Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[No Free Beer]

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.

ok......?

 

[TheTexan]

ok......?

If I understand you correctly, what you're trying to say is that if the government tells me it's illegal for me to tie my shoes, as long as they let me petition them to beg them to let me tie my shoes, that makes it ok?

Just so we're on the same page.

 

[No Free Beer]

If I understand you correctly, what you're trying to say is that if the government tells me it's illegal for me to tie my shoes, as long as they let me petition them to beg them to let me tie my shoes, that makes it ok?

Just so we're on the same page.

No.

What I was saying was that you use the term "violence" rather loosely. You said that if you were to go to the government and try to secede, they would shoot you.

I responded by asking you if you petitioned your government, would they shoot you?

You said, "no."

My point being that you as an individual have the right to petition your government, in a peaceful manner. No one is going to shoot you for trying to petition your government, dude.

Thus, making your whole argument for anarchy pointless (based off of your definition of violence).

 

[crh88]

The anarchists in this thread have a lot of patience. Just wanted to give you guys props!

 

[TheTexan]

My point being that you as an individual have the right to petition your government, in a peaceful manner. No one is going to shoot you for trying to petition your government, dude.

By your logic, if I place you in a cage, as long as I let you beg me for freedom, it's not "violence."

 

[No Free Beer]

By your logic, if I place you in a cage, as long as I let you beg me for freedom, it's not "violence."

Now you are picking and choosing what text of mine you are replying to.

But I will still respond to what you have said.

By that logic (which you posted), why would you even petition your government? Why don't you just go full-blown anarchy now? Why even ask for permission, mr big shot?

 

[TheTexan]

... why would you even petition your government? Why don't you just go full-blown anarchy now? Why even ask for permission, mr big shot?

Excellent question!!! See my signature below.

 

[No Free Beer]

Excellent question!!! See my signature below.

Don't worry about others, worry about yourself.

Just do it.

Your arguments are full of hypocrisy.

 

[TheTexan]

Don't worry about others, worry about yourself.

Just do it.

Your arguments are full of hypocrisy.

Working on it

 

[No Free Beer]

Working on it

Good.

Enjoy.

And I really mean that. I hope it works out for you.

 

[Black Flag]

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."

Anarchy is merely the absence of the right to rule over other men - not an absence of law.

Anarchists cannot dispense with the laws of gravity, nor the laws of economics.

We certainly can dispense with the idea that men have a right to rule men over men.

But, I am just a statist, according to Blackflag, what do I know...?

You do not know what you are.

 

[Black Flag]

Once again, another word is used rather loosely around here

"violence"

Children understand the term, but you do not.

Violence is not a loosely defined term - what is loose is your understanding of such terms as you have been subjected to so much
Revolution within the Form you do not understand words any more.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Revolution_within_the_form

Violence:
physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

 

[No Free Beer]

Anarchy is merely the absence of the right to rule over other men - not an absence of law.

Anarchists cannot dispense with the laws of gravity, nor the laws of economics.

We certainly can dispense with the idea that men have a right to rule men over men.






You do not know what you are.

Elaborate...

BTW, I prefer the term minarchist.

Having laws that protect an individuals rights is not statism, buddy.

 

[Black Flag]

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)

Correct - but you do not understand what "government" is.

You convolute government to be "organization", thus anything from the boy scouts to a group of wives meeting to discuss tuperware to the US government is "government".

But no one confuses the boy scouts to be equal to the US marines (maybe you do)

No once confuses the local Lions Club to be the US Congress.

Thus, your definition of government is incomplete.

Government is the entity that monopolizes the initiation of violence within a defined geographical area.

 

[Black Flag]

Elaborate...

BTW, I prefer the term minarchist.

Having laws that protect an individuals rights is not statism, buddy.

Correct - but that is not what you want - you want to FORCE others to agree to your set of laws regarding violence.

You may not think you are, but we will see that soon enough

 

[No Free Beer]

Correct - but that is not what you want - you want to FORCE others to agree to your set of laws regarding violence.

You may not think you are, but we will see that soon enough

Go on...

I would like you to explain your ideal society.

How would laws protecting individual rights be "force"?

 

[kuckfeynes]

I wish just one person could tell me how health care and insurance fall under the category of goods and services, but defense and justice do not. Either you accept that everything is a good or service, and apply a market-based philosophy across the board, or admit that your philosophy is inconsistent and based on your own mental construct of how you believe society should be run.

 

[Madison320]

I wish just one person could tell me how health care and insurance fall under the category of goods and services, but defense and justice do not. Either you accept that everything is a good or service, and apply a market-based philosophy across the board, or admit that your philosophy is inconsistent and based on your own mental construct of how you believe society should be run.

Sure. I don't duck questions like anarchists do. Suppose I buy a car. I voluntarily trade money for the car. No force is involved. Both parties consent. The free market is the best way to handle this. Suppose I steal a car or am accused of stealing a car. Now there's a dispute between two parties that need to be resolved by force or threat of force. Resolving a dispute is fundamentally different from a trade because it requires force (or threat of force).

Anarchists divide politics into 2 groups. People that want government (statists) and people that dont (anarchists). I think that's wrong. I think you should divide the 2 groups by those that believe in natural law (force vs non force) and people that don't. Minarchists believe there's a difference between force and non-force and that government's only role is to prevent acts of force. Liberals and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't distinguish between force and non-force.

Now let me ask you a question that your fellow anarchists are too scared to answer. If anarchism works so well, why aren't there any good ones in existence?

 

[Cabal]

Liberals and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't distinguish between force and non-force.

 

[Sam I am]

The first time I heard the concept of anarcho-capitalism was about 20 years ago. I thought it sounded like a good idea at first. Eventually I decided it had some serious structural flaws and could never work. I've had long debates online with anarchists mainly focusing on resolving disputes. I never brought up national defense, I thought that was too obvious. Anyway I don't want to get into the "court system" side of the debate, been there, done that. I'm curious about the national defense side of the argument. So the questions for you anarchists out there, how would you provide for national defense?

By the way, I'm a libertarian, just not an anarchist.

They get conquered by another state, and the conquer-ers handle national defense for them.