Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.