Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[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 shit 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 shit 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 shit??

Rev9.

 

[Revolution9]

Talking about it isn't going to do shit.

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 shit 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 shit??

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