The anarchists are the realists, not the utopian dreamers.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Using an anarchist's article to answer a question about government authority is like asking a fox to count how many chickens are in the coop and expecting a consistent number every time. There's going to be a conflict of interest.

And asking an archist to speak about anarchy is like asking lifelong blind person trying to describe the floats in a fiesta bowl parade.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I'm sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Using an anarchist's article to answer a question about government authority is like asking a fox to count how many chickens are in the coop and expecting a consistent number every time. There's going to be a conflict of interest.

So who SHOULD be asked? The "archists"? Surely, no conflict of interest there. < LMAO! >

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

​

 

[Kraig]

And asking an archist to speak about anarchy is like asking lifelong blind person trying to describe the floats in a fiesta bowl parade.

No it's not. Take your life and remove the endless interactions with government that you have. The possibilities are endless. I think it's more like asking men what it was like to fly...before they learned how to fly. Just because it hasn't been done does not mean it cannot be done, look forward.

edit:
Sorry I thought you said anarchy twice (rather than archist like you did say)! I need to learn to pay more attention.

 

[Theocrat]

Some Points to Ponder

So we need a state to protect us from the other state. While that may have some utilitarian truth to it, why not get rid of both states? Look forward rather than behind, I think progress can be made.

What you are calling 'blessings' is what has been used to cause extreme suffering and death on innocent people, I find that odd.

We don't get rid of civil governments because they are righteous and necessary institutions for civil liberties, as ordained by God, the Giver of our rights. Governments are not evil in and of themselves; it's the people who are involved in those positions of government which hold the helm that makes it a good government or a bad government.

Once again, those blessings are only blessings when they are used for the glory of God and the good of other men. The misuse of those blessings is a curse, and it is a curse which is taken advantage of by people who have corrupt hearts and sinister minds, both towards God and their neighbor.

What does anarchy bring? It ensures that "might makes right," morality and law are subjected to relative standards by the whims and wits of each man (be it for fair or for foul), and no arena for appeals and universal justice, to name a few. No, we don't need to get rid of the State, but we do need to limit the State's role in human affairs. Anarchy is not the solution; it's just tyranny on the other side of totalitarianism.

 

[torchbearer]

Hate to rain on your circle jerk of self-reinforcement here...

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

When Cody Willard stated on freedom watch that we have anarchy now.... this is what he is talking about.

They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.
John Adams, Novanglus No. 7, March 6, 1775

The above quote is for the typical anarchist response to someone pointing out the flaws of their ideas that somehow today's government represents a republic.
It is not. We have law of men. Not rule of law.

 

[Truth Warrior]

We don't get rid of civil governments because they are righteous and necessary institutions for civil liberties, as ordained by God, the Giver of our rights. Governments are not evil in and of themselves; it's the people who are involved in those positions of government which hold the helm that makes it a good government or a bad government.

Once again, those blessings are only blessings when they are used for the glory of God and the good of other men. The misuse of those blessings is a curse, and it is a curse which is taken advantage of by people who have corrupt hearts and sinister minds, both towards God and their neighbor.

What does anarchy bring? It ensures that "might makes right," morality and law are subjected to relative standards by the whims and wits of each man (be it for fair or for foul), and no arena for appeals and universal justice, to name a few. No, we don't need to get rid of the State, but we do need to limit the State's role in human affairs. Anarchy is not the solution; it's just tyranny on the other side of totalitarianism.

Geeze! And we get called UTOPIANS!!

Do ya see all lot of JESUS in D.C.'s actions?

 

[Theocrat]

Before You Laughed, You Should've Listened

So who SHOULD be asked? The "archists"? Surely, no conflict of interest there. < LMAO! >

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

​

Well, if you had actually read my question, you would realize that only an "archist" answer would be the correct and appropriate one. There is no legitimacy to anarchy, so it's useless trying to reason from that side of the political spectrum when it is a self-defeating system, and there are no examples of anarchy working in history. By the way, how's that move to Somalia working out for you?

 

[strapko]

Under what governmental authority did the "Wild West" occur in and was responsible to?

Hint: It's a nation.

That was not my point and you were foolish enough not to understand.

The point was the Wild West had no governmental intervention, and everything was settled between private entities. Yes the east pushed the expansion to the west, but they had no governmental forces to enforce anything or tell anyone what to do.

 

[Kraig]

We don't get rid of civil governments because they are righteous and necessary institutions for civil liberties, as ordained by God, the Giver of our rights. Governments are not evil in and of themselves; it's the people who are involved in those positions of government which hold the helm that makes it a good government or a bad government.

One book saying that they are divine institutions ordained by god is not a reason and more than me writing down the same thing on a piece of paper. Governments will always be made up of people and government will always be evil becuase of the way it obtains and maintains it's monopoly on force.

Once again, those blessings are only blessings when they are used for the glory of God and the good of other men. The misuse of those blessings is a curse, and it is a curse which is taken advantage of by people who have corrupt hearts and sinister minds, both towards God and their neighbor.

...and they have been "misusing" government since the beginning of written history.

What does anarchy bring? It ensures that "might makes right," morality and law are subjected to relative standards by the whims and wits of each man (be it for fair or for foul), and no arena for appeals and universal justice, to name a few.

Anarchy does not bring "might makes right", it accepts it as the way of things and moves on. It also recognizes that there are things better than might, such as cooperation. Governments already operate under "might makes right" anyways, isn't that obvious? We are sitting here a time period when the government is completely ignoring rule of law because the can get away with it and you are going to tell me that "might makes right" only exists in anarchy? That is absurd.

The real difference is you FORFEIT your might and hand it over to the government's monopoly, I am here telling you that you would be better off keeping it for yourself.

No, we don't need to get rid of the State, but we do need to limit the State's role in human affairs. Anarchy is not the solution; it's just tyranny on the other side of totalitarianism.

Can you give me ANY historical example of a limited state remaining as a limited state? The difference here is that Anarchy has rarely been tried, and when successful it has been overthrown by the state. Government has been tried countless times. Who is the tyrant under anarchy?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Hate to rain on your circle jerk of self-reinforcement here...



When Cody Willard stated on freedom watch that we have anarchy now.... this is what he is talking about.


The above quote is for the typical anarchist response to someone pointing out the flaws of their ideas that somehow today's government represents a republic.
It is not. We have law of men. Not rule of law.

Last time I checked, Cody Willard had NOT been the chosen NOR designated as the "OFFICIAL" spokesperson for THE anarchists.

Some folks just DON'T "get it". NO SHEPHERDS!!!

 

[Truth Warrior]

Well, if you had actually read my question, you would realize that only an "archist" answer would be the correct and appropriate one. There is no legitimacy to anarchy, so it's useless trying to reason from that side of the political spectrum when it is a self-defeating system, and there are no examples of anarchy working in history. By the way, how's that move to Somalia working out for you?

I read your post.

Ask your barber if you need a haircut, or a car salesman if you need a new car, etc., etc., etc. ............ ad nausem et infinitum.

About the same as your's to North Korea.

 

[torchbearer]

Last time I checked, Cody Willard had NOT been the chosen NOR designated as the "OFFICIAL" spokesperson for THE anarchists.

Some folks just DON'T "get it". NO SHEPHERDS!!!

Cody is not an anarchist. He a constitutionalist.
Which shows you avoided the content of the quotes because it was a bit more truth than the truth warrior could handle.

Cody was pointing out that the government, now doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants... with no binding rules... is anarchy.
It is now a mafia that uses force to control everything. NO different than the factions of somalia.. except none of them have a billion dollar military and nukes.

We want a voluntary society that sets up the protection of property rights.
Not a free for all anarchy like we have today.
No one's property is safe from the Kenyan mafia.

 

[Kraig]

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

That is really the crux of the argument once you get past the "ordained by god" bullshit. Thanks for bringing it up. I believe there are PLENTY of rational reasons for "thou shalt not steal" and I believe man does not need god or government to enforce them. The free market will work towards the best solution in the end (albeit with some experimentation) and non-force and peaceful cooperation are the best solutions.

The above quote is for the typical anarchist response to someone pointing out the flaws of their ideas that somehow today's government represents a republic.
It is not. We have law of men. Not rule of law.

But it is always the law of men, your side just hopes that the men respect the law. At what point is the law going to start enforcing itself without men having to do all the work?

 

[sailor]

Hate to rain on your circle jerk of self-reinforcement here...

The above quote is for the typical anarchist response to someone pointing out the flaws of their ideas that somehow today's government represents a republic.
It is not. We have law of men. Not rule of law.

I don`t realy know what you are talking about but the Republic itself is a myth. If Republic is the rule of law then there never was a Republic. Just take a look at the Whiskey Rebellion. Rule of law my arse! It was tyranny from the start. Just the degree has changed.

 

[Kraig]

I don`t realy know what you are talking about but the Republic itself is a myth. If Republic is the rule of law then there never was a Republic. Just take a look at the Whiskey Rebellion. Rule of law my arse! It was tyranny from the start. Just the degree has changed.

Not to mention slavery, it was corrupt from the beginning, as all governments are.

 

[Theocrat]

Let's Not Be Naive About This

That was not my point and you were foolish enough not to understand.

The point was the Wild West had no governmental intervention, and everything was settled between private entities. Yes the east pushed the expansion to the west, but they had no governmental forces to enforce anything or tell anyone what to do.

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,

It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

and,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

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

 

[sailor]

We want a voluntary society that sets up the protection of property rights.
Not a free for all anarchy like we have today.
No one's property is safe from the Kenyan mafia.

Yeah but I thought that goes without saying.

 

[Kraig]

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

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?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Cody is not an anarchist. He a constitutionalist.
Which shows you avoided the content of the quotes because it was a bit more truth than the truth warrior could handle.

Cody was pointing out that the government, now doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants... with no binding rules... is anarchy.
It is now a mafia that uses force to control everything. NO different than the factions of somalia.. except none of them have a billion dollar military and nukes.

We want a voluntary society that sets up the protection of property rights.
Not a free for all anarchy like we have today.
No one's property is safe from the Kenyan mafia.

Ah, one of your SHEPHERDS! Got it.

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."​

 

[Theocrat]

I Agree With Cody

Cody is not an anarchist. He a constitutionalist.
Which shows you avoided the content of the quotes because it was a bit more truth than the truth warrior could handle.

Cody was pointing out that the government, now doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants... with no binding rules... is anarchy.
It is now a mafia that uses force to control everything. NO different than the factions of somalia.. except none of them have a billion dollar military and nukes.

We want a voluntary society that sets up the protection of property rights.
Not a free for all anarchy like we have today.
No one's property is safe from the Kenyan mafia.

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").