Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[Black Flag]

LOL
Do you troll on other candidate's websites telling everyone how futile their efforts are?

So now the blunt truth is *trolling*?

Egads!

 

[Madison320]

Again, how did you organize the pick-up game of baseball?

Those that wanted to play came to play.

Those that did not went somewhere else.

Everyone split up, based on their favorite position (probably based on their ability), appointed a Captain, and begin playing.


You do know that the first military militia of the USA organized this way, right? It's not like it "never happened before".....

"Appointed a captain". That's sounds suspiciously like voting.

Let me repeat the scenario. A group of anarchists decide to form an island anarchy. They don't want to get annexed by a neighboring country like the Republic of Minerva in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

So they decide to create a military. Somebody has to be in charge of that military. It doesn't just "happen out of thin air" like you want it to. You have to pick a leader. So you take a VOTE. So is it still an anarchy?

 

[Black Flag]

"Appointed a captain". That's sounds suspiciously like voting.

Why do you believe "voting" is a concept foreign to anarchists?

 

[Black Flag]

. It doesn't just "happen out of thin air" like you want it to. You have to pick a leader. So you take a VOTE. So is it still an anarchy?

In fact it does happen out of thin air.

The Apache never "votes" for their leader. He appears.

By his own action and example, the rest of his tribe follow him.

When Geronimo was tired of the abuse of his people at the hands of the US government, he stood up and said "I've had enough"
He went to his horse, and rode away to engage the US army.

He ordered no one to follow him. He demanded nothing from anyone in his tribe.

His tribe followed him.

 

[otherone]

So now the blunt truth is *trolling*?

In this context, yes. This a grassroots support forum. Discussing anarchy v. minarchy is one thing. Telling everyone here they are wasting their time and money in support of RP is another .

 

[Black Flag]

In this context, yes. This a grassroots support forum. Discussing anarchy v. minarchy is one thing. Telling everyone here they are wasting their time and money in support of RP is another .

If you cannot face the truth, then you are -indeed- lost in a futile act.

 

[Madison320]

In fact it does happen out of thin air.

The Apache never "votes" for their leader. He appears.

By his own action and example, the rest of his tribe follow him.

When Geronimo was tired of the abuse of his people at the hands of the US government, he stood up and said "I've had enough"
He went to his horse, and rode away to engage the US army.

He ordered no one to follow him. He demanded nothing from anyone in his tribe.

His tribe followed him.

This is getting too weird for me.

 

[TheTexan]

There is only one requirement to fix the State. Allow individuals to secede. Allowing states to secede would be a good step in the right direction.

So, IMO, the first step in fixing the State, is to try to secede, and see if they will let us.

Until we try, we have noone to blame but ourselves, IMO.

 

[Black Flag]

This is getting too weird for me.

Why?

You wanted examples, there is a real world example.

 

[Black Flag]

There is only one requirement to fix the State. Allow individuals to secede. Allowing states to secede would be a good step in the right direction.

So, IMO, the first step in fixing the State, is to try to secede, and see if they will let us.

Until we try, we have noone to blame but ourselves, IMO.

What form does "secede" take? What would you do?

 

[TheTexan]

What form does "secede" take? What would you do?

I'm open to suggestions on that. What I think would work, if we actually concentrated our efforts on it, is the FSP. While some of them may say it's not a "secession movement", it is a secession movement, by its very nature of trying to separate ourselves into our own group.

Every individual has a right to secede, but for the secession to have legitimacy in the eyes of the tyranny we live in, I think the secession has to be at the state level, though we could certainly try something smaller.

The bottom line is we need to start organizing ourselves into a geographic area. Whether it's NH, a city in NH, another state, or even another country, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Xerographica]

The bottom line is we need to start organizing ourselves into a geographic area. Whether it's NH, a city in NH, another state, or even another country, it really doesn't matter.

In this post I explain why secession isn't really necessary...The Magna Carta Movement.

 

[otherone]

I'm open to suggestions on that.

we can start by repealing the 14th amendment. BAM....no longer a citizen of the US.....

 

[TheTexan]

we can start by repealing the 14th amendment. BAM....no longer a citizen of the US.....

Ya that's gonna happen. I like where your head is at though. If we were able to pull that off, it would fix this country, but no, I don't see that as a realistic possibility.

Plus the US would likely still claim jurisdiction over your property that you own, even though you reject citizenship. Most likely deport you :/

 

[otherone]

Plus the US would likely still claim jurisdiction over your property that you own, even though you reject citizenship. Most likely deport you :/

Why do people forget that we don't live in the "United States". The "United States" is a legal construct. I live in Pennsylvania. I don't live in all of the states. No one does. Upon eliminating US citizenship, we would only be a citizen of our State. The USA would become a federation again, not a sovereign entity.

 

[TheTexan]

Why do people forget that we don't live in the "United States". The "United States" is a legal construct. I live in Pennsylvania. I don't live in all of the states. No one does. Upon eliminating US citizenship, we would only be a citizen of our State. The USA would become a federation again, not a sovereign entity.

As long as the Federal Government has any authority whatsoever, this is simply a semantics argument you're making. If the Constitution were simply a set of guidelines not to be enforced, then yes, you would be correct. This also means states would have a right to secede.

However, if the Constitution does have any authority, it still remains as sovereign as it is today, only with less authority. So if you're a citizen of a state, and that state is a member of the Federal Government, implicitly you are still a citizen of the Federal Government.

So the question comes back to secession again. A state that cannot secede is not sovereign. Would repealing the 14th amendment allow states to secede, in both theory and reality?

 

[otherone]

As long as the Federal Government has any authority whatsoever, this is simply a semantics argument you're making.

Actually, the only authority the federal government has (or should have) is over the governments of the federated states. It's not the "United Individuals of America".

So if you're a citizen of a state, and that state is a member of the Federal Government, implicitly you are still a citizen of the Federal Government.

It's not implicit at all, which is why it's in the 14th amendment. People had no concept of the sovereignty of the united federation prior to the Civil War. That's why folks like Robert E Lee, an officer in the US military, was not committing treason. He was a Virginian, not an "American". The 14th Amendment destroyed the union by creating an Empire. As far as secession goes, that is a state government concern...it shouldn't affect us as we aren't actually citizens of the US. But yes, states should have the Right to secede.

 

[TheTexan]

Actually, the only authority the federal government has (or should have) is over the governments of the federated states. It's not the "United Individuals of America".



It's not implicit at all, which is why it's in the 14th amendment. People had no concept of the sovereignty of the united federation prior to the Civil War. That's why folks like Robert E Lee, an officer in the US military, was not committing treason. He was a Virginian, not an "American". The 14th Amendment destroyed the union by creating an Empire. As far as secession goes, that is a state government concern...it shouldn't affect us as we aren't actually citizens of the US. But yes, states should have the Right to secede.

If a state can't secede, it's not sovereign. If the state isn't sovereign, you'd still implicitly be a citizen of the United States.

So I don't see where repealing the 14th would fix anything. Maybe I'm just not getting it.

 

[Travlyr]

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
by
David Lawrence

U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF -- that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" -- is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

 

[otherone]

If the state isn't sovereign, you'd still implicitly be a citizen of the United States.

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

I'm not communicating this well. Let's say, allasuddenlike....BAM ...the federal government DISSAPPEARS. You're a 'free man', right? No, as you still are subject to the authority of your state. So life goes on, everyone doing all their regular life stuff, for let's say, 20 years. And then, out of the blue, Canada attacks Wisconsin (to gain access to all the cheese fields) and Michigan (because they're tired of the smell). Wisconsin and Michigan can't defend against Canada on their own (well, maybe they could, but that's a different story), so their governments create a partnership. And lets say Minnesota and North Dakota join them, and they form a federation....the "FSA"...."Frozen States of America." The FSA is an agreement of governments, not individuals. Each individual is subject ONLY to their respective state, each government is subject (upon agreement) to the federation. The federation itself has no authority over individuals. Does this make sense?