Are you a Constitutionalist or an Anarchist?

What is your idiology?

  • I am a constitutionalist.

    Votes: 120 57.1%
  • I am an anarchist.

    Votes: 71 33.8%
  • Other - Please explain your position.

    Votes: 19 9.0%

  • Total voters
    210
... Only because he included "consent of the governed".

No, because he included voluntary contributions. I wouldn`t contribute.

Without the ability to extract money by force the government wouldn`t have a way to externalise cost and would thus lack the resources to establish a monopoly in practice. Thus even if it claimed territorial soverignity, there would for spring up enterprises which would for all practical purposes represent alternative competing governments.

So in effect you would have panarchy.
 
Where would they get the loans for this Marshall plan after they've bankrupted themselves pulverizing North America? The US government wouldn't be around supporting the IMF, LOL
Supporting the IMF with $12 Trillion in debt?

Lets look at China. They have the money and the power right now.
 
No, because he included voluntary contributions. I wouldn`t contribute.

Without the ability to extract money by force the government wouldn`t have a way to externalise cost and would thus lack the resources to establish a monopoly in practice. Thus even if it claimed territorial soverignity, there would for spring up enterprises which would for all practical purposes represent alternative competing governments.

So in effect you would have panarchy.

Who would let a leech into their community???
 
more options needed because there are a lot of "non" archists groups (I know that is collective) that are splintered on RPF.
 
more options needed because there are a lot of "non" archists groups (I know that is collective) that are splintered on RPF.

I included the option of OTHER so those who held a different ideology could state their views.
 
Last edited:
The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.
 
Supporting the IMF with $12 Trillion in debt?

Lets look at China. They have the money and the power right now.

Obama just tossed $100B in loan guarantees the IMF's way.

That $12T in debt you mention is growing from failed attempts at conquering tiny third-world countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. To actually conquer an armed society requires a staggering amount of money and human sacrifice. I seriously doubt the Chinese are stupid enough to attempt it in North America of all places, and I'd be willing to bet my life on that in exchange for liberty. They can barely keep Tibet under control!
 
Last edited:
True, true... Hmm, so maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of having to prove biblically that all (other) forms of government are unacceptable, I only have to establish that anarchism is biblically acceptable in order to be free in conscience to advocate for it. That'd be nice...

How about... because it was functionally the government the Isrealites enjoyed for hundreds of years... up until this:

1Samuel8 said:
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 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. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 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."

Does any of that sound familiar?

I am leaning toward anarchism primarily because the founding documents of this nation, plus Luke 20, means that in abdicating my duty of self government, by converting my servants into my masters, I am not taking into full consideration the admonition to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

We are the sovereigns, and our government masters are supposed to be our servants, doing our dirty work. Those that take that away from me are the ones breaking Luke 20:20-26. I am Caesar, and they are not giving to me what is mine.
 
I have my own belief system, that is neither dependent on the Constitution or exclusively on the teachings of his Holiness Murray Rothtard or her Pervertedness Ayn Rand.
 
The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

So the problem with anarchy is that it gives rise to government by force? So to protect against that eventuality, what we need is... government by force?
 
The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

You're right that dictators almost always fill the void left by violent revolutions. But to be an anarcho-capitalist is not to advocate violent revolution.
 
Wouldn't an Anarchist just want to move to a deserted island to setup their Anarchist Utopia?
 
Also, any time I consider declaring that "I am an anarchist," I always hear in my head that phrase as sung by Johnny Rotten. :cool:
 
Also, any time I consider declaring that "I am an anarchist," I always hear in my head that phrase as sung by Johnny Rotten. :cool:

Well, if the term feels uncomfortable, you can use a different one. Panarchist and voluntaryist essentially mean the same thing, without the negative connotations.
 
Back
Top