Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[heavenlyboy34]

I've read your posts, Mr. My first Divine Liturgy experience.

Good. You know you're lying, then, and can retract your statement.

 

[CCTelander]

Good. You know you're lying, then, and can retract your statement.

Don't hold your breath waiting my friend. You'd be missed.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Good. You know you're lying, then, and can retract your statement.

What I meant was that you don't own up to your Divine Liturgy thread in some of your other postings. Simalar to how origanalist claims to be anti-government yet pulls money out if his pocket to give to ploiticians wanting to be in government. Umkay?

I could go find some of your anti-moral sexual comments if I feel like doing it and if you really want me to. I don't, but challenge me on it and I might take the time to go look. You're religious. Yet you're worldly.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Huh, you too then? Y'all must have the same virus.

Yeah, the Origanalist virus. The guy who has 2/3 of the posts in the picture thread because he has nothing intelligent to offer.

 

[Natural Citizen]

HB, why don't you tell us your views on the founders and the constitution. You do openly reject them, correct? Ya Weasel. You reject the very foundation that America was built upon, don't you? Not withstanding the fact that you're Russian without any semblance of traditional American heritage beyond 30 or so years, but I guess that's beside the point.

Individual Rights are God-given. Not private entity-given. The fact that Individuals are entitled to their right to property does not mean that entitlement to one's rights comes at the discretion of some worldly entity. Additionally, property is liberty's primary support. Emphasis added on support.

What happens if someone isn't a property owner, HB? Hm? They don't have rights because some worldly entity decided that rights come from property and not God? Think about that.

What HB is doing, predictably, is taking out the Founders, the Declaration and the the Constitution because he rejects them. HB rejects the very foundation of this nation.

Isn't that right, HB? You do reject these founding documents, right?

In fact, now that I think about it, I'd be willing to wager every one of you in the thread who haven't actually been able to prop up your own bull pucky also reject the Founders, traditional America, the Declaration, the Constitution. What the heck are you asholes doing here anyway? Have you read the site mission?


Property rights explained...correctly ...



Private Property--Liberty's Support

[Americans] ". . . are entitled to life, liberty and property . . ." (Declaration of Rights by First Continental Congress, 1774)


The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man possesses the right to property as an indispensable support, the principal material support, of his God-given, unalienable rights (notably the right to Liberty) specified in the Declaration of Independence.


Part of Economic Liberty

2. This right to property is a main part of economic liberty, which is the inseparable and indispensable aspect of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty, according to this philosophy. Without economic liberty, the other parts of Individual Liberty are lacking in material support and therefore, for practicable purposes, cannot be defended adequately or securely enjoyed enduringly. This right to property in any form--money or any other type--includes all aspects such as acquiring, using, possessing, protecting and disposing of it. Man's unalienable right to Life necessarily involves his derivative right to property, in support of his right to sustain his own life and the lives of his dependents; which requires, in part, acquiring and using food and various other kinds of property necessary to existence or conducive to full enjoyment of God-given, unalienable rights in varied and innumerable ways.


The Underlying Reason

3. The American philosophy teaches that the fact that Man is endowed by his Creator with the Right to be self-governing, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, means implicitly that Man is also endowed with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing--under a system of Man-over-Government--for the better protection and enjoyment of his unalienable rights. This, in turn, means necessarily that Man is endowed with the capacity of being economically self-reliant and independent, without the need of being supported by his creature and tool: government. This is true because to be supported by government would mean to be subject to its control under a system of Government-over-Man; control inevitably accompanies subsidy. As part of his Divine endowment at birth, Man therefore possesses both the right and the capacity to manage his own economic affairs, including his own capability to work in order to support life and his rights in general by acquiring property (money or any other type), free from any degree of Government-over-Man control, directly or indirectly. Any contrary conclusion would inescapably, condemn Man to a birthright of servitude to government, which philosophy rejects as being inconsistent with Divine Creation. This philosophy also teaches that Man is entitled to enjoy this right and to exercise this capability without any interference by others than government as well. The foregoing is subject, of course, to due respect for the equal rights of others and for just laws expressive of "just powers" (to quote the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals.

The View of The Framers, per "The Federalist"

4. The American philosophy is clear and emphatic on the point that the surest way for Man to become economically dependent upon, and therefore subservient to, government is for it to control or possess his property, or to subsidize him. This is because of the truth stated in The Federalist (number 79, by Alexander Hamilton) that: "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." (Emphasis Hamilton's) This truth is also commonly acknowledged in the maxim that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and it applies especially to a person's income.


The Means of Self-defense

5. This is all the more true to the extent that government controls, or takes from him, his property--not only his current earnings, or income, but also his accumulated savings represented by his property in general. The more government controls or takes from him, and the less Man possesses and controls, the worse his plight in the face of Government-over-Man practices infringing his unalienable rights. This deprives him of the means of self-defense, of defense of his rights, against violations by government and by others. Lacking such means, his rights are always in danger of being violated or undermined with impunity by transgressors--either oppressive or usurping government officials, or covetously inclined persons who are disregardful of the limits on their own equal rights and are heedless of the duty factor of Individual Liberty-Responsibility, which requires them to respect the equal rights of others.


Property Needed for Defense of Man's Rights

6. According to the American philosophy, Man's purpose in creating governments is primarily "to secure"--to make and keep secure--his unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence phrases it. A chief aim of man in this regard is to provide governmental (legal) machinery which can be readily available to each Individual for establishing and maintaining his legal right to his own property and for the equal protection of all Individuals' property under equal laws (basically the people's fundamental laws--their Constitutions, Federal and State). To be able to make effective use of this legal machinery, however, Man needs property (money) to pay the cost.


The 1776 Declaration and the Word "Property"

7. In the years leading up to the American Revolution of 1776, the slogan of the "Sons of Liberty"--most ardent of patriots--was: "Liberty and property." Another popular phrase used throughout America in that period to describe Man's most precious rights, used for example in the "Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress" in 1774, was: "life, liberty and property." This combination of ideas--expressed with regard to protection of Man's " . . . life . . . person . . . goods or estate . . ."--appeared in America at least by 1641 in Massachusetts in: "The Body of Liberties." This was a law code compiled by Nathaniel Ward, in response to public protests against the arbitrary decisions by judges, and adopted by the Massachusetts General Court, the legislative body of the colony. In the phrase of the Declaration of Independence adopted in 1776--"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - the substitution of the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness," in place of the word "property" customarily used theretofore, assuredly did not mean that the signers of the Declaration disapproved of the idea of the right to property being considered a most important right of Man. Quite the contrary is true, as all pertinent records amply prove. A number of these signers were owners of large and valuable property holdings--for example, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Morris, Charles Carroll, Richard Henry Lee and Arthur Middleton, to name only a few. They did, indeed, risk great fortunes, as well as their lives and honor, in signing the 1776 Declaration--as its closing pledge made express, in words made immortal by the exemplary selflessness, the noble self-sacrifice, of these true friends of Independence for America and of Man's Liberty against Government-over-Man. The wealthy of that generation were fully matched by those of little or no means, such as Samuel Adams, in the fervor of belief in, and support of, the right to property as a fundamental part of the Individual's rights. It is noteworthy that among the signers of the Declaration were some who had been members of the above-mentioned First Continental Congress in 1774; and all the signers undoubtedly shared the then popular support of the slogan: "Life, Liberty and Property" as being expressive of the gist of Man's fundamental rights. The emphasis in their thinking regarding the right to property was later reflected in the safeguarding provision included in the "Bill of Rights" amendments to the United States Constitution--in the Fifth Amendment, stating: ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is expressive of the American philosophy.

The omission of the word "property" from the 1776 Declaration was, presumably, because the right to property was considered by America's leaders in general to be not a primary, God-given, unalienable right--not on a par spiritually with the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"--but an essential legal right, a most important supporting right as the material mainstay of Man's unalienable rights including Liberty against Government-over-Man.


An Essential Means, Not an End in and of Itself

8. The right to property is accordingly considered not an end, in and of itself, but an indispensable means needed to sustain Life itself and for the protection and fuller enjoyment of the rights to Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to property is, therefore, of critical importance to Free Man, whether considered as a supporting right or--as some in 1776 occasionally referred to it--as an unalienable right, a Natural Right.

The concept of the property right being derived from every Individual's natural right to Liberty--of its thus being a derivative right rather than a primary, God-given, unalienable right--was expressed for example in an oration in Boston on March 5, 1775 by Dr. Joseph Warren, a leader among the more prominent workers and fighters for Liberty and Independence, as follows:

"That personal freedom is the natural right of every man, and that property, or an exclusive right to dispose of what he has honestly acquired by his own labor, necessarily arises therefrom, are truths which common sense has placed beyond the reach of contradiction." (Emphasis added.)

Warren and his fellow leaders in favor of "Liberty and Independence," in Boston especially in that pre-1776 period, were undoubtedly in agreement on this point of derivativeness: "necessarily arises therefrom"--notably Samuel Adams who was very closely associated with Warren in supporting this cause. Adams presumably meant nothing different when he sometimes referred to the right to property as being of the nature of a "Natural Right."


Property Supports Ideals

9. Man's right to property is the principal material support of the idealism of the traditional American philosophy--the idealism of Free Man in America. This idealism would be empty of substance in the absence of the protection provided by such support; it could not be translated into reality and sustained enduringly.


The Conclusion

10. The American philosophy asserts that Man's right to property is a main, indispensable and inseparable part of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty-Responsibility and the material mainstay of his unalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

pull quote:

Full essay with bibliography here:

Stateless, Not Lawless: Voluntaryism & Arbitration

by Carl Watner
Number 84 - Feb 1997


I'll post more about this if/when I have time.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Anarchy historically means no rulers. That's what anarchy means. And every link you provide twists it into something else to insert a mechanism for a ruler.

You're not... nah. This can't be... you're not peddling all this nonsense over a semantics argument, are you? You couldn't be...

Please tell me you're not clinging to a simplistic definition of "anarchy" so as to presume that philosophical anarchists advocate chaos. Please!?

Because I've shown you that is not the case, earlier ITT. (You notably failed to respond, I'll mention...)

Yes. At the ripe old age of 56 I've decided to just jump on board with some fad. Couldn't possibly be tht I've been involved in this liberty advocacy thing for, quite literally, my entire life and after having studied MANY different systems and ideas to achieve liberty, decided that the most logically and morally consistent one that I could find was voluntarism.

:thumbs:

I hate to imagine that NC is seizing upon the "chaos" understanding of anarchism, or more accurately statelessness, in an attempt to bludgeon us semantically.

That would be some legitimate, bush-league trolling. Travlyr was far better than that. Travlyr could at least formulate a coherent argument.

Thank you. But I was hoping to hear it from someone here, in their own words, in a concise, summarized way. I think it was Swordsmyth who mentioned that it's impossible to not end up having some sort of government. Maybe he's wrong, but unless I missed it, I haven't seen anyone here address that.

What you MUST understand, lily, is that statelessness/voluntarism is not a system or model or program, or anything like that. It is merely the absence of coercion.

Each of us who take that POV ITT can give you our conception of how things like arbitration, contract enforcement, security, etc., might look in a world without physical and coerced violence (i.e., the State), but the FACT is that there is (and I've given this speech so many times it's almost boring even to me) that there are SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET right now, each with their own ideas, machinations, dreams, abilities, etc. In a free market (thus) of ideas, those which serve people the best WILL rise to the top, in the absence of a human institution which seeks to subvert that reality (again, i.e., the State).

I can give you my idea of how contracts will be enforced without the State. I can give you my idea of how conflict will be negotiated without the State. I can do all of that. But unlike people like NC, I'm not SO PRIDEFUL to imagine that my ideas amongst the potential 7 BILLION or more are so innovative as to rise to the top.

And that is a key point - people like NC and Swordsmyth cannot conceive that human beings might peacefully interact with each other unless there is some inarguable List of Rules which is somehow imposed upon each of us by some subset of humanity who've been granted this authority through a vote, or a seizure of power, or some other method.

It's an absurdity.

What we're suggesting, at the end of the day, is that you own your life and I own mine. I have no right to prevail upon you in ANY way, because of that root, indisputable fact. Then, all things follow from that. Society organizes itself organically upon those facts.

You want an assurance that everything will be okay in a world without the State. Here's the thing - nothing is ever okay. Not with a State, and not without it, notably. What we can do is advocate an order of human society which is most in line with human nature, which is self-evident (as the founders pointed out) - that all men are created equal. They weren't willing to take the leap that is obvious from that recognized fact, but we forgive them for that because of the great leap forward they took in merely recognizing that fact during a time in human history when people were generally accepted to be physically owned by other human beings, both in the form of slavery and in the very concept of the State as it existed at that time.

What you must do is accept that the idea of control is an illusion. You must accept that no matter how hard you try, no matter how precisely you plan, you're dealing with human beings who have their own minds, and ideas, and their own self-ownership with which they may act in such a way that you consider "irrational", and thus unpredictably... In short, you must accept that human beings are the owners of their own lives and they will do with their lives as THEY please, not you.

That is not what I said, government is one of the things that is only bad when you have too much or when it is malevolent.

You fundamentally do not understand the State. The State is physical and coercive violence. The least amount of that, which imposes and prevails upon individual human beings who own their lives, is objectively "bad", or an evil... call it what you will.

Government must protect at least some of the weak to keep people following it, if good people don't get involved in government then the odds that it will protect many of the weak will be low.

Every. Single. Time.

The greatest example you have of it is literally the founding of the United States of America. This was a State inaugurated with the best of intentions and most in line with human nature, yet look at it now.

The State must become to be viewed as human chattel slavery. I believe that it eventually will. I have no doubt that I will not live to see it, nor that even my children nor their children will. Because the State is so accepted in the minds of humans, and even clung to, that we are so far into the future before we can hope for it to be overturned. Yet it is now as it will be then a great evil which represses and denies human nature, just as chattel slavery once did.

The fact remains however that people will form governments, some with bad intent and others with good intent, people have an urge and a need to control their enviroment.

You need to understand the difference between government and The State, for starters.

The State has no good intent. No matter how limited you imagine it to be, it will ALWAYS subvert human nature, and thus be immediately the most violent and evil entity in human society.

$#@! right off with that, $#@!. That is a damn lie and you know it. (or perhaps "libertine" is just a "big" word that you just learned and don't fully understand and are trying to look smart with? regardless, you're wrong)

Probably this, I'm afraid. :thumbs:

They can't. And they won't. If they were going to answer it, they would have. They aren't capable.

Speaking only on my behalf, I have, and have yet again right here in this post.

I'd be keenly interested in seeing you refute it, by the way. That would REALLY be something. :lol:

What I meant was that you don't own up to your Divine Liturgy thread in some of your other postings. Simalar to how origanalist claims to be anti-government yet pulls money out if his pocket to give to ploiticians wanting to be in government. Umkay?

Less State is better than more. What's so hard to understand about that?

Duh.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Okay.



It is simple, actually. Anarchism as advocated here is not haphazard. It is NOT chaos. It is the REJECTION of unprovoked violence. Thus, in a thoughtful statelessness, even such passive violence as painting someone else's house is an offense, and the victim is justifiable in defending himself.

But even in the world of the State, I'd ask you what stops someone from painting someone else's house? The police? Perhaps. Ultimately, the preventative is the same except in our stateless world, we're not coerced BEFORE we've been imposed upon, you see?



Uh, nope. They don't "ask that question" because it's a dumb question. It's implicit in the principle. It's a given. Savvy?



Here's the thing. You've attached some concept of coercion to capitalism. That's fine. I don't care. What I care about is free exchange. If you want to define capitalism as having some coercive component, I'm fine with that. Again I don't care. My stateless world is a one without preemptive violence. So call it what you will - if you believe that there is some preemptive violence or coercion, or involuntary violence or coercion, implicit in capitalism, that's your thing. That's a State. That's not what we advocate.



Can I let you in on a secret, NC? NOTHING works. Not statelessness, not the state. None of it.

What matters is that we advocate for that which is in line with what is true and real. We're never going to have a perfect society with imperfect human beings. What we can do is recognize the reality of human nature, and best align our society with that. You own your life. I own mine. I have no right to your life. You have no right to mine. That's the absence of the State. Once you lay a claim on my life, you've rejected the principle of self-ownership, and you've attempted to initiate the State. I REJECT the rejection of the principle of self-ownership, and thus I reject the State.

As they say on the info-mercials, "it's just that simple".



No argument here, brother.



Oooooops... sooooo close...

Small 'g' government? Sure. Capital 'G' Government? Not so much... On which day did God create the State, NC? He didn't. The State came into being because of man (1 Samuel 8:6), and the State is the domain of Satan (Matthew 4:9).




I'm way ahead of you... Seems like you've actually got some reading to do, yourself.

I'm pretty interested in how you can justify the State - ANY State, big ol', or itsy bitsy - in a world where men own their lives. (You can't).

It's not "muh pole". It's "muh property". In other words, the fruit of my labor. Ultimately, it is my right to remove from my property those who seek to impose upon it. Should I? In this particular case, no, I shouldn't. However it remains my right.

It's not just a flag pole. That's the thing. It is the fruit of my labor. It is the result of my efforts, of me mixing my labor with the world around me and as such I am 100% entitled to defend it as my own. YOUR misfortune does not obligate me at all. I'm a good person, guided by God, and I WILL try to help you. But there is no man-made obligation which requires me to do so. And those who are not moved by any guiding principle other than their adherence to their own property and thus refuse to assist you, tho' unsavory they may be, cannot be said to be acting unjustly. Period.

That's how this works. We do not get to decide what other people do with their lives and their property. It's either that, or it is chaos, you see? Either people own their lives and their justly acquired property, or it is mayhem, sir. That's all there is to it.

Hi NC. Good morning. Just checking in to see if you're ever going to respond to these posts, which thoughtfully and thoroughly address each of your "concerns"?

Oh, and, also - this doesn't count as a "response":

Anarchists do not believe in private property. Only occupied property.

So think about what you just wrote.

You are not an anarchist. Do not try to be one.

:lol:

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You're not... nah. This can't be... you're not peddling all this nonsense over a semantics argument, are you? You couldn't be...

Please tell me you're not clinging to a simplistic definition of "anarchy" so as to presume that philosophical anarchists advocate chaos. Please!?

Because I've shown you that is not the case, earlier ITT. (You notably failed to respond, I'll mention...)



:thumbs:

I hate to imagine that NC is seizing upon the "chaos" understanding of anarchism, or more accurately statelessness, in an attempt to bludgeon us semantically.

That would be some legitimate, bush-league trolling. Travlyr was far better than that. Travlyr could at least formulate a coherent argument.



What you MUST understand, lily, is that statelessness/voluntarism is not a system or model or program, or anything like that. It is merely the absence of coercion.

Each of us who take that POV ITT can give you our conception of how things like arbitration, contract enforcement, security, etc., might look in a world without physical and coerced violence (i.e., the State), but the FACT is that there is (and I've given this speech so many times it's almost boring even to me) that there are SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET right now, each with their own ideas, machinations, dreams, abilities, etc. In a free market (thus) of ideas, those which serve people the best WILL rise to the top, in the absence of a human institution which seeks to subvert that reality (again, i.e., the State).

I can give you my idea of how contracts will be enforced without the State. I can give you my idea of how conflict will be negotiated without the State. I can do all of that. But unlike people like NC, I'm not SO PRIDEFUL to imagine that my ideas amongst the potential 7 BILLION or more are so innovative as to rise to the top.

And that is a key point - people like NC and Swordsmyth cannot conceive that human beings might peacefully interact with each other unless there is some inarguable List of Rules which is somehow imposed upon each of us by some subset of humanity who've been granted this authority through a vote, or a seizure of power, or some other method.

It's an absurdity.

What we're suggesting, at the end of the day, is that you own your life and I own mine. I have no right to prevail upon you in ANY way, because of that root, indisputable fact. Then, all things follow from that. Society organizes itself organically upon those facts.

You want an assurance that everything will be okay in a world without the State. Here's the thing - nothing is ever okay. Not with a State, and not without it, notably. What we can do is advocate an order of human society which is most in line with human nature, which is self-evident (as the founders pointed out) - that all men are created equal. They weren't willing to take the leap that is obvious from that recognized fact, but we forgive them for that because of the great leap forward they took in merely recognizing that fact during a time in human history when people were generally accepted to be physically owned by other human beings, both in the form of slavery and in the very concept of the State as it existed at that time.

What you must do is accept that the idea of control is an illusion. You must accept that no matter how hard you try, no matter how precisely you plan, you're dealing with human beings who have their own minds, and ideas, and their own self-ownership with which they may act in such a way that you consider "irrational", and thus unpredictably... In short, you must accept that human beings are the owners of their own lives and they will do with their lives as THEY please, not you.



You fundamentally do not understand the State. The State is physical and coercive violence. The least amount of that, which imposes and prevails upon individual human beings who own their lives, is objectively "bad", or an evil... call it what you will.



Every. Single. Time.

The greatest example you have of it is literally the founding of the United States of America. This was a State inaugurated with the best of intentions and most in line with human nature, yet look at it now.

The State must become to be viewed as human chattel slavery. I believe that it eventually will. I have no doubt that I will not live to see it, nor that even my children nor their children will. Because the State is so accepted in the minds of humans, and even clung to, that we are so far into the future before we can hope for it to be overturned. Yet it is now as it will be then a great evil which represses and denies human nature, just as chattel slavery once did.



You need to understand the difference between government and The State, for starters.

The State has no good intent. No matter how limited you imagine it to be, it will ALWAYS subvert human nature, and thus be immediately the most violent and evil entity in human society.



Probably this, I'm afraid. :thumbs:



Speaking only on my behalf, I have, and have yet again right here in this post.

I'd be keenly interested in seeing you refute it, by the way. That would REALLY be something. :lol:




Less State is better than more. What's so hard to understand about that?

Duh.

Also this one. This was a really good one. :lol:

Just try. Something. I really want to believe you can make some kind of a coherent effort. Really I do. :lol:

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Actually, young son of liberty, you shouldn't even call yourself an Anarchist. You aren't one. If you were, you'd know that the moral foundation and principles for Anarchy and Capitalism are diametrically opposed to each other. I got to chuckling when you mentioned that you liked the idea of private borders. Yet any fundamental Anarchist would laugh at the mention of private property rights. Ya half-wit.

Go fuck yourself, "Natural Citizen", for starters.

Following that up, I'll have you know I have more gray hairs than black. So you can ALSO stick that "youngster" stuff up your own ass, as well.
...

Are you new here or something, jackass?

Are you going to offer anything, dipsht? You never really offer anything.
...

.....


And now is the time for selected quotes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to Galactic Internet Intercourse...aka Forum Guidelines.

We value independent thought, critical thinking and logical arguments that provide unique insight.
We value a plethora of viewpoints. All are welcomed except those based on negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than as individuals. Sexism, racism and anti-semitism are the antithesis of our values.
We value the sharing of news and information relevant to our Mission.
We value the development of wisdom though a high level of community discourse.
We value a focus on debating issues while being civil, on-topic and avoiding personal commentary on other members.
We value an understanding that name-calling of any person or group proves nothing and has no worthy intellectual foundation.
We value efforts and attitudes that build fellowship and an effective community. We encourage the personal development, success and individual enrichment of our members, as well as the welcoming of new members.
...
Critical Guidelines Focus
The following guidelines are of critical concern with little to no tolerance of deviation from the staff:

Operate within morally sound laws. Promoting violence, theft or other illegal activities will not be tolerated.
Respect others' copyrights, intellectual property and contracts, per legal standards. Limit fair-use posting of copyright material to the lesser of four paragraphs or a quarter of the writing.
Posts should not promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals. Such forms of collectivism include sexism, racism and anti-semitism; they will not be tolerated here.
No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
Do note disrupt Mission-supporting activism efforts.
...
2) Treat others with respect.
Do not make accusations, declarations on others' character, question their motives, be judgmental, assign them to a group or make any other negative personal commentary of members.
No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
Do not suggest that other members should leave or that they otherwise don't belong here.
Do not publicly discuss which site members you don't like, who is on your ignore list or similar.
No misquoting other members when debating, such as with "fixed it for you."
Be respectful of others' religion or lack thereof.
No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members' personal details.
See the "Being Respectful" section below for more details.
...
Being Respectful
Maintaining a proper decorum is essential for any group, and is critically important for online political forums. Being respectful of others is an important part of that and required by the Community Guidelines. Here are some examples of being respectful vs. not:
"You're an idiot for thinking that." -- not respectful since the statement is based on an insult.
"Your delusional thinking" -- not respectful since your statement is based on an insult.
"Here are the problems with your line of thinking..." -- respectful, you don't have to agree and can present logical counter-arguments.
"Troll" -- calling other members a troll is not respectful and implies you know the intent of the member.
Religious context: See this special instructional thread.
...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What I meant was that you don't own up to your Divine Liturgy thread in some of your other postings. Simalar to how origanalist claims to be anti-government yet pulls money out if his pocket to give to ploiticians wanting to be in government. Umkay?

I could go find some of your anti-moral sexual comments if I feel like doing it and if you really want me to. I don't, but challenge me on it and I might take the time to go look. You're religious. Yet you're worldly.

IDK what this gobbeldy-gook even means. "Religious yet worldly". Withdrawing from the world is not what Christ commands, bro. Creating cliques on the edge of civilization is for sanctimonious Jews and the like. Christ commands us to go out into the world. Paul calls it being the Body Of Christ. I think you forgot to read all the Gospel texts. Unlike you though, I do reject worldly authority and the world's claims on my soul. The State is your God.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you want to call me a coward you sniveling $#@! come to the great northwest and do it to my face.

lolol.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Brian, you're too selective, buddie. It's okay. I understand.

Thank You.

.....


And now is the time for selected quotes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to Galactic Internet Intercourse...aka Forum Guidelines.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You cannot and will not avoid a State. It is very simple. The very second that you hyphenate capitalism with anarchy, you've inserted a ideal that may only function by way of a coercive factor.

If I as an anarchist do not pay you for your sevices, what are you going to do? Hm? What? Tell me.

Also this one. This was a really good one. :lol:

Just try. Something. I really want to believe you can make some kind of a coherent effort. Really I do. :lol:

 

[Natural Citizen]

You act worldly. And you act religious. Are you challenging me to prove it, HB? Say you are. Do it.

And you didn't answer my question.

You reject the constitution, the founders, the very nature of the founding of our great nation, right? I'll cut you a break on the declaration, butI'm not too sure about that in its entirety. I'm, sure you find fault in it as well.

So, am I right, HB? You reject these people and things, right? Answer my question, please, so that we may discover your interest in the thread.

IDK what this gobbeldy-gook even means. "Religious yet worldly". Withdrawing from the world is not what Christ commands, bro. Creating cliques on the edge of civilization is for sanctimonious Jews and the like. Christ commands us to go out into the world. Paul calls it being the Body Of Christ. I think you forgot to read all the Gospel texts. Unlike you though, I do reject worldly authority and the world's claims on my soul. The State is your God.

 

[Lamp]

worldly

>Le I'm a hermit who lives on moldy bread and cheese
>sleeps on a dirt floor
>in a wooden hut
>in the mountains
>therefore I'm better than the rest of you infidels excuse.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What you MUST understand, lily, is that statelessness/voluntarism is not a system or model or program, or anything like that. It is merely the absence of coercion.

Really. No coercion, huh. No State, You say? No system? Well, let's ask some questions.

In a voluntaryist society, is whatever is voluntary also ethical? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not? And says whom?

Earlier in the thread, it was deduced that property rights gave you the right to murder someone, though it was at least acknowledged that one ought not do that. But you could if you so chose. Where in this model is consent given by someone for you to murder him? Does the voluntaryist not require consent? If not, then, why not?

Does he lose his right of consent just by the fact that he was haging on for dear life to your pole? If so, then, why? And says whom?

Does whoever owns land get to impose whatever laws he wants on the people who work his land? If so, then, that appears to be some rather strong decision-making-power, doesn't it? A thinking man might call that power a State. A ruler.

What if I'm not a property owner? Do I not have rights because I do not own property? If not, then, why not? If so, then, how so? And says whom?

Can I volunteer not to volunteer? If so, then why? If not, then why not?

Is voluntaryism subjective? If so, then, why? Surely one possesses his right to offer or to decline his consent objectively. Right? So what makes it legitimate that his right to offer or withold consent automatically become subjective? A system, you say? lolol.

Is what is consensual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how? If not, then, why not? And says whom?

Is what is voluntary necessarily consensual? If not, then, why not? If so, then, how so? And says whom?

Certainly, acceptance is required to perform a voluntary choice, but for a person to perform a consensual choice does require a viable possibility for refusal. Does it not? Meaning consent. Surely it must. Does anyone here disagree with this? Surely, if consent is too restrictive, then, one's words that they love freedom must be a lie.

Does voluntaryism allow people to form hierarchies? If so, then, how do you define freedom? Doing whatever you want? That can't work because hierarchies restrict us from doing whatever we want. Right? Of course they do. So now you're left with either redefining freedom or redefining a hierarchy.

Lastly, where do you think that The Individual's right to property or the rights of groups of Individuals' rights to offer or to withold consent come from? A property owner or God?

 

[Lamp]

Heh heh stupid rednecks

 

[lilymc]

What you MUST understand, lily, is that statelessness/voluntarism is not a system or model or program, or anything like that. It is merely the absence of coercion.

Each of us who take that POV ITT can give you our conception of how things like arbitration, contract enforcement, security, etc., might look in a world without physical and coerced violence (i.e., the State), but the FACT is that there is (and I've given this speech so many times it's almost boring even to me) that there are SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET right now, each with their own ideas, machinations, dreams, abilities, etc. In a free market (thus) of ideas, those which serve people the best WILL rise to the top, in the absence of a human institution which seeks to subvert that reality (again, i.e., the State).

I can give you my idea of how contracts will be enforced without the State. I can give you my idea of how conflict will be negotiated without the State. I can do all of that. But unlike people like NC, I'm not SO PRIDEFUL to imagine that my ideas amongst the potential 7 BILLION or more are so innovative as to rise to the top.

OK, that's what I thought, but I asked because it leads to my second question. Do you not see those private agencies who do contract enforcement, arbitration, etc., as a form of authority? I realize that not all anarchists agree on everything, but I thought that anarchists were against all authority, not just the State.

It sure seems that way by reading some people's posts, for example:

"The "rules" are quite simple. NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else."

– ChristianAnarchist​

Perhaps the reason there is so much conflict on this thread is because everyone's not on the same page as far as definitions go.

According to Wikipedia, this is what anarchy originally meant:

Etymology

The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή(arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".[2]​

So it originally meant without leaders or authority.

But I can see that you guys have a different definition, because (correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to hold the view that not all authority is bad, only the "authority" of the State is bad. Is that correct?

Also, it seems that anarchists claim to be against violence and coercion, however there are obviously going to be cases when certain people do not comply, and do not accept the authority of said privately owned arbitration.

So that's the next question, what happens in those cases? How do you handle criminals? I'm not asking this to be combative, I genuinely want to know the anarchist view on this.

And that is a key point - people like NC and Swordsmyth cannot conceive that human beings might peacefully interact with each other unless there is some inarguable List of Rules which is somehow imposed upon each of us by some subset of humanity who've been granted this authority through a vote, or a seizure of power, or some other method.

It's an absurdity.

When have human beings ever peacefully interacted with each other? There are always going to be evil people in this world, there are always going to be amoral people who don't care about anyone or anything but themselves. In fact, human nature is selfish, at least until a person truly surrenders to God and becomes born-again. And even then, people are imperfect and miss the mark.

What we're suggesting, at the end of the day, is that you own your life and I own mine. I have no right to prevail upon you in ANY way, because of that root, indisputable fact. Then, all things follow from that. Society organizes itself organically upon those facts.

Well, that is not actually true. God owns everything, including our lives. I don't know if you're a Christian or not, but that is biblical. God does give us free will, so in a sense we own our lives temporarily, but ultimately God is in control, and has the authority to do what he sees fit with us.

You want an assurance that everything will be okay in a world without the State. Here's the thing - nothing is ever okay. Not with a State, and not without it, notably. What we can do is advocate an order of human society which is most in line with human nature, which is self-evident (as the founders pointed out) - that all men are created equal. They weren't willing to take the leap that is obvious from that recognized fact, but we forgive them for that because of the great leap forward they took in merely recognizing that fact during a time in human history when people were generally accepted to be physically owned by other human beings, both in the form of slavery and in the very concept of the State as it existed at that time.

What you must do is accept that the idea of control is an illusion. You must accept that no matter how hard you try, no matter how precisely you plan, you're dealing with human beings who have their own minds, and ideas, and their own self-ownership with which they may act in such a way that you consider "irrational", and thus unpredictably... In short, you must accept that human beings are the owners of their own lives and they will do with their lives as THEY please, not you.

No, I didn't want assurance that everything will be OK in a world without the state. I was simply asking a question because I saw some contradictions that I was hoping would be addressed.

I'm not against what you believe, in fact I would be all for it. I just don't think it's ever going to happen, so I think it's kind of pointless to spend so much time arguing about it.

I already know that the State is not the true authority.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Very good, lil.

Any authority is a hierarchy. So to that extent one must either redefine freedom or redefine a hierarchy.

Hierarchy=State.

Hierarchy=Classes

With hierarchy, consent is limited.

And thank you for clarifying the historical definition of anarchy.

Too often, people want to change definitions to suit their whims. Or change change the words around and add an ism to it to create a different way they want it to be defined according to their own indulgences.

And you're right. Rights come from God. They are not arbitrated by worldly entities.

The very fact that it is said that worldly entities are the arbitrators of one's rights should signal the want for a tyrannical rule like we have never witnessed. Traditionally, these are people whom are overly full of their own self-importance. They are people who define moral code by their worldly whim and not by the Natural Law.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not against what you believe, in fact I would be all for it. I just don't think it's ever going to happen, so I think it's kind of pointless to spend so much time arguing about it.

I already know that the State is not the true authority.

Wait, you lost me here. Granted, the State is not the true authority, but you're saying that you reject the idea that government is a legitimate instrument of the sovereign people? If that's your position, then I must ask what is your thought on Rom 13?


Let me ask this. If you agree with SOL, and you reject the idea that government is a legitimate instrument of the sovereign people, what other means would you employ in order to secure the safety and enjoyment of the God-given, unalienable rights, of The Individual?

Additionally, do you understand the concept of Just Power? If so, where in SOL's explanation do you see a means to ensure Just Power against his private arbitration force?