Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?

[A Son of Liberty]

You haven't responded to a single point we've made, as far as I can tell...

Rant and rave all you want...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I see you have come over from the dark side and agree with freedom lovers that anarchy is just a bunch of godddamned slogans and sloganeering. Not much difference with jingoism if ya ask me. Glad to have you aboard

Rev9

Too funny... Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard... just a bunch of sloganeers. What was Ron Paul thinking when he cited them in his books!?

Carry on. Your anger is misplaced, but comical.

 

[Travlyr]

Too funny... Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard... just a bunch of sloganeers. What was Ron Paul thinking when he cited them in his books!?

Carry on. Your anger is misplaced, but comical.

No it's not. It's not anger. You want people to believe your garbage... and we are just pointing out that anarchy is junk political philosophy.

Seriously, do you actually believe that if we tear-up the U.S. Constitution and disband the State of Nebraska, along with the other 49 states, that you will be more free?

 

[Travlyr]

I have never, ever seen the word anarchy defined as, "false idol".

Again, you're approaching this from dogma, not logic or reason.

If you can make-up meanings to words so can I. Anarchy will not get you anything but chaos. It is a false idol for liberty.
The rule of law using honest sound money is the way to achieve liberty.

 

[Revolution9]

Too funny... Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard... just a bunch of sloganeers. What was Ron Paul thinking when he cited them in his books!?

Carry on. Your anger is misplaced, but comical.

The comical part many have agreed upon. The anger part..nah..I am having a blast riot smacking you folks political philosophy all over the board. It is too easy. As for points not being rebutted. I am not going to waste my time on the plethora of straw men and sychophantic diatribes when a simple metaphorical smack upside the head works for me.

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It's comical that you think you've smacked anything around...

 

[Travlyr]

I don't know. Many youngsters and many adults couldn't tell you what the written law is, even the basic terms of the U.S. Constitution, or how the courts that rule over them will interpret it.

OTOH, most children can recognize basic right and wrongs that the state statutes pervert. You earned 10 cookies helping your aunt bake? Obviously you must give 3 to me, because I don't beat you up as much as the bully in the other day care room.

It is the job of the parent to teach their children the rules of the society they are born into. As a parent, if you don't like the rules, then you can work to change them. There is an amendment process. If you want to eliminate my State, I'll fight you because I swore an oath to uphold and defend it.

 

[Travlyr]

No, it doesn't...and I've said as much 50 times on this post! It has one law "do no harm", and it has self government unless harm is intended or committed. How is this a lawless and governmentless society? Or do you still think chaos and disorder and violence are synonymous with spontaneous order (major capitalist principle), voluntary organization, and nonviolence? Oh boy!

I'm not even gonna waste my time further until you at least READ about anarchism before making such nonsense, State school influenced, PC dictionary BS brainwashed, assertions. Thank you.

No, you are an empty suit with an agenda, and a radio show.
Anarchy = no ruler. Rules require rulers. Otherwise what is the point in making a rule? You don't make any sense at all.

 

[Travlyr]

The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours. People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy. But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected. It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war. They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.

But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it." I mean, only only has to look at the category you chose to expound upon yourself in to understand that you wanted to make sure this was seen by a maximum number of posters. And of course this is all about you, and not Ron Paul.

Not from State schools and PC BS dictionaries...but from the ACTUAL anarchist authors.

Sometimes I think to myself, why try? These sheep are never going to bother to READ anything that might conflict with their brainwashing.

WTF!?

Tyranny is that action performed by a tyrant, against the will of the person being aggressed against.

Besides reading the quotes in my signature to define it...

...try this:

Anyone who forces you to do something against your will when you are mentally and physically able to govern yourself, and you have not FIRST attempted or succeeded in causing harm to ANOTHER individual or group or their property, is a TYRANT.

So, are you a tyrant? From what you write, yes. And you rationalize it as all tyrants do. You may be less a tyrant than your neighbor, or his neighbor, etc...but you are a tyrant nonetheless.

The true cause of tyranny is the aggression against the sovereign individual who has caused or intended no harm to anyone else but possibly (and optionally) him/herself.

If that doesn't make sense, you have been brainwashed, or are a sadist, or a sociopath (statist).

Getting it yet?

It was accurately predicted early on that you wouldn't get it.
You make-up words and talk shit.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

If you can make-up meanings to words so can I. Anarchy will not get you anything but chaos. It is a false idol for liberty.
The rule of law using honest sound money is the way to achieve liberty.

Anarchy - from the greek - without a ruler. I'll concede the point that it has taken on varied meanings. I contend that is a tactic of the left. I maintain it's original meaning.

"The rule of law using honest sound money..." is a slogan. How do you see this - within the context of a state - as liberating? For reference's sake, from your post:

Definition of LIBERTY
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

Especially the bolded.

 

[acptulsa]

The Constitution does much to protect liberty. Maybe you don't mind that it also sets up a system of common defense and sets guidelines for free trade within a certain region, and maybe you do. But the simple fact of the matter is, having something that is designed to protect our natural rights is better than having nothing that protects our natural rights. Especially if we actually have respect for it.

This isn't philosophical. It's practical. And I don't see why someone should come in here and accuse us of being Stalinists because we believe in trying to codify natural rights--and calling us rude in the thread title before we even have a chance to disagree.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The Constitution does much to protect liberty. Maybe you don't mind that it also sets up a system of common defense and sets guidelines for free trade within a certain region, and maybe you do. But the simple fact of the matter is, having something that is designed to protect our natural rights is better than having nothing that protects our natural rights. Especially if we actually have respect for it.

This isn't philosophical. It's practical. And I don't see why someone should come in here and accuse us of being Stalinists because we believe in trying to codify natural rights--and calling us rude in the thread title before we even have a chance to disagree.

This is a good response. Thank you.

 

[Travlyr]

Anarchy - from the greek - without a ruler. I'll concede the point that it has taken on varied meanings. I contend that is a tactic of the left. I maintain it's original meaning.

It is not a tactic of the left. Left/right is political obfuscation. But if you want to play that game, anarchy is the extreme left. It means as you say, "without ruler."

Analyze that.
If no ruler, then no one enforces anything because there is nothing to enforce. Make a rule, then a ruler is required because unenforced rules are the same as no rules. Given a rule; Who rules? Either pick someone or don't. If someone is picked, then they are the ruler. If no one is picked then each person is their own ruler. That may be fine with two or three people but when it comes to larger groups, the strongest will dominate. When you get to millions of people it leads to chaos.

"The rule of law using honest sound money..." is a slogan. How do you see this - within the context of a state - as liberating? For reference's sake, from your post:

Definition of LIBERTY
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

Wealth is good for people because wealthy people can enjoy life above and beyond mere subsistence. All wealth is derived from the Earth's natural resources especially when mixed with labor. Land owners can become wealthy through honest efforts. A mechanism for distributing the Earth's resources is handy to maintain order. A proper law abiding State can achieve that goal. It is not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives today.

Laissez-faire free-market capitalism using sound money as basis for trade is honest. Virtually everyone appreciates being treated fairly. It is when one is cheated that the arguments start. Cheating needs an unbiased ruler to sort out who actually cheated and how much. Laws under a constitutional republic is one way to do it, and since that is what we have, I support it in theory and in fact.

What we have today are cheaters in charge. We need to remove them from power and use honesty in our dealings.

 

[Travlyr]

I just received notice that Anarchy is extreme right. Which proves my point that left/right paradigms are simply obfuscation. Personally, I know my left shoe from my right, but I can never know if I am politically right or left.

 

[acptulsa]

What we have today are cheaters in charge. We need to remove them from power and use honesty in our dealings.

That's really what makes it sad in a funny sort of way. We set these structures up because might does not make right, and then we don't make sure the people we give the might to use it for right. The Constitution and Bill of Rights give us everything we need to make the people we give power to toe the line, and what do we do?

If we can't be bothered to exercise a modicum of due diligence when it's time to vote, no wonder anarchy is so prone to devolve into chaos. It requires due diligence all the time.

 

[ProIndividual]

I see Rev9 and some others still dogmatically roll in BS, instead of READING something that addresses their concerns or mumbo jumbo definitions. Fine with me, but don't get mad when I say you're intellectually lazy, or downright willfully ignorant.

"I calls 'em like I sees 'em." --- Captain Spaulding

 

[acptulsa]

I see Rev9 and some others still dogmatically roll in BS, instead of READING something that addresses their concerns or mumbo jumbo definitions. Fine with me, but don't get mad when I say you're intellectually lazy, or downright willfully ignorant.

"I calls 'em like I sees 'em." --- Captain Spaulding

And I sees this one as the pot calling the kettle black. Or more like the pot calling the teapot black.

 

[Revolution9]

Anarchy - from the greek - without a ruler. I'll concede the point that it has taken on varied meanings. I contend that is a tactic of the left. I maintain it's original meaning.

"The rule of law using honest sound money..." is a slogan. How do you see this - within the context of a state - as liberating? For reference's sake, from your post:

Definition of LIBERTY
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

Especially the bolded.

Anarchism is very arbitrary and uses the same worthless tactics of feminism. It constantly shifts its definition whenever you get it backed into a corner based on its own promulgations. You guys are becoming infamous for winding up and giving yourself a right cross to the jaw by being unaware of the implications of what you shiftily write to back up your illusion.

Rev9

 

[ProIndividual]

I just received notice that Anarchy is extreme right

Right and left don't exist man, it's a psychopathic fallacy, a black and white fallacy, a either/or fallacy. There are anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists, collectivist anarchists, and individualist anarchists...for every school of thought or economics there is a distinct type of anarchism, or in some cases more. There is anarcho-Christianity even.

When you realize the State made that left/right shit up, you'll be on your way to clarity.

A cow enters the shoot at the slaughter house...he can go left or right toward the kill room...a false choice is not choice at all...and he can't go backwards. That's the left/right paradigm.

I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the quote...but:

'The State is the great illusion by which man holds false authority over another in the pursuit of protecting rights.' --- can't remember


Although anarcho-capitalists are the smallest government capitalists possible.

 

[ProIndividual]

It constantly shifts its definition whenever you get it backed into a corner based on its own promulgations.

No it doesn't...the State does that, hence why you still keep parroting the state's nonsense redefinition...but hey, why go READ anything, right?

Still listening to David Icke?