made it pretty clear, "and it absolutely will vary."  I'm not sure how anyone could possibly interpret that as "uniform."

Sorry, but based on that I've deemed the rest of your post a waste of my time.  There's no way I'm reading that.

----------


## ProIndividual

> To be honest I stopped reading your response after the fourth sentence.  It's clear you didn't even read what I said
> 
> 
> 
> In your second sentence, no natural right is in conflict, so there is no need for common law.  In the fourth sentence, I thought I made it pretty clear, "and it absolutely will vary."  I'm not sure how anyone could possibly interpret that as "uniform."
> 
> Sorry, but based on that I've deemed the rest of your post a waste of my time.  There's no way I'm reading that.


I cearly did read what you said.

You say it will vary by geography...that's not anarchism, not minarchism. I'm sorry, that's clearly what it is. You said it would vary by locations..that's minarchism.

You can deem my post a waste of time...but you clearly misunderstand anarchism and anarchist legal order. You'd do well not to dismiss me and to educate yourself on what you CLAIM to represent. Why? Because your misrepresenting to others inevitably.

No matter how locally you set up legal systems based on geography you are setting up a state.




> In an anarchy, common law will differ from land to land


That quote is clearly a misunderstanding of anarchist legal order.



See that root? Yeah that's your geographic monoply on law.




> there is no contract, explicit or implicit


You said it's not contractual, explicit or implicit...but in fact it's an actual contract you sign, like buying cable TV service.

Now, when you want to learn how anarchist legal order works, go watch the videos at the link I left you (since your too intellectually lazy to read what I've taken the time to write for you), or go to Mises and watch something by David Friedman on the issue.

----------


## TheTexan

> more irrelevant gibberish


Let me try this again.  I'll try to make it simple for you to understand.

Let's pretend there's 3 similar men.  These men live on their land by themself.  They don't get out much, so they don't have any political affiliations, and rarely encounter other people.  They belong to no organizations, State or otherwise, but simply want to live on their land alone in peace.

They hunt for food.  They generally hunt in a 3 mile radius around their homes.  And in fact they never leave this 3 mile radius, ever.

However, these 3 men all live within 6 miles of each other.  So their hunting grounds overlap.  However, they have never met.

One day, these 3 hunters decide to go hunting, and where their hunting grounds overlap, they all 3 meet.  They kind of shrug at first.

Hunter 1 says angrily "Get off my land, this is my land!!"

Hunter 2 says angrily "Hell no, you get off my land, I've been hunting here for years!!"

Hunter 3 says "I have plenty of other places to hunt, I'm outta here see ya".

But, while Hunter 3 was leaving, the two other hunters gets into a physical confrontation.  Hunter 3 watches Hunter 1 get up into Hunter 2's Face.  Hunter 2 shoves Hunter 1.  Hunter 1 punches Hunter 2.  Hunter 2 forces hunter 1 onto the ground.  Hunter 1 shoots Hunter 2, and kills him.

Hunter 3 has at least two options here:

1) Decide Hunter 1 was justified in his action and leave him be
2) Decide Hunter 1 murdered the other, point his own rifle at Hunter 1, and pull the trigger, right then and there.

Both decisions are entirely correct.  He can choose option 1, or option 2.  In either case, he just set a *common law* precedent.  Other people who hear this story will know what to expect if they encounter Hunter 3 in a similar situation.

So, either you completely misunderstood what I said or didn't read it, or you believe that believing that Hunter 3 has a choice to make makes me a statist.  Which is simply absurd.

Hopefully you'll actually read and *comprehend* what I said this time... I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.  Common law != Statism.

$#@!ing anarchists man... they think anything and everything is $#@!ing Statist.

----------


## RiseAgainst

Unmixed land cannot be property.  You cannot claim property right to your "3 mile radius" simply becasue you happen to hunt there.

See Rothbard on Crusoe Philosophy:




> Let us now return to our analysis of Crusoe’s purposeful transformation of nature-given data though the understanding of natural laws. Crusoe finds virgin, unused land on the island; land, in short, unused and uncontrolled by anyone, and hence unowned. By finding land resources, by learning how to use them, and, in particular, by actually transforming them into a more useful shape, Crusoe has, in the memorable phrase of John Locke, “mixed his labor with the soil.” In doing so, in stamping the imprint of his personality and his energy on the land, he has naturally converted the land and its fruits into his property. Hence, the isolated man owns what he uses and transforms; therefore, in his case there is no problem of what should be A’s property as against B’s. Any man’s property is ipso facto what he produces, i.e., what he transforms into use by his own effort. His property in land and capital goods continues down the various stages of production, until Crusoe comes to own the consumer goods which he has produced, until they finally disappear through his consumption of them.
> 
>      As long as an individual remains isolated, then, there is no problem whatever about how far his property—his ownership—extends; as a rational being with free will, it extends over his own body, and it extends further over the material goods which he transforms with his labor. Suppose that Crusoe had landed not on a small island, but on a new and virgin continent, and that, standing on the shore, he had claimed “ownership” of the entire new continent by virtue of his prior discovery. This assertion would be sheer empty vainglory, so long as no one else came upon the continent. For the natural fact is that his true property—his actual control over material goods—would extend only so far as his actual labor brought them into production. His true ownership could not extend beyond the power of his own reach.[9] Similarly, it would be empty and meaningless for Crusoe to trumpet that he does not “really” own some or all of what he has produced (perhaps this Crusoe happens to be a romantic opponent of the property concept), for in fact the use and therefore the ownership has already been his. Crusoe, in natural fact, owns his own self and the extension of his self into the material world, neither more nor less.


It is vital to understand the nature of justly acquired property, for without this understanding all else beyond simply devolves into a practicable form of property based nihilism.

----------


## TheTexan

People are going to have fights over land, justly or unjustly, so its not exactly relevant to the point at hand

----------


## RiseAgainst

> People are going to have fights over land, justly or unjustly, so its not exactly relevant to the point at hand


It's entirely relevant to the point at hand.  Your scenario was a dispute between two unjust "property" owners.  Both initiated aggression against the other, one succeeded in causing further damage.  This does not negate the initiation of aggression by the dead man, nor does it make the property in question and more "just" to the man still standing, save under a nihilist understanding.

There are two underlying principles which absolutely must be understood, else all else after will fail.  That is first, each persons natural right to self ownership.  Secondly, each persons right to extend their self ownership into the material world through the mixing of labor with nature, creating just property.  If you do not understand just property, nothing else beyond will ever matter.

This is much akin to your desire to extend the rights afforded of just property, to the "owners" of the most unjust property currently known, state property.  Your failure to understand the nature of just property allows you to extrapolate property rights to these "owners" of state roads that simply do not exist, save in nihilism.

----------


## TheTexan

> It's entirely relevant to the point at hand.  Your scenario was a dispute between two unjust "property" owners.  Both initiated aggression against the other, one succeeded in causing further damage.


Doesn't matter.  We're talking about the decisions of the third man, not whether any of those decisions were just or unjust.




> There are two underlying principles which absolutely must be understood, else all else after will fail.  That is first, each persons natural right to self ownership.  Secondly, each persons right to extend their self ownership into the material world through the mixing of labor with nature, creating just property.  If you do not understand just property, nothing else beyond will ever matter.


This is not about property.  At all.  It's about conflict resolution, and acknowledging that resolutions create common law.  This is *not* about how conflicts should be resolved.  I'm sure you have your opinions, but it's simply not relevant.




> This is much akin to your desire to extend the rights afforded of just property, to the "owners" of the most unjust property currently known, state property.


I never said their ownership was just.  The closest thing I ever said was that their ownership stands (rightly or wrongly) until the rightful owner claims it back.  And you know what?  In the original discussion which caused this disagreement you have with this, I was (intending to, anyway) talk about a theoretical society where the property was justly held.  I guess that got lost somewhere along the way.

There are people who rightfully own this 'public' property.  Us.  The community who uses it every day.  However, we don't make the decisions, the state does.  On the other side, the people who do "rightfully" own the property, ie, Us, would likely make the same decision.  We live amongst statists, don't you know.

So I'm sure this explanation isn't enough to put this issue to rest for you.  You'll probably find something about it you don't like /shrug




> Your failure to understand the nature of just property allows you to extrapolate property rights to these "owners" of state roads that simply do not exist, save in nihilism.


I never even said or even implied that they were just in their ownership of the property.  The hunters did. 

Besides, again, this isn't about property.  People will have disputes.  The point I was making is that the fact that people resolve them at all establishes common law.  The resolution, whether it is 'just' or 'unjust' has zero relevance.

I'm not sure if you missed the point, or if you just like derailing points about natural rights, because I can say objectively speaking, your points here (valid or not) about the justification of property, has absolutely zero relevance.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Doesn't matter.  We're talking about the decisions of the third man, not whether either of the first or second were just or unjust.


Again, it completely matters.  You're trying to spin something out of it that doesn't exist (seems to be a theme).  The 3rd man has no more a stake in the matter than I do outside of a bar at 3AM when two guys decide to box each other.  They have aggressed against each other of their own accord and I have no business in the matter.  I cannot interfere in the fight without continuing the aggression of one man against another.




> This is not about property.  At all.  It's about conflict resolution, and acknowledging that resolutions create common law.  This is *not* about how conflicts should be resolved.  I'm sure you have your opinions, but it's simply not relevant.


It's always about property, it is the basis for any just claim.  Saying it isn't about property is like saying math isn't about numbers.  You can say it, but it's not right.




> I never said their ownership was just.  The closest thing I ever said was that their ownership stands (rightly or wrongly) until the rightful owner claims it back.  And you know what?  In the original discussion which caused this disagreement you have with this, I was (intending to, anyway) talk about a theoretical society where the property was justly held.  I guess that got lost somewhere along the way.


If their ownership was not just, there is nothing to talk about.  You have no claims to property if it is not just.




> There are people who rightfully own this 'public' property.  Us.  The community who uses it every day.  However, we don't make the decisions, the state does.  On the other side, the people who do "rightfully" own the property, ie, Us, would likely make the same decision.  We live amongst statists, don't you know.


We do not anymore rightly own 'public' property than a stockholder of Goldman Sachs 'rightly' owns the stolen money it was given by the government.  You continue to try to manufacture property ownership where it does not exist.  This is not the basis for a sound argument.




> So I'm sure this explanation isn't enough to put this issue to rest for you.  You'll probably find something about it you don't like /shrug


It's not whether I 'like' something or not, it's whether it's right or not.  Your statement is akin to saying "I just spent 5 paragraphs explaining why 2+2=5, but I'm sure you'll find something about it you don't _like_".





> I never even said or even implied that they were just in their ownership of the property.  The hunters did.


Really?  You create your own scenario and then try to lay the basis of your argument on the backs of the fictional characters you created? 




> Besides, again, this isn't about property.  People will have disputes.  The point I was making is that the fact that people resolve them at all establishes common law.  The resolution, whether it is 'just' or 'unjust' has zero relevance.


The point that people resolve them in a certain way establishes nothing.  You are more aptly advocating nihilism than any semblence of property based anarchy.  The resolution only finds it's basis in property, be it self-ownership or it's mixed extension to tangible property.  In order for it to be just, it must find it's roots in just property.  




> I'm not sure if you missed the point, or if you just like derailing points about natural rights, because I can say objectively speaking, your points here (valid or not) about the justification of property, has absolutely zero relevance.


I'm not sure if you don't understand property based natural rights (self ownership) and market based anarchy, or if you just like to create fictional strawmen to hear the sound of your own voice.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I wasn't talking about a social contract.  I was talking about a shared philosophy.  For a nation to work, anarchist or not, they must share a philosophy.
> 
> In the scope of anarchism, there are many guiding principles, but at the heart of it is NAP.  At the heart of NAP, is the idea that all people are sovereign to themselves.
> 
> In an anarchy, common law will differ from land to land, as will the form of governance, masochism, self government, how they handle property rights, whether they have property rights at all for that matter, how they police themselves, or whether they police themselves at all, etc, but among all of this is one unifying principle:
> 
> *Every arrangement must have a means of dissolution.*
> 
> First, and foremost, this means every individual has a natural right of secession.  It also means that if you enter into a contract with someone, there should be a means, either explicit or implicit, to get out of the contract.
> ...


I like the cut of your jib.  +rep  Mises would agree with you (as would any other classical liberal worth their salt).

----------


## TheTexan

> Again, it completely matters.


Keep saying that and it makes it true.




> You're trying to spin something out of it that doesn't exist (seems to be a theme).  The 3rd man has no more a stake in the matter than I do outside of a bar at 3AM when two guys decide to box each other.  They have aggressed against each other of their own accord and I have no business in the matter.  I cannot interfere in the fight without continuing the aggression of one man against another.


It's not relevant to the point I was making whether even the third man's actions were just.  In fact, the central theme of my scenario is that people will *do unjust things*. 




> It's always about property, it is the basis for any just claim.  Saying it isn't about property is like saying math isn't about numbers.  You can say it, but it's not right.


Rewrite the scenario however you like.  Let's say they each planted bear traps in the overlapped area, and they didn't notice each other's bear traps.  The scenario is the same, but the land is "mixed".  Happy yet?  Holy $#@!.




> If their ownership was not just, there is nothing to talk about.  You have no claims to property if it is not just.





> We do not anymore rightly own 'public' property than a stockholder of Goldman Sachs 'rightly' owns the stolen money it was given by the government.  You continue to try to manufacture property ownership where it does not exist.  This is not the basis for a sound argument.


Then you're saying a Sovereign Government owns it.  That's fine.  Whatever.  You have this desire to create conflict where there actually isn't any.  You will most certainly say you do disagree, but you don't.  Cognitive dissonance and all that.

After like 10 PM's you finally said your only disagreement was that the land was stolen, and that I think you think I think they have rights because its stolen.  I agreed that it was stolen.  I'm telling you again, now, the land was stolen, and the Sovereign Gov does not have rights to it.  Whether you want to say the Sovereign Government has stolen ownership, or the people who rightfully belong currently own it but simply have lost control of it, at that point it's a circular endless pointless loop.





> Really?  You create your own scenario and then try to lay the basis of your argument on the backs of the fictional characters you created?
> 
> The point that people resolve them in a certain way establishes nothing.


The point that people resolve them *in a certain way* establishes nothing, but the point that people *do resolve them* does establish something.  People in that community will know how that problem was resolved, justly or unjustly, and if they cause that same problem, they can expect the same just, or unjust, resolution.  i.e., common law.

If I punch you in the face and go to jail, it doesn't mean that punching you in the face was just, and it doesn't mean that putting me in jail is just.

It means only that I punched you in the face, and I went to jail.  It also means that if people around me saw me punch someone, and saw me to go jail, they will expect that if they punch someone, they will probably go to jail.

Just/unjust, has *nothing to do with this concept*.

----------


## Black Flag

> If I punch you in the face and go to jail, it doesn't mean that punching you in the face was just, and it doesn't mean that putting me in jail is just.
> 
> It means only that I punched you in the face, and I went to jail.  It also means that if people around me saw me punch someone, and saw me to go jail, they will expect that if they punch someone, they will probably go to jail.
> 
> Just/unjust, has *nothing to do with this concept*.


Actually, it does.

People do not put other people "in jail" on a whim. 
There must be a cause. 
Their action must be _justified_ - (note the root word "just") and you must justify your actions to them so not to go to jail.

Just/unjust has everything to do with common law.

----------


## TheTexan

> Actually, it does.
> 
> People do not put other people "in jail" on a whim. 
> There must be a cause. 
> Their action must be _justified_ - (note the root word "just") and you must justify your actions to them so not to go to jail.
> 
> Just/unjust has everything to do with common law.


My argument was that common law != statism.  If you want to start saying that unjust common law does equal statism, then because any unjust common law is simply a crime against natural rights, then you're also saying crime itself is equivalent to statism.

Which then, means that statism is unavoidable, because crime itself is unavoidable.

Common law _should_ be based on what's justified, but it won't always be so.  Also, people will have different sets of what they believe are their natural rights.  What's a natural right to you and I may not be a natural right to someone else.

For you to dictate what is just, and what is unjust, actually, is more likely to lead to statism, than the idea that common law isn't always just.

IMHO, as long as you can opt out of a society with an unjust common law via secession, it's very, very hard to call that statism.

In fact, the *original argument*, where common law was declared to be statist, there was no just/unjust at all because the common law was entirely unspecified, so as far as the *original argument* is concerned, nevermind this side argument, just/unjust was not part of the equation.  Though even in this side argument, you are also wrong.

----------


## Cabal

> The point that people resolve them *in a certain way* establishes nothing, but the point that people *do resolve them* does establish something.  People in that community will know how that problem was resolved, justly or unjustly, and if they cause that same problem, they can expect the same just, or unjust, resolution.  i.e., common law.


This assumes too much, and isn't necessarily true.

Just because a situation was resolved one way at one point in time doesn't mean it'll be resolved in the same way thereafter. It's quite possible that people will look back at the previous resolution, determine that it wasn't a good resolution, and seek a different resolution if the situation were to arise again. Or, rather than establishing some common law, all that has taken place is that Hunter 3 (or whoever was involved in the previous resolution) has a history of this action or that action; this doesn't necessarily mean that others will act accordingly.

For something to be established it must be proven or widely accepted--neither of which results from merely one particular instance. Scientific theories must necessarily be reproduced and retested in order to pass the tests of the scientific method. Wide acceptance tends to take place over time rather than instantaneously.

Now, could some sort of common law emerge from the resolution of one particular scenario? Possibly, but this isn't necessarily the case as you are making it out to be.

----------


## Black Flag

> My argument was that common law != statism.


Ok, I agree.

Common law is Not State Law.




> If you want to start saying that unjust common law does equal statism, then because any unjust common law is simply a crime against natural rights, then you're also saying crime itself is equivalent to statism.


I agree - State law is a crime against humanity.




> Which then, means that statism is unavoidable, because crime itself is unavoidable.


Perhaps, like there will always be bad people and human suffering.



> Common law _should_ be based on what's justified, but it won't always be so.


Yes, that is possible. A mass of people with a shared understanding does not make their understanding right or the truth.




> Also, people will have different sets of what they believe are their natural rights.  What's a natural right to you and I may not be a natural right to someone else.


No. 
Natural law is the same for everyone and is the same for everyone - there is no separate "law of gravity" for you vs. me.

If you believe you see a difference in "natural" law, it means you have misinterpreted an *consequence* of Natural law to be the law itself.

The rock hitting the ground is not "gravity" - why? ... because _something had to act upon the rock for it to fall_, then the law of gravity exercised upon it.



> For you to dictate what is just, and what is unjust, actually, is more likely to lead to statism, than the idea that common law isn't always just.


Not likely - as one can use reason to determine such "justice" for all me from such natural law, since reason can act immutably upon natural law, thus, the answer the comes must be the same for you as for me.

----------


## TheTexan

> No. 
> Natural law is the same for everyone and is the same for everyone - there is no separate "law of gravity" for you vs. me.
> 
> If you believe you see a difference in "natural" law, it means you have misinterpreted an *consequence* of Natural law to be the law itself.
> 
> The rock hitting the ground is not "gravity" - why? ... because _something had to act upon the rock for it to fall_, then the law of gravity exercised upon it.
> 
> 
> Not likely - as one can use reason to determine such "justice" for all me from such natural law, since reason can act immutably upon natural law, thus, the answer the comes must be the same for you as for me.


I believe (very strongly) in the natural right to private property.  Communists obviously don't.  Are you saying their set of natural rights are any less valid than mine?

As long as I can opt out of participating with their society, our differences need not cause any harm.

----------


## TheTexan

> This assumes too much, and isn't necessarily true.
> 
> Just because a situation was resolved one way at one point in time doesn't mean it'll be resolved in the same way thereafter. It's quite possible that people will look back at the previous resolution, determine that it wasn't a good resolution, and seek a different resolution if the situation were to arise again.  Or, rather than establishing some common law, all that has taken place is that Hunter 3 (or whoever was involved in the previous resolution) has a history of this action or that action; this doesn't necessarily mean that others will act accordingly.


Correct.  Just because an action had a certain consequence, doesn't dictate that the same action will have the same consequence.  There is a reasonable expectation of such, but no, it's not necessary, nor is this a relevant part of the question of whether or not common law is statist.

----------


## Revolution9

> Thinking is hard, obeying is easy.


I see it is too hard for you to engage in and generate output.

rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Government "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.  Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a success.


Yet actual governments exist as ongoing historical entities indicating some success in implementation of theoretics of government whereas anarchist groupings are just simply historical or anecdotal. They get crushed under boot, simply and easily.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> tell that to the Amish.


They have a contract with a higher power. One that anarchists generally refuse to acknowledge being all about self and ego.


Rev9

----------


## TheTexan

> Yet actual governments exist as ongoing historical entities indicating some success in implementation of theoretics of government whereas anarchist groupings are just simply historical or anecdotal. They get crushed under boot, simply and easily.
> 
> Rev9


There's actually been very little demand for anarchism in the history of mankind.  Any man wishing to be free could simply pack up his $#@! and leave.  That stopped being true only a short while ago.

The need for a solution to state is actually a new need.  I'm not surprised there aren't any significant anarchies today, there was never a need for one until relatively recently.

----------


## Revolution9

> And why couldn't I hire a private enforcer of those contracts?


I would just get the extermination division of Vinny "The Brow" Zinjanthropia's Strongarm Protection Racket, LLC to snuff him out and be done with the headaches. Why the frak should I pay any mind to contracts that don't say what I want when I got Vinny in my corner.. Get it? Capische? My word you say?? That word is good to "my people".  Eff yours. Get it?


Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> There's actually been very little demand for anarchism in the history of mankind.  Any man wishing to be free could simply pack up his $#@! and leave.  That stopped being true only a short while ago.
> 
> The need for a solution to state is actually a new need.  I'm not surprised there aren't any significant anarchies today, there was never a need for one until relatively recently.


Yup..anybody can skeedaddle into the wilderness but your timeline of states and governments is troubling considering the historical timeline chart of the rise and fall of nation states and empires in the last 6000 years. That sucker is filled from one end to the other with overlapping nation states and empires last time I was at the coffee shop taking a gander at it whilst awaiting my brew. You guys are too much with your illusions sometimes. Like you expect me to swallow this $#@!??

Rev9.

----------


## Revolution9

> Talking about it isn't going to do $#@!.


Well..do what is historically done. Raise an army and kick the living snot out of them. That'll teach 'em good. But since yer an individualist an army cannot philosophically be at your disposal without causing a major disjoint between your rhetoric and actions. In fact the premise that talking doesn't do $#@! in your philosophy underscores the contempt one may have for a private enforcer trying to get compliance with a contract one party does not give a hoot about complying with for various bogus or non bogus reasons.

Yer so frikkin' enlightened I am blinded by the luciferian illumination.

Rev9

----------


## TheTexan

> Yup..anybody can skeedaddle into the wilderness but your timeline of states and governments is troubling considering the historical timeline chart of the rise and fall of nation states and empires in the last 6000 years. That sucker is filled from one end to the other with overlapping nation states and empires last time I was at the coffee shop taking a gander at it whilst awaiting my brew. You guys are too much with your illusions sometimes. Like you expect me to swallow this $#@!??
> 
> Rev9.


That made zero sense FYI

----------


## TheTexan

> Well..do what is historically done. Raise an army and kick the living snot out of them. That'll teach 'em good. But since yer an individualist an army cannot philosophically be at your disposal without causing a major disjoint between your rhetoric and actions.


If I were an individualist I wouldn't be promoting anarchism on this forum.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> They have a contract with a higher power. One that anarchists generally refuse to acknowledge being all about self and ego.
> 
> 
> Rev9


Not all of us.

I'm very glad that when my house is built this summer, my nearest neighbors will be Amish.

----------


## Black Flag

> I believe (very strongly) in the natural right to private property.  Communists obviously don't.  Are you saying their set of natural rights are any less valid than mine?


They do not have a "set" of natural rights of "their own".

They have the same ones you have.

Their _opinion_ regarding property rights is *in error* and cannot be supported with any natural right.

Do not confuse their error with your right.




> As long as I can opt out of participating with their society, our differences need not cause any harm.


But their philosophy forbids you opting out.

----------


## Black Flag

> Yet actual governments exist as ongoing historical entities indicating some success in implementation of theoretics of government whereas anarchist groupings are just simply historical or anecdotal. They get crushed under boot, simply and easily.
> 
> Rev9


This is wholly untrue.

You live 95% of your life under anarchist rule ... you rule yourself. The mere 5% that is overtly imposed upon is a slight minority - but because it is so overt, it is much more obvious then the natural, day-to-day self rule you engage in everywhere else.

----------


## nobody

The better question would be; how does an anti-christ handle National Defense?  1st John 4:2&3;  1st John 4:7.

----------


## TheTexan

> They do not have a "set" of natural rights of "their own".
> 
> They have the same ones you have.
> 
> Their _opinion_ regarding property rights is *in error* and cannot be supported with any natural right.
> 
> Do not confuse their error with your right.


But as long as they let you opt out of their society, it is wrong to use force to correct their errors.  So in that sense they can claim whatever rights they like as a basis for their society.  Natural right to own a pair of shoes?  Shrug.  Fine with me.  It's obviously not a natural right, but I'm more than happy to let them believe it as long as they don't use force on me.




> But their philosophy forbids you opting out.


That is not inherently true.  Likely true, but not necessarily.

----------


## Black Flag

> But as long as they let you opt out of their society, it is wrong to use force to correct their errors.


1st, _their system precludes opting out_ - it is simply not allowed (you did notice that little ditty called the "Berlin Wall"?) - so your hypothetical *simply will never exist in reality to be tested*.

2nd, it is always wrong to use force to correct another persons mere "error".






> That is not inherently true.  Likely true, but not necessarily.


No, it is *necessarily* true.

It cannot exist other wise - for no one would willing submit to the loss of goods (and thus, potentially their lives) for no return - which is exactly what is demanded....

----------


## TheTexan

> It cannot exist other wise - for no one would willing submit to the loss of goods (and thus, potentially their lives) for no return - which is exactly what is demanded....


Tell that to OWS

----------


## Black Flag

> Tell that to OWS



...who/what is OWS?

----------


## TheTexan

> ...who/what is OWS?


An interesting mix of all kinds of people... but mostly socialists & communists.  Mostly.

----------


## Black Flag

> An interesting mix of all kinds of people... but mostly socialists & communists.  Mostly.


No.
These are people who do NOT believe in the sacrifice of themselves. They do not want to earn nor work.
They want YOU to earn and to work, and give it to them - and they will insist on that giving, with a point of a gun.

You are the Ant.
They are the Grasshopper.

----------


## TheTexan

> No.
> These are people who do NOT believe in the sacrifice of themselves. They do not want to earn nor work.
> They want YOU to earn and to work, and give it to them - and they will insist on that giving, with a point of a gun.
> 
> You are the Ant.
> They are the Grasshopper.


That's one perspective, and a valid one at that.  However, they would still voluntarily submit themselves to such a communist system, which renders your point moot

----------


## Black Flag

> That's one perspective, and a valid one at that.  However, they would still voluntarily submit themselves to such a communist system, which renders your point moot


No, it does not.

The point: "People" do not submit to their own destruction. "These" people also do not submit to their own destruction. 

They _force you to submit_ - which, as my point was and *demonstrated by fact and reality (the Wall)* is that they _will not let you leave and they will force you to submit_ as it is *fundamental to their existence, and their philosophy*

----------


## TheTexan

> No, it does not.
> 
> The point: "People" do not submit to their own destruction. "These" people also do not submit to their own destruction.


The people of this country are submitting to their own destruction as we speak.  They're not being forced to submit... most are submitting because they want to submit.  They are submissive in nature, and they actually prefer slavery over freedom.

You've got this odd notion that most people are rational & logical.  Not sure where you got that idea.

----------


## Black Flag

> The people of this country are submitting to their own destruction as we speak.


That is your opinion.

It is not theirs.

They believe they will get more out of the system then the system takes from them.

You may logically calculate that this cannot be true for all people.

However, you cannot discern who will be the loser and who will be the winner, and neither can they.

So they are willing to gamble, until the game ends.

But remember, your comment is ONLY your opinion.




> You've got this odd notion that most people are rational & logical.  Not sure where you got that idea.


They ARE rational to themselves and they are not required to be logical - humans are not Vulcans.

People act (unless they are mentally insane) to their own benefit.

They may not calculate consequences sufficiently, but that is only my opinion. Maybe they have, and they are willing to deal with future consequences for the immediate gain - who am I to debate their own will?

----------


## TheTexan

> That is your opinion.
> 
> It is not theirs.


Sure.  In the same way, what you consider as "submitting to their own destruction"... they do NOT.  So you basically broke your own argument here.

----------


## Black Flag

> Sure.  In the same way, what you consider as "submitting to their own destruction"... they do NOT.  So you basically broke your own argument here.


Huh?
Methinks you've double crossed yourself.

They are not submitting to their destruction. 
They are saying they are gaining, which is why they continue to do what they do. 

The day they feel it will destroy them, they will stop. But that is not what they feel right now.

_Just because you yell out your opinion of what they are doing makes no difference - as it is merely your opinion_ and they do not agree with your evaluation of their actions.

When reality hits them, they will change.
Reality has not hit them, they will not change.

----------


## TheTexan

> It cannot exist other wise - for no one would willing submit to the loss of goods (and thus, potentially their lives) for no return - which is exactly what is demanded....





> That is your opinion.
> 
> It is not theirs.
> 
> They believe they will get more out of the system then the system takes from them.


You said no one would be willing to submit to the loss of goods for no return.  This idea that there is no return is _your_ opinion.  I know several communists that do see a return.

It'll take some mental gymnastics to get you out of this contradiction you created for yourself... good luck with that.

----------


## Black Flag

> You said no one would be willing to submit to the loss of goods for no return.


True.




> This idea that there is no return is _your_ opinion.  I know several communists that do see a return.


That is exactly my point: please re-read the top
*no one would be willing to submit to the loss of goods for no return*

Your comeback:
* I know several communists that do see a return* which is why they remain communists.

...and you see these two statements contradict each other?????????????????????

The day communism provides no return is the end of communism...oh! ...just like what happened in Russia! 

Shocking,huh?

----------


## TheTexan

> True.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly my point: please re-read the top
> *no one would be willing to submit to the loss of goods for no return*
> 
> Your comeback:
> * I know several communists that do see a return* which is why they remain communists.
> ...


Uh... no,  that wasn't your point.  Your point was that "[communism] cannot exist [without force]".  Which you have assisted me in disproving.

This red herring you're going on about now... was not your point lol.

----------


## Black Flag

> Uh... no,  that wasn't your point.  Your point was that "[communism] cannot exist [without force]".  Which you have assisted me in disproving.


WHAT???

Because people _who benefit_ want to stay does not disprove that people who do not benefit want to leave, and are prohibited from doing so.

....unless -somehow- you are blind to the Berlin Wall

----------


## TheTexan

> WHAT???
> 
> Because people _who benefit_ want to stay does not disprove that people who do not benefit want to leave, and are prohibited from doing so.
> 
> ....unless -somehow- you are blind to the Berlin Wall


Heh... go back up and read your own circular logic again.  They believe they are benefiting from the arrangement.  The existence of such a system does not rely on needing to force people to stay... there are more than enough willing participants.

----------


## Black Flag

> Heh... go back up and read your own circular logic again.


*sigh*
To you, a definition is a circular argument (roll eyes).




> They *believe* they are benefiting from the arrangement.


...which is why they stay.

Those that do not, leave.

You got that, right?




> The existence of such a system does not rely on needing to force people to stay... there are more than enough willing participants.


Again, you deny the existence of the Berlin Wall.

You are insane.

----------


## TheTexan

> ...which is why they stay.
> 
> Those that do not, leave.
> 
> You got that, right?


Was this supposed to add any value to your argument?  




> Again, you deny the existence of the Berlin Wall.
> 
> You are insane.


Inductive fallacy.  You're saying that because there was a communist society that didn't let people leave, all communist societies wouldn't let people leave.

You're running low on ammo here.  Get a better argument.

----------


## Black Flag

> Was this supposed to add any value to your argument?  
> 
> 
> 
> Inductive fallacy.  You're saying that because there was a communist society that didn't let people leave, all communist societies wouldn't let people leave.


All communist societies in human history do not let their people leave - it is not an "inductive" fallacy, but a fact.

Further, the fallacy is yours as you claim they do allow them to leave - which, by fact of the Berlin wall, disproves you.

----------


## ProIndividual

> No.
> These are people who do NOT believe in the sacrifice of themselves. They do not want to earn nor work.
> They want YOU to earn and to work, and give it to them - and they will insist on that giving, with a point of a gun.
> 
> You are the Ant.
> They are the Grasshopper.


I don't want to correct anything, because I think you're both discussing state socialism and state communism...but there are anarcho communists, and they don't want to force you into anything (not the ones who actually know the philosophy anyways). They just prefer that way of organizing and living. I'm sure you know this...but I just want to point out anarcho communists can live near ancaps, Voluntaryists, or other market anarchists. All forms of organization, economics, and law can exist simultaneously in anarchy (in fact it has too, or logically someone is being coerced).

This is why I support panarchism and panarchist synthesis so greatly.

----------


## ProIndividual

I totally disagree bxm's understanding of how law and voluntary social contracts work in panarchism (an anarchist legal order)...

...that being said, he's right that communism can exist voluntarily beside of market anarchism. We can't say that ancaps support state capitalism anymore than we can say ancoms support state communism (the Wall).

And if free people will choose boxing, S&M sex, and suicide of their own free will (what most would consider self detrimental activities), then you cannot preclude others from, or assume that others won't choose, partaking in economic systems that are self detrimental. It would require force to make anarchism uniform...and that would imply utopianism. Anarchism is anti-utopian, anti-coerced uniformity, and anti-coerced conformity.

There have never been any trully ancom or ancap societies...and comparing state versions of these things to the stateless versions is a bad idea in argumentation.

So now I disagree with you both, albeit on separate issues.

This is just maddening.

----------


## ProIndividual

> All communist societies in human history do not let their people leave - it is not an "inductive" fallacy, but a fact.
> 
> Further, the fallacy is yours as you claim they do allow them to leave - which, by fact of the Berlin wall, disproves you.


Do you think this will not be the case with our state capitalist society if everyone decided to leave? We're tax cattle on a tax farm...and they won't allow us ALL to escape en masse either. We're trying to discuss ancom (anarcho communism) vs state communism, and not identifying the differences.

And arguing to historical examples of state communism (which you accurately speak of) isn't indicative of anarcho communist ideals or organization methods. It's like comparing historical examples of state capitalism to anarcho capitalism ideals or organizational methods.

To discuss anarcho communism we need to discuss what their authors speak of...and they speak of non-coercion, voluntary association. Granted, many so-called self-identified ancoms are not so anti-coercion...but they aren't philosophers either. I meet many ancaps who supports Hoppe's ideas on immigration (who I vehemently disagree with)...which I find coercive and anti-free market ultimately. That doesn't mean Hoppe isn't to be respected a great Austrian mind, or that all ancap philosophers agree with his views. The same applies to ancom philosophy and ideas. Most ancoms I know that really understand and read the philosophy actually would love to live next door to me and be a commie while I engage freely in markets. 

In fact, one of my best firends (among anarchists anyways) is a internet radio host named Rabble Rouser...he's an ancom, and he knows I'm a market anarchist. It's all personal preference in a stateless society designed for voluntary associations...only when states are involved do these situations become involuntary and geographic territories become relevant (beyond private property or the "property of a agrarian commune).

----------


## Black Flag

> I don't want to correct anything, because I think you're both discussing state socialism and state communism...but there are anarcho communists,


There are many who _intellectualize_ about anarcho-communism, but there are NO such beasts in pervasive existence.

Remember we are talking about "society", not a commune.

A family exists under (archo) communism. My kid does not 'earn' her food, nor 'trade her talent' for it - she has no money and she is a kid. She gets her food from me

"From those that can to those that need" is a family rule *because the love and desire for her happiness is important to me*.

In other words, the family does not operate on an capitalist basis, but wholly an emotional one.

But communism cannot scale beyond emotional attachment - you cannot love "everyone"; indeed, it is doubtful you can care for more than 100 people emotionally.

Thus any attempt to promote communism beyond what can be familial or small communal ties cannot exist without force.


> This is why I support panarchism and panarchist synthesis so greatly.


Such a philosophy has merit.

----------


## ProIndividual

> There are many who intellectualize about anarcho-communism, but there are NO such beasts in pervasive existence.


The same can be said of ancaps.

All forms of economics exist in anarchism. All forms of organization (democracy), or lack thereof (anti-democracy), exist in anarchism. All forms of contractual law exist in anarchism. To suggest otherwise makes it decidely utopian and coercive. How would you ban these things from existing among VOLUNTARY participants (nevermind your own opinion of them and the harm they cause; that's not relavant)? You can't, and be an anarchist simultaneously.




> A family exists under (archo) communism. My kid does not 'earn' her food, nor 'trade her talent' for it - she has no money and she is a kid. She gets her food from me


A family unit is socialist (not really communist) in nature, we agree. But it's not anarcho for the child (they are not yet sovereigns and cannot be there of their own free will therefore). You have to be a mentally and physically capable adult to be sovereign (capable of self governance). So it's not anarchism in the family unit for any of the children. They are not allowed to claim their parents tyrants. Only the adults are voluntarily associated.




> But communism cannot scale beyond emotional attachment -


This is false. Israeli Kibbutzs are communist...they are also anarchic. They have thousands of member per Kibbutz. All that is required to be a voluntary communist community is a shared and voluntary economic system that sheds belief in property (they see property as theft). How can you assume that thousands of people can't voluntarily subject themselves to a silly system like a commune? Of course they can. I live near Skatopia, a world famous anarchist commune and skateboard museum/park...and many people live there. It's nonsense to say you can't extend communal life past emotional attachment. It's just an economic (and possibly political) structure. 




> Thus ...small communal ties cannot exist without force.


You can say that about any form of anarchism, as humans prefer different things. There are no central rules or authorities in anarchism...not even about property. It's rules are defined by the voluntary participants. You and I like property rights, but others don't. Roderick Long at Mises has spoken at length about how these two systems are not precluded from existing simultaneously. All that it requires for both systems to exist at the same time is that they both be voluntary ONLY.

But I will admit...and in all you make a great point here...the tendancy is for market society (a collection of individuals) to work on larger scales due to economics. It'd still be relatively small, but exponentially larger than communal societies. Communes can't police productivity of workers through social ostracisizing when too large, and since they lack profit motive this is the only way to keep producitivity for the population from degrading to the lowest possible output per worker.




> Such a philosophy has merit.


Thank you, I totally agree. Perhaps we're just cuaght up in the failures of linguistics and semantics here. We seem to agree on the outcomes, just getting into the weeds on descriptions. 

I just want to caution anarchists who agree with me on economics and organization (and perhaps legal order) that we can't preclude other types of anarchists who do not agree with us from existing provided they are voluntary systems, not setting up pseudo states. Us precluding them would also make us a de facto state. BUT, them failing on their own (which would probably happen for most communes) is not coercion, and therefore not a state on our part.

----------


## Black Flag

> A family unit is socialist (not really communist) in nature, we agree. But it's not anarcho for the child (they are not yet sovereigns and cannot be there of their own free will therefore).


Ah...you obviously do not have children...... and yes, they are sovereign - they have _exactly the same human rights_ you do - no more and no less.




> This is false. Israeli Kibbutzs are communist...they are also anarchic.


They are a commune - as I've already discussed.

They are rarely in the thousands - and those actually are broken down into sub-units.




> There are no central rules or authorities in anarchism...not even about property.


Then you have a different understanding of anarchism than I.

There are no rulers. Period.

Beyond that, anything else can be established.




> Thank you, I totally agree. Perhaps we're just caught up in the failures of linguistics and semantics here. We seem to agree on the outcomes, just getting into the weeds on descriptions.


You say POO TA TOES- I say PA TAY TOE.... we are probably pointing generally at the same thing 




> I just want to caution anarchists who agree with me on economics and organization (and perhaps legal order) that we can't preclude other types of anarchists who do not agree with us from existing provided they are voluntary systems, not setting up pseudo states. Us precluding them would also make us a de facto state. BUT, them failing on their own (which would probably happen for most communes) is not coercion, and therefore not a state on our part.


And, I agree with your statement here.

----------


## Murray N Rothbard

It is sad to see such ardent Statism on a Ron Paul forum of all places. We sure have a long way to go.

----------


## Travlyr

*Mission Statement:* Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Ah...you obviously do not have children...... and yes, they are sovereign - they have exactly the same human rights you do - no more and no less.


I don't think they do. Sure, they may not be harmed or defrauded...but they have no right to leave and move out on their own at 6 years old, to have adult sexual partners (thank God), or to be thrown out the house when you're mad at them at that age.

Sovereign implies the mental and physical ability to govern yourself. Children need governed because of the inherent mental and physical deficiences of childhood. They aren't veru bright, often hurt themselves therefore, and need coerced into safer outcomes until they learn. You can say they have natural rights...for sure...but to call a parent who is not violent but is coercive for the child's own good a tyrant would be astretch in my opinion. I'm not straw manning, I know you didn't make that argument directly...I'm just pointing out that if your child uses drugs you can physically restrian them from doing so by taking away the drugs...but if you do that to an adult, even your child once they hit adulthood, that governance of others will be tyrannical and unlawful. 

Natural law, utilitarianism, and the non-agression principle doesn't fully apply to children in my opinion (except for violence and fraud, of course).

I am open to debate on this issue though...because again I suspect we are getting into semantical disagreement, not consequentialist outcome differences.





> They are a commune - as I've already discussed.
> 
> They are rarely in the thousands - and those actually are broken down into sub-units.


Good point, but it does show anarcho communism in practice. They also have more economic output due to voluntary economics (and of course the market would have more if voluntary as well) per worker than does normal Israeli workers. They have had up to 20,000 people in one of these things at one time...although they may have collapsed into smaller units since because of the social ostracization problem I mentioned earlier. Good point.




> Then you have a different understanding of anarchism than I.
> 
> There are no rulers. Period.
> 
> Beyond that, anything else can be established.


We must have different understandings if you think a voluntary leader is a ruler....rulers are compulsory. Obviously anything voluntary is allowed in anarchy no matter how detrimental to the voluntary participants. Otherwise we ban coaches on football teams, teachers in classes, sex, boxing...etc. All forms of hierarchy are not "banned" in anarchy...only compulsory hierarchy. Sex is hierarchical, S&M sex is hierarchical and possibility detrimental to you, boxing is detrimental, coaches and teachers are hierarchical and possibly detrimental (depends if you have a yelling coach or believ in unscholling), etc. S&M sex is not equivalent to rape, boxing is not equivalent to assault, coaches and teachers are not tyrants (unless compulsory, obviously), etc.

You cannot say an anarchist world would only contain what you agree with...that's uneforcable w/o a state. All forms of voluntary association must be allowed...no matter how much you and I agree they are stupid, self defeating, detrimental, or abusive. As long as they aren't compulsory, they are compatible with anarchy. 

Anarchy is not uniformity. It is not utopian. It is not the answer to all of life's problems. It's the end of coercion beyond that which nature imposes on mankind...the end of humans ruling other humans. 

And my understanding of it comes from reading anarchists from different centuries, organizational preferences, and economic tendancies. Hence why I rail for anarchism without adjectives in it's modern forms; panarchist synthesis and panarchism.

Property, like anything else, is optional in anarchism. No one is forced to have property and no one is forced to give it up. If you think it's theft, and associate it with like minded people, then only a state can stop you. If you think property is a right (like we do), and find like minded people to associate with, then no one can stop you w/o a state. 

You simply can't think anarchism means world uniformity in law, organizational methods, or economics. That would be a pipe dream...or worse, a recipe for a new state by some other name.





> You say POO TA TOES- I say PA TAY TOE.... we are probably pointing generally at the same thing


Yeah 

I think we are, mostly. It's semantical difference more than anything. Language is so clumsy when discussing much of anything, especially philosophy.




> And, I agree with your statement here.


Yep...we agree...lol. I could of saved myself some typing if I would read that part first...LOL.

----------


## ProIndividual

> to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


So we should lose the state then? I mean it does destroy private property by making renters out of land owners via tax...

The aims of this site are not my aims...the aims of this site are a stepping stone on my list of goals. Sure, we are allies on Ron Paul and getting back to a more limited state...but only on the way to abolishing the state. We are allies up to that point...after that if you try to use force to stop us from nonviolently abolishing the state you will be our enemy. But who follows the non-agression principle, is a libertarian, Constitutionalist in favor of "seek[ing] justice, provid[ing] opportunity, and [securing] individual liberty", or otherwise liberty-minded person who would stop us in that non-violent pursuit of liberty?

Answer? No one. Only a tyrant would get in our way...blinded by nationalism and statism.

You'd do well to stop telling us the site's mission statement in the philosophy forum...this is where these types of thoughts belong. And if not, let us know and we can abandon you and your cause where we found it.

----------


## Travlyr

> So we should lose the state then?


No. You are shooting at the wrong target.

You have to get rid of the counterfeiters. Counterfeiters are the aggressors. Counterfeiters have to be aggressive to keep their monopoly and control. They hunt competition down and put them in cages. 

The State holds my property deed and the property deed of millions upon millions of homeowners. Until someone comes up *with an offer* of a better way to hold property deeds, then I'm not buying what you are selling.

End the fed. Acquire allodial title to land. End the IRS.

----------


## Black Flag

> The State holds my property deed and the property deed of millions upon millions of homeowners. Until someone comes up *with an offer* of a better way to hold property deeds, then I'm not buying what you are selling.


Of all your posts, this statement is the most rational.

You are right --- and wrong (but not in a bad way).

You are right to be skeptical of any alternative to the status quo, a status quo of which -to you- appears to satisfy a societal need (property rights)  -however terribly flawed- that does at least provide some basic order to the issue.

You are wrong in demanding "proof" that the alternative completely satisfies all your goals _better_ then the status quo, since the "proof" can only be tested *by implementation and action* - thus, you deny access to the proof by demanding that the process to prove such is not allowed.

The way out of the conundrum is _intellectual_ - that is, *by adherence to an overreaching and superior principle*, and not by merely a measure of "gain or loss" to your personal self or prosperity.

We move forward *based on a moral principle* and _regardless of personal cost_ - and not by standing firmly in a diseased pool simply because of fear of loss that may come to you by acting.

----------


## Travlyr

> Of all your posts, this statement is the most rational.
> 
> You are right --- and wrong (but not in a bad way).
> 
> You are right to be skeptical of any alternative to the status quo, a status quo of which -to you- appears to satisfy a societal need (property rights)  -however terribly flawed- that does at least provide some basic order to the issue.
> 
> You are wrong in demanding "proof" that the alternative completely satisfies all your goals _better_ then the status quo, since the "proof" can only be tested *by implementation and action* - thus, you deny access to the proof by demanding that the process to prove such is not allowed.
> 
> The way out of the conundrum is _intellectual_ - that is, *by adherence to an overreaching and superior principle*, and not by merely a measure of "gain or loss" to your personal self or prosperity.
> ...


From your responses, you could read more carefully for content. I am a self-interested individual. I will always attempt to choose what is best for me. Land ownership provides me with an opportunity to enjoy my life without interference from others, if I so choose. Land ownership requires land law. Land law is based on property rights not the non-aggression principle. Social law, which I don't much care for, can perhaps be based on the NAP. If you have an offer, then put it in writing.

----------


## TheTexan

> Land law is based on property rights not the non-aggression principle.


You've got it backwards.  Property rights is based on non-aggression principle.  Even in this society the only reason we can own land is because of the non-aggression principle.  It's the fundamental law of civilization.  Land law could not exist without NAP.  All of the "good" things that you attribute to government, these are simply things the government does that are consistent with NAP.

All the perversions of land law, such as eminent domain, fee simple, land taxes, this idea they can regulate what you do on your own land, these are all deviations from NAP.  Whatever property rights we have left, you can thank NAP for it, not the government.

----------


## Travlyr

> You've got it backwards.  Property rights is based on non-aggression principle.  Even in this society the only reason we can own land is because of the non-aggression principle.  It's the fundamental law of civilization.  Land law could not exist without NAP.  All of the "good" things that you attribute to government, these are simply things the government does that are consistent with NAP.
> 
> All the perversions of land law, such as eminent domain, fee simple, land taxes, this idea they can regulate what you do on your own land, these are all deviations from NAP.  Whatever property rights we have left, you can thank NAP for it, not the government.


I really wish that were true. I really do.

----------


## pcgame

..

----------


## ProIndividual

> I thought that the non-aggression principle was derived from private property rights.  
> Non aggression principle is the most important private property right.  The right to self-ownership.


I'd argue the following:




> If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, you have the right to govern yourself. If in the act of self governance you do not harm or defraud any other person, properties, or possessions, then logically all external compulsory government is tyranny.


So, property rights are simply an external extension of your self governance (you govern your property, so to speak). It's not "self ownership" per se, or necessarily. How can I say this? Because although the quote is mine (it's my version), the original concept was from an anti-property anarchist named Benjamin Tucker. If he can see how external government of the nonviolent person is tyranny, then property itself isn't relevant to the concept. In fact, it's our belief in property at all that creates the bias from which we derive the idea of "ownership" of ourselves. We need not own ourselves, or anything else, to believe aggression against us in the absence of our own aggressive actions against others or their possessions (or properties, if you like) is tyranny. All we need is an ethical theory.

The NAP is about deontological ethics, not particular interpretations of it's applications...to property or anything else. You can be antiproperty or pro-property and believe that the NAP is a preferable ethical theory. How? Why? Because neither can exist simultaneously or apart (as societies) in a world where aggression is an acceptable ethical and legal standard. Unfortunately we live in a world that does accept aggression against nonviolent people...it's called the state. That one institution is allowed to violate every ethical rule or consequentialist utilitarian outcome to improve happiness known to man. As long as it exists, neither pro-property or anti-property people who want a non-aggressive world can exist...both are banned from practicing their beliefs by the state (it constantly agresses against both). When the state is gone, both can exist simultaneously via panarchism and panarchist synthesis.

----------


## Travlyr

> it's called the state.


Are you referring to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution?

----------


## ProIndividual

> No. You are shooting at the wrong target.
> 
> You have to get rid of the counterfeiters. Counterfeiters are the aggressors. Counterfeiters have to be aggressive to keep their monopoly and control. They hunt competition down and put them in cages. 
> 
> The State holds my property deed and the property deed of millions upon millions of homeowners. Until someone comes up *with an offer* of a better way to hold property deeds, then I'm not buying what you are selling.
> 
> End the fed. Acquire allodial title to land. End the IRS.


Watch videos at the bottom of this page.

Ending the FED is an old anarchist cause...since the 1850s (at least) individualist anarchists like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker have railed against the monopoly on money...it's just one of many monopolies the state holds, like police, fire depts, first class mail, defense, welfare, roads, etc....many of which they previously didn't hold a monopoly over but yet still existed as services in the market.

The counterfeiters are just one monopoly of the state we wish to end. They solve one problem, and ending the IRS solves part of another (the ability to tax). But sales taxes, State taxes, and tariffs are also part of that problem (along with duties, liscences, etc...which Milton Friedman argued against better than I ever could). When all "tax" is relegated to donation and user fees (which despite Ron Paul's assertion, gas tax is not an example of a user fee...a toll on a road would be a user fee) then we will have an end to taxation and the state's ability to extort people legally. Afterall...if you resist the extortion they hunt you down, kidnap you, and put you in chains and cages.

The videos will show you how land can be held as property w/o the state...also, there was no state in Somalia and yet property existed via a form of anarchic law (the Xeer, or customary law). Once again, there is no reason to think a market demanded service like law and dispute resolution won't exist when the state's coercive monopoly on it ends. It's like saying food wouldn't exist when the Soviet monopoly on it's production and distribution ended....and many Russians beleived that to be the case based on experience bias.

When slavery existed, and nowhere had it ever been abolished, men asked "who will pick the cotton? Our economy will collapse"....but we didn't realize A) slaves were a more expensive form of labor than wage labor because advances in technology were making paid laborers more productive and slaves were dependent solely on the slave master for food, medicine, housing, etc; and B) that big steel machine would pick cotton at a rate no 20 human slaves could ever contend with, while running on dinosaur juice (fossil fuels), and making slave labor seem in retrospect stupid and a hinderance to advancement.

BUT, if the anarchist (all of whom were abolitionists) would of made these arguments, they'd of been laughed at. It's hard for those in the setting of state coercion to see past their experience bias.

"I saw a monkey ride a bicycle at the circus. I never saw a person or a bear ride a bicycle before. Therefore only monkeys can ride bicycles."

This is essentially the argument of "the state handles property, I never saw a non-state law system handle property, therefore only the state can handle property."

And before you label the Xeer as a bad idea, recognize the difference between this form of common law and the anarchist legal order in the videos. One is what happens when the state collapses, the other is an enlightened transition to statelessness. I'ts like comparing Churches falling down spontaneously to the Enlightenment of the 17th-19th centuries. Also, don't say "Somalia sucks" when Somalia under the state was far worse in nearly every measurable way than Somalia w/o the state (look up "True News Somalia", versions 1 and 2). We have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges to be logical. Statesless Somalia needs to be compared to statist Somalia, not statist America. I'd gamble everything I own (and I gamble for a living BTW) that just as stateless Somalia was better than statist Somalia, so too would be statless America versus statist America.

So, your plan to end major forms of tax and the monopoly on money (legal tender laws, the inability to compete with the state's currency) fits into our plans as anarchists nicely. You just need to work through in your own mind how ending the rest of these monopolies are possible. 

And once again...anthropolgists have proven property existed before states existed in human history. The idea property requires a state is ahistorical.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Are you referring to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution?


What about "Unfortunately we live in a world that does accept aggression against nonviolent people...it's called the state" made you think I was refering specifically to any form of a state, like the Constitution, or any other state coerced geographically monopolized social contract? I wasn't speaking of any one state in particular.

I'm talking about ALL states, including the Constitution (or at least the state it created...coerced geographically dependent monopolized social contract). If I am not free to live w/o being taxed (extorted), to sign a non-geographic dependent social contract (law in panarchism), or any number of other services the state coercively monopolizes, then I am aggressed against. Again...if I have the mental and physical ability to govern myself, then I have the right to govern myself...and if in that act of self governance I do not harm or defraud any other persons, properties, or possessions, then logically all external compulsory government is TYRANNY.

So all states are tyranny, as they are both compulsory and external, and I am not aggressing against others or their properties/possessions, meaning they have no logical right to govern me AT ALL.

----------

