Sympathizing With Anarchists/"Voluntaryists"

[Theocrat]

I understand where anarchists/"voluntaryists" are coming from. I even understand their general methods for eliminating our current form of government into a society of pure voluntary associations. They wish to educate individuals from the bottom-up, with no violent force in hopes that minds will be changed and more market-oriented solutions will be promoted and implemented on a local level.

Here's the dilemma. What do you do about those individuals who have read the books and articles, attended the seminars and conventions, watched the videos, listened to the audio CDs, and interviewed/questioned the advocates of anarchy/"voluntaryism" but still conclude that it is a bad philosophy and system of civil living? What if those people will not change their viewpoint that some civil government is necessary to a free society (as the Founding Fathers believed)? I know you won't try to "force it down their throats," but it seems the last resort is to simply leave them alone and allow them to continue supporting the form of government which you disagree with and/or hate. After all, you can't change human hearts.

That will do nothing to make anarchy/"voluntaryism" a civil reality, which is ideally what you're working towards. It seems you then have two options:

1. Give up on society as a whole and live by their standards (with contempt), or
2. Move to another location where your ideas will be more readily accepted and hope for the best.

So, what happens when it's all said and done?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

They, of course, have a right to live on their own property under tyranny. You have a right to gather your friends together and brutalize each other with government all you want. However, your State's jurisdiction is limited to you and your fellow Statists' property. The moment you encroach on a freeman's property with your State, that freeman reserves the right to fight back in self-defense (with overwhelming force if necessary).

 

[tremendoustie]

I understand where anarchists/"voluntaryists" are coming from. I even understand their general methods for eliminating our current form of government into a society of pure voluntary associations. They wish to educate individuals from the bottom-up, with no violent force in hopes that minds will be changed and more market-oriented solutions will be promoted and implemented on a local level.

Here's the dilemma. What do you do about those individuals who have read the books and articles, attended the seminars and conventions, watched the videos, listened to the audio CDs, and interviewed/questioned the advocates of anarchy/"voluntaryism" but still conclude that it is a bad philosophy and system of civil living? What if those people will not change their viewpoint that some civil government is necessary to a free society (as the Founding Fathers believed)? I know you won't try to "force it down their throats," but it seems the last resort is to simply leave them alone and allow them to continue supporting the form of government which you disagree with and/or hate. After all, you can't change human hearts.

That will do nothing to make anarchy/"voluntaryism" a civil reality, which is ideally what you're working towards. It seems you then have two options:

1. Give up on society as a whole and live by their standards (with contempt), or
2. Move to another location where your ideas will be more readily accepted and hope for the best.

So, what happens when it's all said and done?

Let's say 99% of people are voluntaryist, and don't look keenly on aggressive force. I think the best option for those who still believe in government would be for them to buy land next to each other, write up a constitution, elect leaders, and form a government for their area. As long as all property owners agree to the rules, and choose to remain a part of that "country", so to speak, the laws thereof would apply to that land.

I mean, if the government of that area passed a smoking ban, for example, and all property owners agreed to it, there would be a smoking ban, since they have a right to make rules on their own property. Any person entering that area would have to abide by those rules.

If someone did later want to take their property and secede, however, I would support them in it. You can't force someone to stay on, if they wish to leave.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I understand where anarchists/"voluntaryists" are coming from. I even understand their general methods for eliminating our current form of government into a society of pure voluntary associations. They wish to educate individuals from the bottom-up, with no violent force in hopes that minds will be changed and more market-oriented solutions will be promoted and implemented on a local level.

Here's the dilemma. What do you do about those individuals who have read the books and articles, attended the seminars and conventions, watched the videos, listened to the audio CDs, and interviewed/questioned the advocates of anarchy/"voluntaryism" but still conclude that it is a bad philosophy and system of civil living? What if those people will not change their viewpoint that some civil government is necessary to a free society (as the Founding Fathers believed)? I know you won't try to "force it down their throats," but it seems the last resort is to simply leave them alone and allow them to continue supporting the form of government which you disagree with and/or hate. After all, you can't change human hearts.

That will do nothing to make anarchy/"voluntaryism" a civil reality, which is ideally what you're working towards. It seems you then have two options:

1. Give up on society as a whole and live by their standards (with contempt), or
2. Move to another location where your ideas will be more readily accepted and hope for the best.

So, what happens when it's all said and done?

There are plenty of other options then that. Personally to me it seems very likely that, the American government will collapse, and upon this collapse and the events leading up to it, the American people's faith in government will pretty much collapse along with it. People accept our Rep. Democracy now, because there is still the illusion that this system is working or can work. That is not to say future events won't significantly wound this illusion, and the wheels of propaganda propping it up won't jam. Monarchy was once considered the natural way of things, inescapable, the only system worth considering, but today people laugh at the idea. I have no problem with remaining where I live now forever, despite if my ideas never gain popularity. If there is always a state in my lifetime, then I can't help that, but I can resist it all the same. Whats that lil saying, "its not the destination its the journey"? I can resist their standards when I can, and forever continue to criticize statism, without being bitter of feeling the temptation to move.

Of course a lot of people on this board would agree that there is a decent chance of the government collapsing, but we would all tend to disagree on what would happen after that. One thing for sure is, society would have to embrace the free market to a much greater extent then it does today in order for the economy to heal and shit. Perhaps after the government collapses, people would re-establish a government, but I'm pretty sure they would opt for more localized/restricted/decentralized governments, which I could live with just fine. Of course, I would still probably contend that anarchy would be better, but I'm just saying I would not be bitter or anything about the establishment of local minarchy. I'd probably just move on with my life, acknowledging I alone don't have the power to steer the fate/course of man, though my absolute skepticism regarding government would persist.

I could say you have the same two options regarding Theocracy. Sorry, no ones going to swallow that nonsense today or a hundred years from now.

What do you do about those individuals who have read the books and articles, attended the seminars and conventions, watched the videos, listened to the audio CDs, and interviewed/questioned the advocates of anarchy/"voluntaryism" but still conclude that it is a bad philosophy and system of civil living?

You being an example of one of these individuals huh? Nah dude you are not going to have anyone worried, despite whatever supposed degree of understanding you have of philosophical anarchism. I believe that you could believe 2+2=5 if you wanted to, if the bible or the founding fathers said as much.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

They, of course, have a right to live on their own property under tyranny. You have a right to gather your friends together and brutalize each other with government all you want. However, your State's jurisdiction is limited to you and your fellow Statists' property. The moment you encroach on a freeman's property with your State, that freeman reserves the right to fight back in self-defense (with overwhelming force if necessary).

That is the equivalent of spitting in the wind.

 

[powerofreason]

If someone/some organization is trying to aggress against me and I think I can successfully defend myself than I will certainly do so. In a free society you can make your own little gated community with like minded people and live however you all like. Be completely fascist or communist or whatever, as long as its among consenting adults theres nothing wrong with it. I'm completely fine with that. Just don't force me to be a part of your club.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

If someone/some organization is trying to aggress against me and I think I can successfully defend myself than I will certainly do so. In a free society you can make your own little gated community with like minded people and live however you all like. Be completely fascist or communist or whatever, as long as its among consenting adults theres nothing wrong with it. I'm completely fine with that. Just don't force me to be a part of your club.

You have already been signed up without your consent. Assuming that, what do you do now?

 

[powerofreason]

You have already been signed up without your consent. Assuming that, what do you do now?

Like I said, if I think I can defend myself through violence (against any type of thief/murderer/thug) then I'll certainly try.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That is the equivalent of spitting in the wind.

Only in a Statist paradigm.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

Only in a Statist paradigm.

The entire human universe is a statist paradigm. I swear you guys are living in a John Lennon song...

Imagine if this, imagine if that...

Communism was sold on the same premise.

Human nature is that people are greedy, both for money and power. You and I can live satisfied with what we produce and what what we can trade for. Most cant.

Like capitalism harnesses the power of greed, we need a system for harnessing the power of lust for power.

Without one, we are doomed to a choice between victim and victimizer.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

Like I said, if I think I can defend myself through violence (against any type of thief/murderer/thug) then I'll certainly try.

By yourself, or even with as many people as you can convince to stand beside you, you are nothing but a speed bump.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

By yourself, or even with as many people as you can convince to stand beside you, you are nothing but a speed bump.

So what? Not everyone is afraid of being powerless.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

So what? Not everyone is afraid of being powerless.

Might as well kill yourself now and save them the trouble.

 

[Epic]

Dude, the great thing about freedom (anarchy/voluntaryism) is that the communists can be communist, socialists can be socialist, and people who just want to act voluntarily can do that too.

So if you have to ask whether people who believe in freedom will force freedom down other people's throats, you don't know what freedom is.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Might as well kill yourself now and save them the trouble.

No thanks. Are you so afraid of dying that would accept your enslavement as some principle good?

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

Dude, the great thing about freedom (anarchy/voluntaryism) is that the communists can be communist, socialists can be socialist, and people who just want to act voluntarily can do that too.

So if you have to ask whether people who believe in freedom will force freedom down other people's throats, you don't know what freedom is.

if you think communist, socialist, or fascist groups will be satisfied with what they have and not try to take what YOU have, you are living in a fantasy land.

 

[powerofreason]

By yourself, or even with as many people as you can convince to stand beside you, you are nothing but a speed bump.

And you're nothing but a dirty barbarian thug if you choose to stand against us who want to be free.

 

[sailor]

if you think communist, socialist, or fascist groups will be satisfied with what they have and not try to take what YOU have, you are living in a fantasy land.

They can certainly try.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

No thanks. Are you so afraid of dying that would accept your enslavement?

I am not a slave by subscribing to a social order that guarantees my liberties.

 

[sailor]

By yourself, or even with as many people as you can convince to stand beside you, you are nothing but a speed bump.

They said that for Alamo.