The anarchists are the realists, not the utopian dreamers.

[AutoDas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Bosanquet_(philosopher)

Idealist Social Theory

In his Encyclopedia, Section 95, Hegel had written about "the ideality of the finite." This obscure phrase was interpreted as implying that "what is finite is not real"[1] because the ideal is understood as being the opposite of the real. Bosanquet was a follower of Hegel and the "…central theme of Bosanquet's idealism was that every finite existence necessarily transcends itself and points toward other existences and finally to the whole. Thus, he advocated a system very close to that in which Hegel had argued for the ideality of the finite."[1] The relation of the finite individual to the whole state in which he/she lives was investigated in Bosanquet's Philosophical Theory of the State (London, 1899). In this book, he "…argued that the state is the real individual and that individual persons are unreal by comparison with it."[1] But Bosanquet did not think that the state has a right to impose socialist control over its individual citizens. "On the contrary, he believed that if society is organic and individual, then its elements can cooperate apart from a centralized organ of control, the need for which presupposes that harmony has to be imposed upon something that is naturally unharmonious."[1]

 

[Truth Warrior]

Anarchy Fails in the Little Matters

Archy fails in the BIG MATTERS, like SATAN CONTROLLED, but ONLY IF your BIBLE IS RIGHT.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Criminentlies, I swear this is kind of like deprogramming the "brainwashed" Moonies, Mansonites, Jonestown "groupies" and other wacko cultists.

Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult

Philosophy of Liberty

Sheesh!!!


"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

 

[Liberty Rebellion]

I actually find it quite strange that people on these forums think global government is a sign of progress and human evolution!

If government must exist at all it should be to protect the liberty of individuals from others. That being said, evolution and progress for humanity would be that we all do things voluntarily and leave each other alone, eliminating the need for a State, much less a global government.

I see global government as regression

 

[torchbearer]

I actually find it quite strange that people on these forums think global government is a sign of progress and human evolution!

If government must exist at all it should be to protect the liberty of individuals from others. That being said, evolution and progress for humanity would be that we all do things voluntarily and leave each other alone, eliminating the need for a State, much less a global government.

I see global government as regression

Minarchy is not global governance.
Its as local as you can get it and as small as you can get it and still able to protect property rights from the majority.

 

[Brassmouth]

Just a thought I wanted to share. Government does not work and history has proven this. Even a government with such a wonderful start as the US constitution has now been proven as a failure, anarchists are not the ones ignoring history. The real Utopian dreamers are those who wish and believe in something that cannot exist for anything longer than a short period of time - limited government.

I believe limited government should be the goal for now, but never the end goal. If we, or someone, was to somehow create an ideal form of government - lets say it is even better than the US constitution - to remain ideal after it's creation it would have to work towards anarchy, not big government. I don't think a stand still is possible, I'm not even sure if a limited government working towards anarchy would be possible. Perhaps if the original enlightened men who created it worked towards this goal and set a trend it could last until government grew so small it did not exist.

Once an ideal limited government grows one inch bigger, it's days are numbered and it's path to tyranny is short.

QFT.

This movement has been going on for almost 2 years now. I've evolved from a naive minarchist to an anarcho-capitalist.

All the literature is readily available, people. If you're not an anarchist by now, you don't care about freedom or nonaggression.

 

[RevolutionSD]

Who are these enlightened, virtuous individuals that are going to run our minarchic government? I fail to see how an inherently violent and coercive organization can possibly be turned around into something virtuous. This is something the minarchists fail to be able to explain.

 

[LibertyEagle]

QFT.

This movement has been going on for almost 2 years now. I've evolved from a naive minarchist to an anarcho-capitalist.

All the literature is readily available, people. If you're not an anarchist by now, you don't care about freedom or nonaggression.

That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. Ron Paul isn't an Anarchist, so is this honestly what you think about him? That you believe that he doesn't "care about freedom or nonaggression"?

 

[RevolutionSD]

QFT.

This movement has been going on for almost 2 years now. I've evolved from a naive minarchist to an anarcho-capitalist.

All the literature is readily available, people. If you're not an anarchist by now, you don't care about freedom or nonaggression.

I've taken the same path. And I TOTALLY agree, once exposed to the information, it's pretty tough to defend minarchism or minarchists.

 

[RevolutionSD]

That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. Ron Paul isn't an Anarchist, so is this honestly what you think about him? That you believe that he doesn't "care about freedom or nonaggression"?

How much freedom has Ron Paul achieved for us in his 30 years or whatever in office? Is the government bigger or smaller since RP got in?

I think he did an excellent job getting air time and getting some of these ideas out there when he ran for president. He drew many people into the freedom fold who later saw the light of anarcho-capitalism. But, ultimately, we do not need a president. I think RP cares about freedom and nonaggression, but he is misguided at the idea that we can change a coercive organization by simply voting in the "right people".

 

[LibertyEagle]

Well, you're certainly right that ONE PERSON can't do it all by himself.

 

[Conza88]

Anarchists are Utopians.

Non-archists are not.

 

[danberkeley]

Anarchists are Utopians.

Non-archists are not.

Non-archists! FTW!

 

[Invalid]

Non-anarchist are useful idiots.

Anarchists are realists.

 

[Theocrat]

Let's Deduce What You've Just Said

Non-anarchist are useful idiots.

Anarchists are realists.

According to your logic,

• Non-anarchists are useful idiots.
• Congressman Paul is a non-anarchist.
• Therefore, Congressman Paul is a useful idiot.

So, why are you a member on these forums?

 

[Invalid]

Reagan

Reagan sure was a useful idiot for the Wilson-FDR warstate\welfare state.

The right laughed at the libertarians who though his expansion of the defense budget, drug war, FBI and CIA expansions etc were silly, and pretended that stuff was a legitimate use of resources.

 

[danberkeley]

Reagan sure was a useful idiot for the Wilson-FDR warstate\welfare state.

The right laughed at the libertarians who though his expansion of the defense budget, drug war, FBI and CIA expansions etc were silly, and pretended that stuff was a legitimate use of resources.

Reagan was no non-archist.

 

[Invalid]

#197 come again?

 

[Theocrat]

I'm Curious

Reagan sure was a useful idiot for the Wilson-FDR warstate\welfare state.

The right laughed at the libertarians who though his expansion of the defense budget, drug war, FBI and CIA expansions etc were silly, and pretended that stuff was a legitimate use of resources.

Who do you think Congressman Paul is a "useful idiot" for?

 

[Invalid]

I think Paul is a libertarian essentially. Tell me one area where he wants to expand the government or one area that he wants to expandhe wants to expand the government or one new program he's proposing? He supports secessionist movements. I have heard him speak praisingly of doing away with a standing army (the U.S. military) etc. He wants to end the drug war and smash the IRS, CIA, FBI etc. Paul has said he supports a Madisonian interpretation of the general welfare clause- that means he think all entitlements are uncontitutional. ALL. Department of agriculture, education etc etc etc etc etc etc all unconstitutional by his interpretation. Paul opposes the IRS and the income tax. He opposes terrifs. Essentially he just opposes the existance of our government.

No, I think Paul will move in the correct direction without having any small L libertarian crap views, but I could be wrong.

btw- Tell me what government programs