Anarchism is more of a complaint than a solution.

[Ronin Truth]

And I don't think anyone would argue that it would be better to have a state than it would to be able to live without it. Everyone agrees that it would be better to live without the state if it were possible. The point is that it's not possible.

I'm shocked and amazed by your apparent total lack of creativity and imagination. We just need enough people to stop doing it. DUH!

It's awful, no one likes it and nothing can be done about it. Gimme a break.

 

[William Tell]

If that's all you know, then you haven't read "plenty". You've read a few blogs and maybe watched a few youtube videos. Rothbard's system building was/is something minarchists can only aspire to, and other anarchists and voluntaryists have covered every objection uttered by minarchists. Minarchists just don't like to read except for very short and simple things like the Constitution and the Federalist.

Missing the point, so you may say anarchism works, GREAT! Now how are you trying to implement it?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Communism isn't a theology. Especially as the Soviets practiced it ("Scientific Socialism" aimed at Communism with various multi-year plans). After the Revolution, prominent religious figures were martyred and Universal Atheism became official policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

If you want to spin atheism as a religion, okay...but the atheists on RPFs are going to get cranky.

It has been said that Statism is a religion. There's a bit of truth to it, but really it only borrows the cult aspects of religion.

The Theology of Communism

Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann,
Chaplain (Brigadier General), AFRes

In 1964 the Chicago University Press published a volume of essays entitled, What Can a Man Do? The chapters of this book were written by one of our most distinguished Jewish journalists, Milton Mayer. One of his essays goes under the title, “Christ Under Communism,”[SUP]1 [/SUP]It concludes with the observation that there are, at this time, only two serious contenders for the hearts and minds of men, namely, the Church and Communism.

At the moment, as the author points out, the Marxist movement looks strong and victorious, while the Church appears to be in retreat. Yet the Church has known right along that this contest would be long and bruising. She has entered the arena, therefore, prepared to endure. Communism has only recently discovered that this struggle is not an easy one. In the meantime, both address themselves to man’s capacity for basic loyalties. Both work with an interpretation of reality which proposes to deal with the ultimate issues in depth.

That is to say, both have a theology, as Nikolai Berdyaev was quick to point out when he went into exile from Russia almost fifty years ago.[SUP]2
[/SUP]
It is a paradox, of course, to describe Communism in terms of theology. After all, do not its prophets insist that “religion is the opiate of the people”? Yet Communism itself may be spoken of as a religion. It certainly insists on dealing with men at the same level. Hence the World Council of Churches, in its Evanston Assembly of 1954, took special note of the structural correspondence between Christianity and the Marxist system of thought.
[SUP]3[/SUP]

Continued at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/jan-feb/scharlemann.html

 

[otherone]

Well, religion has been natural to homo sapien sapien for thousands of years...it doesn't seem a good indictment of religion because rulers tend to be good at hijacking it.

It's not an indictment of religion; it's an indictment of statism, as demonstrated by the Soviets.
Statism claims it has moral justification for violence. Historically, morality is codified by religion. Organized religion is a broad system that creates a universal set of ethical standards, in many cases under the "auspices" of the oligarchy. This code generally permitted the priests, or local rulers, or judges to "morally" burn alive, stone, decapitate, or whatever, whomever violates the code.
The Age of Enlightenment ushered in a more-man-less-god-centered age, where the new morality became focused on "the common good"...collectivism. So instead of saying, "Allah weeps when a man porks a man", we got statements like "The Motherland weeps when a man porks a man".

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I'm having a very hard time picturing some invading force occupying the (used to be) USA. 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in guerrilla hands could make for a very expensive and bloody occupation.

Private militaries with fewer small arms, less labor, and more capital (ships, plans, tanks, ect...) would be much better.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Continued at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/jan-feb/scharlemann.html​

That's an interesting piece, but the details don't support the analogy. It plays quite fast and loose with what Christianity actually is and what Communism is. If you want to compare communism to a "religion"/"transcendental philosophy of spirituality", the most reasonable comparable object I know of is Buddhism.​

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not an indictment of religion; it's an indictment of statism, as demonstrated by the Soviets.
Statism claims it has moral justification for violence. Historically, morality is codified by religion. Organized religion is a broad system that creates a universal set of ethical standards, in many cases under the "auspices" of the oligarchy. This code generally permitted the priests, or local rulers, or judges to "morally" burn alive, stone, decapitate, or whatever, whomever violates the code.
The Age of Enlightenment ushered in a more-man-less-god-centered age, where the new morality became focused on "the common good"...collectivism. So instead of saying, "Allah weeps when a man porks a man", we got statements like "The Motherland weeps when a man porks a man".

I'll +rep to that.

 

[Ronin Truth]

That's an interesting piece, but the details don't support the analogy. It plays quite fast and loose with what Christianity actually is and what Communism is. If you want to compare communism to a "religion"/"transcendental philosophy of spirituality", the most reasonable comparable object I know of is Buddhism.

Actually the quote is more sociological than theological. More about human institutions than deities. I just like the quote and I don't remember who said it.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Private militaries with fewer small arms, less labor, and more capital (ships, plans, tanks, ect...) would be much better.

Just gotta make do, with what we've got. Maybe raid some armories and/or other military installations.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Anarchists are a lot like liberals, in that they discount flawed human nature.

"Human nature" (this is in quotations because human nature is such an ambiguous term. Whose 'human nature'?) is opposed to "limited government" (a contradiction of terms, there is right, and there is wrong. And if society wishes to attain a level of achievement "the Gods" would be proud of, they'd go with right) as well. What does it prove? Furthermore, if modern day "liberals" are discounting flawed human nature, conservatives are much more so. Why? because in this sphere of ideas, progressivism/collectivism/socialism is certainly the fad. Hell, even the conservatives want to emulate them. A society based on plunder, Bastiat rightly predicted, would fall prey to its own game. So now unless CSPAN gives me an 'R' or 'D' by their name, I cannot tell which is which. There's human nature for you. Work is tiresome. People want free shit. Most are uneducated, and wouldn't pick up a book if you paid them to. What can you do? Rather, what should you do? Aim for half-assed ideals of general freedom, some robbery, but only inasmuch as the elected few of Washington promote? Or say on principle, theft is theft is theft is theft? To hell with their monopolies; unprincipled, thuggish schemes and scams. "General welfare"!? What does that even mean, legally? Surely no two will agree. Where are the courts to ensure Justice? Oh, they were appointed life tenures by the executive and legislative?.... on petty partisan politicks? Give me a break.

Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments --- although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people; of those who have been over-awed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"Human nature" (this is in quotations because human nature is such an ambiguous term. Whose 'human nature'?) is opposed to "limited government" (a contradiction of terms, there is right, and there is wrong. And if society wishes to attain a level of achievement "the Gods" would be proud of, they'd go with right) as well. What does it prove? Furthermore, if modern day "liberals" are discounting flawed human nature, conservatives are much more so. Why? because in this sphere of ideas, progressivism/collectivism/socialism is certainly the fad. Hell, even the conservatives want to emulate them. A society based on plunder, Bastiat rightly predicted, would fall prey to its own game. So now unless CSPAN gives me an 'R' or 'D' by their name, I cannot tell which is which. There's human nature for you. Work is tiresome. People want free shit. Most are uneducated, and wouldn't pick up a book if you paid them to. What can you do? Rather, what should you do? Aim for half-assed ideals of general freedom, some robbery, but only inasmuch as the elected few of Washington promote? Or say on principle, theft is theft is theft is theft? To hell with their monopolies; unprincipled, thuggish schemes and scams. "General welfare"!? What does that even mean, legally? Surely no two will agree. Where are the courts to ensure Justice? Oh, they were appointed life tenures by the executive and legislative?.... on petty partisan politicks? Give me a break.

Indeed! This is one reason why Constitutionalists need a coherent legal theory, as we were discussing the other day.

+rep for you, comrade. ~hugs~

 

[William Tell]

Indeed! This is one reason why Constitutionalists need a coherent legal theory, as we were discussing the other day.

+rep for you, comrade. ~hugs~

Speaking for myself, I am a Constitutionalist because following the Constitution is the best immediate step for those in Government to take. Anarchy is not happening anytime soon, I am not standing in its way, others are. But anarchy is not a lasting thing, it is a theory discussed in smoking rooms and the farthest reaches of the internet. Ron Paul accomplished more for the cause of liberty running for President than all the anarchists in Porcfest could even dream of.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Speaking for myself, I am a Constitutionalist because following the Constitution is the best immediate step for those in Government to take. Anarchy is not happening anytime soon, I am not standing in its way, others are. But anarchy is not a lasting thing, it is a theory discussed in smoking rooms and the farthest reaches of the internet. Ron Paul accomplished more for the cause of liberty running for President than all the anarchists in Porcfest could even dream of.

And even then, "we" are still .05 of the population.

So, "human nature" wins, I suppose.

Considering your recent delve into comedy in saying that George H.W. Bush would be recorded as a good president, though he may because history will be written by people sympathetic to him and this system, (but that wasn't your point), I'd also recommend that you recheck what Constitutionalism entails.

 

[William Tell]

Considering your recent delve into comedy in saying that George H.W. Bush would be recorded as a good president, though he may because history will be written by people sympathetic to him and this system, (but that wasn't your point), I'd also recommend that you recheck what Constitutionalism entails.

I never said that, I never even saw that post. Link it if you like, but it was not me I assure you. GHWB is a piece of garbage.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I never said that, I never even saw that post. Link it if you like, but it was not me I assure you. GHWB is a piece of garbage.

I do apologize. I can edit the post if you wish, or link this to it.

I should have known.

History will show the elder Bush to be a good President.

 

[William Tell]

I do apologize. I can edit the post if you wish, or link this to it.

I should have known.

It's cool Figured it was him, just because he is the other William username here. I'm not even a William, but I think the Swiss Apple hunter was cool!

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Just gotta make do, with what we've got. Maybe raid some armories and/or other military installations.

What I'm saying is that competing privately owned armies would be the best and most economical way for an Anarchist society to defend itself from government, with insurgency as a backup option incase private companies fail.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I'm on my phone and can't see the entire thread, but I believe I saw some people asking why Ireland/Iceland came to an end after 100s of years.

How many libertarian, constitutionalist, or minarchist societies lasted that long?

 

[danda]

Wow, I get to respond first?
Great, I'll say the same thing I always do in these threads: Go study the documented historical examples where it actually happened before making absolute statements about it being impossible.

I'd like to. links?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Speaking for myself, I am a Constitutionalist because following the Constitution is the best immediate step for those in Government to take. Anarchy is not happening anytime soon, I am not standing in its way, others are. But anarchy is not a lasting thing, it is a theory discussed in smoking rooms and the farthest reaches of the internet. Ron Paul accomplished more for the cause of liberty running for President than all the anarchists in Porcfest could even dream of.

Do you agree with the principles though? Maybe taxation cant 100 percent eliminated, but do you agree that it's wrong and that the closer to zero the better? Or is there some degree of taxation that you want and accept? Do you agree that the statist legal monopoly is immoral, even if unavoidable? What is your ultimate goal?

im not against all political efforts, as long as they move us closer to a stateless society, even if the guy in question is a minarchist o r constituionalist