The anarchists are the realists, not the utopian dreamers.

[sailor]

You talk as if there can't be private entities under a legitimate civil authority. Once again, the problem is the people, not the institution. Having a free market means nothing if there is no public court to appeal to for instances of fraud and theft. Civil judges are necessary to the security of a free economic society. You can't have private entities without public ministries such as civil government.

There have always been private courts. Even in tyrannical, absolutist Russia there were private courts. Peasants of one mir (community, county) would held an election every two years to decide who among the respected men to hire to be their judge for that time. Then they would each contribute an agreed amount toward his salary. This judge was a private citizen and their employee, not a "public servant".

 

[Truth Warrior]

Those are some insightful points. In truth, we're seeing anarchy occurring today from a top-down approach. Since the State has assumed there is no Lawgiver above itself, it can do whatever it wants without a universal law to abide by. If I can push this further, I would say the State is operating by the principles of "atheism" on a massive, collective scale ("no God but men").

Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments It's right there in YOUR book. Read it!!!

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

Utopians... go live in a commune and make your own toothpaste from pebbles and sticks....

 

[sailor]

Utopians... go live in a commune and make your own toothpaste from pebbles and sticks....

The one you live in??

 

[Truth Warrior]

Utopians... go live in a commune and make your own toothpaste from pebbles and sticks....

"An anarchist is anyone that believes in less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

Minarchy4Sale

 

[Theocrat]

You and I Are in the Same Position

John Adams and Congressman Paul are/were both just men like me. I'm not sure what Paul would think about this (you seem sure) but I believe Adams was wrong.

Is there really no better argument you have outside of "god said it goes this way" and "Ron Paul would not be pleased with you"? Not only is it childish and illogical, it is no different than me saying "but TW agrees with me so I must be right!". Are you incapable of thinking outside of the box your heros have created? Do you think they accomplished what they have by trotting behind the words of another man?

No, there isn't a better argument. Unlike you, I can admit that my ideas do not originate with myself, and therefore, I am in no position to arbitrate what ought to be the case in the subject of civil government. I am not autonomous. There have been greater men than myself whom God used to express His principles for establishing legitimate and free government for the protection of civil people.

I only quote those guys because they vindicate a position of orthodoxy for me in comparison to the strange and dangerous views of the anarchists in this thread. But, of course, anarchists like yourself are not without your works and writings of anarchical authors to appeal to, neither. I doubt you arrived solely at your anarchist convictions based on the actions of your mind.

So, the question only remains, who do you get your ideas from, and why does thinking about government have to reside only in your box of anarchical thought?

 

[Kraig]

No, there isn't a better argument. Unlike you, I can admit that my ideas do not originate with myself, and therefore, I am in no position to arbitrate what ought to be the case in the subject of civil government. I am not autonomous. There have been greater men than myself whom God used to express His principles for establishing legitimate and free government for the protection of civil people.

I only quote those guys because they vindicate a position of orthodoxy for me in comparison to the strange and dangerous views of the anarchists in this thread. But, of course, anarchists like yourself are not without your works and writings of anarchical authors to appeal to, neither. I doubt you arrived solely at your anarchist convictions based on the actions of your mind.

So, the question only remains, who do you get your ideas from, and why does thinking about government have to reside only in your box of anarchical thought?

So why don't you step out of the way and let me debate it with god? Oh wait, he can't talk to me...

I get my ideas from all over the place, when they come from someone else it is becuase they have laid out a logical path to convince me of their reasoning. Your quotes are not that logical path, they are simply quotes of agreement. Ugh... me and you should probably just drop it. It always comes back to god and we are always going to disagree.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

honestly, this argument has been had a gazillion times. No state of peaceful 'anarchy' has ever really existed long enough to make it into the history books. The idea that 'palestine' was an anarchy after the ottomans is a misunderstanding. Much of the ottoman empire was under the control of local caliphs for 99% of their day to day governance anyway, and when the central Ottoman empire dissolved, the local caliphs just kept running the show like minor kings.

There is always a form of government, whether it be tribal, or church, or king, or strongman, humans ALWAYS form involuntary collectives to maintain their territory from other groups who would take it from them.

The only true anarchy can exist in a place that no one else wants. But hell, even Eskimos have tribes and law. Even their society isnt 'voluntary'

so keep on rimming rothbard... its going to get you nowhere.

 

[Theocrat]

Will It Come to Bloodshed?

honestly, this argument has been had a gazillion times. No state of peaceful 'anarchy' has ever really existed long enough to make it into the history books. The idea that 'palestine' was an anarchy after the ottomans is a misunderstanding. Much of the ottoman empire was under the control of local caliphs for 99% of their day to day governance anyway, and when the central Ottoman empire dissolved, the local caliphs just kept running the show like minor kings.

There is always a form of government, whether it be tribal, or church, or king, or strongman, humans ALWAYS form involuntary collectives to maintain their territory from other groups who would take it from them.

The only true anarchy can exist in a place that no one else wants. But hell, even Eskimos have tribes and law. Even their society isnt 'voluntary'

so keep on rimming rothbard... its going to get you nowhere.

That, and the realization that anarchists are eventually going to have to face-off in a conflict of some kind (be it fatal or feeble) against "minarchists" if they wish to get rid of any vestige of civil governance. After all, there are those people who are willing to give their lives for the preservation of a republican form of government.

 

[sailor]

honestly, this argument has been had a gazillion times. No state of peaceful 'anarchy' has ever really existed long enough to make it into the history books. The idea that 'palestine' was an anarchy after the ottomans is a misunderstanding. Much of the ottoman empire was under the control of local caliphs for 99% of their day to day governance anyway, and when the central Ottoman empire dissolved, the local caliphs just kept running the show like minor kings.

HAHAHAA! "Local caliphs"! Hahaha!

Local caliphs?? What the hell is that??

There is no such thing as a "local caliph". The Caliph is the head of the community of all Muslims or the Ummah. Therefore at any time there can only be one Caliph.

But do keep on babbling without actuall knowledge behind it.

 

[Kraig]

honestly, this argument has been had a gazillion times. No state of peaceful 'anarchy' has ever really existed long enough to make it into the history books. The idea that 'palestine' was an anarchy after the ottomans is a misunderstanding. Much of the ottoman empire was under the control of local caliphs for 99% of their day to day governance anyway, and when the central Ottoman empire dissolved, the local caliphs just kept running the show like minor kings.

There is always a form of government, whether it be tribal, or church, or king, or strongman, humans ALWAYS form involuntary collectives to maintain their territory from other groups who would take it from them.

The only true anarchy can exist in a place that no one else wants. But hell, even Eskimos have tribes and law. Even their society isnt 'voluntary'

so keep on rimming rothbard... its going to get you nowhere.

I'm not sure all those tribes would qualify as government. Just because a society works together and accepts some form of common law does not make them a government. The real issue with government is that it forces itself on everyone.

 

[Truth Warrior]

honestly, this argument has been had a gazillion times. No state of peaceful 'anarchy' has ever really existed long enough to make it into the history books. The idea that 'palestine' was an anarchy after the ottomans is a misunderstanding. Much of the ottoman empire was under the control of local caliphs for 99% of their day to day governance anyway, and when the central Ottoman empire dissolved, the local caliphs just kept running the show like minor kings.

There is always a form of government, whether it be tribal, or church, or king, or strongman, humans ALWAYS form involuntary collectives to maintain their territory from other groups who would take it from them.

The only true anarchy can exist in a place that no one else wants. But hell, even Eskimos have tribes and law. Even their society isnt 'voluntary'

so keep on rimming rothbard... its going to get you nowhere.

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

It's really a very simple choice.<IMHO> Lose the barbarism or eventually the human species. Your choice.

"By their body counts, ye shall know them." ​

 

[sailor]

That, and the realization that anarchists are eventually going to have to face-off in a conflict of some kind (be it fatal or feeble) against "minarchists" if they wish to get rid of any vestige of civil governance. After all, there are those people who are willing to give their lives for the preservation of a republican form of government.

Don`t worry. We won`t mind you giving your lives up.

 

[Kraig]

That, and the realization that anarchists are eventually going to have to face-off in a conflict of some kind (be it fatal or feeble) against "minarchists" if they wish to get rid of any vestige of civil governance. After all, there are those people who are willing to give their lives for the preservation of a republican form of government.

No, it is not something that can be accomplished with force. That is what government does to get it's way. It can be accomplished by teaching people that government is not needed.

 

[Theocrat]

Touche

Don`t worry. We won`t mind you giving your lives up.

Likewise.

 

[strapko]

You talk as if there can't be private entities under a legitimate civil authority. Once again, the problem is the people, not the institution. Having a free market means nothing if there is no public court to appeal to for instances of fraud and theft. Civil judges are necessary to the security of a free economic society. You can't have private entities without public ministries such as civil government. However, you also need to have a people who possess moral integrity and religious virtue in order for both to work symbiotically. Have you not read John Adams when he stated,



and,



Sometimes I wonder what side of the republic you anarchists are. Congressman Paul would not be delighted in your ideology, to say the least.

Of course there can be. Are you saying there are no private entities under today's government?

Yes, I agree at the base the problem is the people. But we must understand human world revolves around greed and self-interest and indirectly it creates a greater standard of living. You can have a total free-market and still have unmonopolized courts which would have a greater standard of justice, because that would be there product. I've read John Adams and every quote a founding father stated does not make it true, obviously since your a christian nut and believe people should be obedient to what you believe is right and wrong; you will push these kind of quotes but they have no effect on me.

 

[Kraig]

It's really a very simple choice.<IMHO> Lose the barbarism or eventually the human species. Your choice.

Yup. Mankind will not be able to survive the wars of state vs. state much longer, I think something has to change.

 

[Theocrat]

Education or Indoctrination?

No, it is not something that can be accomplished with force. That is what government does to get it's way. It can be accomplished by teaching people that government is not needed.

But Professor Kraig, I don't like being indoctrinated that government is not needed because that is a position of "bottom-up" tyranny. The intent of your views is to force upon my mind the idea that civil government is not legitimate in society. Your lessons won't ever persuade me, so I'd like my tuition money back.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yup. Mankind will not be able to survive the wars of state vs. state much longer, I think something has to change.

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

 

[Kraig]

But Professor Kraig, I don't like being indoctrinated that government is not needed because that is a position of "bottom-up" tyranny. The intent of your views is to force upon my mind the idea that civil government is not legitimate in society. Your lessons won't ever persuade me, so I'd like my tuition money back.

Nope, there is no forcing anything on your mind, I can only attempt to convince through rational discussion.

Take your money back, don't spend it all in one place.