MINARCHISM in one Photo

[jllundqu]

What does RPF think? Is Boromir the epitomy of Minarchism, or what?

 

[Philhelm]

I don't follow...

 

[Seraphim]

Mostly noble but something is afoot...a little off.

I don't follow...

 

[jllundqu]

What does RPF think? Is Boromir the epitomy of Minarchism, or what?

Boromir wants to use the ring "for good"... just a little bit of power.... that's all..... he promises

 

[jllundqu]

I thought it was actually pretty deep.

 

[otherone]

wrong forum.

 

[jllundqu]

From an anarchist forum

 

[Philhelm]

Boromir wants to use the ring "for good"... just a little bit of power.... that's all..... he promises

I see.

What about Aragorn? He is the Minarch of Gondor but threw himself in the woods and only returned to act as Commander-in-Chief of Gondor's army after Mordor had formally declared war. He even carried a broken sword since he was no war monger.

 

[Philhelm]

From an anarchist forum

More like a forum of bastards. At least a Ron Paul platform would move things in a direction far more favorable to anarchists. I assume the artist got tired of drawing the thousands of real tyrants out there?

 

[jllundqu]

More like a forum of bastards. At least a Ron Paul platform would move things in a direction far more favorable to anarchists. I assume the artist got tired of drawing the thousands of real tyrants out there?

Agreed. I self-identify as a Minarchist, but thought the reference was interesting. I think Ron Paul, and indeed our Founders, had it right.... there must be a balance. The balance is never static and can't be defined, but it's a fight that needs fighting.

 

[William Tell]

From an anarchist forum

YAY!!! Ron Paul lost!
(sarcasm)

 

[William Tell]

I assume the artist got tired of drawing the thousands of real tyrants out there?

Many anarchists seem more frustrated at Liberty Candidate types than at tyrants.

 

[ZENemy]

Agreed. I self-identify as a Minarchist, but thought the reference was interesting. I think Ron Paul, and indeed our Founders, had it right.... there must be a balance. The balance is never static and can't be defined, but it's a fight that needs fighting.

With "RULERS" in charge there will never be a balance. The balance that is needed lies within each individual and cannot be legislated.

Anarchy is the rejection of RULERS not rules.

 

[fisharmor]

I read an analysis a long time ago that said this is actually what the book is about.
Tolkein was an expoert on all sorts of pre-Roman biz that conflicts with modern statism, so he was surely familiar with the concepts.

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul is Frodo

 

[William Tell]

Ron Paul is Frodo

So... Jesse Benton is... Gollum?

 

[pcosmar]

With "RULERS" in charge there will never be a balance. The balance that is needed lies within each individual and cannot be legislated.

Anarchy is the rejection of RULERS not rules.

Well,,as I understand the original intent of the founders,, we were never supposed to have rulers. Period.

We were meant to have representatives.. NOT Leaders,,and not rulers.

But power corrupts and has done so here as well.

 

[Petar]

With "RULERS" in charge there will never be a balance. The balance that is needed lies within each individual and cannot be legislated.

Anarchy is the rejection of RULERS not rules.

What the hell is this "rules without rulers" shit?

Are you some kind of hippy or what?

No one is going to build a civilization with decent laws that exists without some people who are put into place to administer and enforce them.

Anarchists live in a fantasy land... may as well call yourselves "wizards" and start trying to cast spells to make the world a better place.

 

[ZENemy]

What the hell is this "rules without rulers" shit?

Are you some kind of hippy or what?

No one is going to build a civilization with decent laws that exists without some people who are put into place to administer and enforce them.

Anarchists live in a fantasy land... may as well call yourselves "wizards" and start trying to cast spells to make the world a better place.

A ruler is one who not only MAKES the RULES but also enforces them. AKA a King. A constitutional republic, which is technically what were were SUPPOSED to be, has no rulers.

Your position is that without a RULER you will be unable to control yourself?

 

[ZENemy]

What the hell is this "rules without rulers" shit?

Are you some kind of hippy or what?

No one is going to build a civilization with decent laws that exists without some people who are put into place to administer and enforce them.

Anarchists live in a fantasy land... may as well call yourselves "wizards" and start trying to cast spells to make the world a better place.

Sounds like your own personal fantasy to me. Why is yours viable and ours a fantasy? The current system is lawless with rulers doing as they please unto the ruled.

Currently; consent, is the fantasy.