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

[Travlyr]

No it doesn't. Again, it does NOT mean chaos, lawlessness, disorganization, or violence. This is BS.

The first "Natural Lawyers" were anarchists. Besides Utilitarians and Egoists (those who think rights are "spooks in the mind", and essentially "might makes right"), all anarchists believe in one law, "the one law", natural law, or "do no harm" for short. How is stopping harm in a court with a jury, a natural justice system, or common law courts in some places, lawless? It's illogical.

Again, governemnt is NOT the same as the State...governments existed in Stateless societies, as did courts.

It is not BS. I was referring to the definition of ANARCHY - Without Ruler. So my question to you is: Who enforces the law in an anarchical society?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

The fact that it is so easy for you to summarily dismiss someone based on a single word identifies the high level of ignorance live through in your daily life.

Chomsky is often referred to as a libertarian socialist, but even that "label" doesn't really do him any justice, he is more of an anarchist than even I would like to admit, seeing as he is a very important mentor of mine.

Why don't you read up on him?

Chomsky is brilliant when it comes to foreign policy and highlighting the propaganda system that is used in modern American society. His documentary 'Manufacturing Consent' is one of the best I have ever seen, and the more I see from the press regarding Dr. Paul the more it confirms this documentary as true.

 

[Wesker1982]

Which is pretty funny, because one of the favorite 'good examples' cited by voluntaryists are American Indians, and they didn't in any way recognize the right to own real estate.

I have never talked about them so I don't know much about it, but were they aggressed against if they wanted to secede and build a hut or w/e?

 

[Kade]

Chomsky is brilliant when it comes to foreign policy and highlighting the propaganda system that is used in modern American society. His documentary 'Manufacturing Consent' is one of the best I have ever seen, and the more I see from the press regarding Dr. Paul the more it confirms this documentary as true.

Thank you for acknowledging this, Chomsky is no friend to ANY establishment.

 

[acptulsa]

I have never talked about them so I don't know much about it, but were they aggressed against if they wanted to secede and build a hut or w/e?

They settled areas all the time. And when their own refuse made the area smelly and unsafe, they went and settled another area.

They also had tribal wars and tribal compacts all the time. And, yes, some were far, far more nomadic than others.

 

[ProIndividual]

I wanna say, I agree with LibertyEgle in one sense...anarchists shouldn't try to explain anarchism or even say that we are anarchists when selling Ron Paul. I do several radio shows online every week, as a host and co-host...and I didn't mention it unless I had to, which is almost never. Selling Ron does mean acting as if we're just run of the mill libertarians...but then again, in any other country, anarchism is synonamous with libertarianism, so it isn't a lie.

I have no problem telling other anarchists to keep focus, and talk about Ron, not about us. He is a step in the right direction, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I hope that is sarcasm.

Nope. FYI, I have read up on Chomsky. I find his contributions to linguistics and certain sciences much more useful and sensible than most of his other intellectual activities. JMO

 

[ProIndividual]

I'm pretty good about listening to all sorts of ideas. Having a pretty deep understanding of human behavior, I generally reject pure anarchism on biological/evolutionary reasons.

See c. Nathan Holn , ie Holnists

I do not agree, but that's a super long debate as you know. I'm familiar with the viewpoint though, and am thankful for the positive comment.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Because time and time again you folks have a unquenchable proclivity to loudly proclaiming your ignorance on the subject. Why is it that you only listen to people who you already agree with? Take the freaking time to know what you are talking about... they should care what Chomsky has to say, because Chomsky is a valuable political dissident, scientist, and intellectual

I have to admit, you are right about the majority of folks here on that.

 

[Wesker1982]

They settled areas all the time. And when their own refuse made the area smelly and unsafe, they went and settled another area.

They also had tribal wars and tribal compacts all the time. And, yes, some were far, far more nomadic than others.

If they retain the right to secede, then they voluntarily choose to belong to a group that does not recognize property rights in houses. This is consistent with Voluntaryism. You can live in a commune or whatever you want in a Voluntaryist society...

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-acceptable&p=3308916&viewfull=1#post3308916

 

[ProIndividual]

DeborahK :

The extremists

So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?

My hypocrisy meter is going off, brb...lol.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Chomsky is brilliant when it comes to foreign policy and highlighting the propaganda system that is used in modern American society. His documentary 'Manufacturing Consent' is one of the best I have ever seen, and the more I see from the press regarding Dr. Paul the more it confirms this documentary as true.

This too. ^^

 

[Kade]

DeborahK :



So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?

My hypocrasy metter is going off, brb...lol.

This was also what I pointed out...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

DeborahK :



So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?

My hypocrisy metter is going off, brb...lol.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ProIndividual again." IOU 1 +rep.

 

[Deborah K]

Because time and time again you folks have a unquenchable proclivity to loudly proclaiming your ignorance on the subject. Why is it that you only listen to people who you already agree with? Take the freaking time to know what you are talking about... they should care what Chomsky has to say, because Chomsky is a valuable political dissident, scientist, and intellectual

You mean like you do? Is Bertrand Russell another of your heroes - advocate of eugenics? What exactly can Chomsky or Russell contribute to this conversation?

 

[Deborah K]

DeborahK :



So when they do this to US Ron Paul people, or the TEA party, then it's propaganda and wrong...but when you do it (calling us "extremists"), it's okay I guess?

My hypocrisy meter is going off, brb...lol.

You are putting yourself in the category of extremist, not I. My definition of extremist per this issue is of those who bash the values of Ron Paul i.e. the Constitution and Christianity. I have been very clear on that point. If you have trouble with comprehension that isn't my problem.

 

[Deborah K]

I have to admit, you are right about the majority of folks here on that.

Personally, I think it's pretty ignorant to proclaim someone else is ignorant, just because they don't agree with you.

 

[Kade]

You mean like you do? Is Bertrand Russell another of your heros - advocate of eugenics? What exactly can Chomsky or Russell contribute to this conversation?

Chomsky:

The political policies that are called conservative these days would appall any genuine conservative, if there were one around to be appalled. For example, the central policy of the Reagan Administration - which was supposed to be conservative - was to build up a powerful state. The state grew in power more under Reagan than in any peacetime period, even if you just measure it by state expenditures. The state intervention in the economy vastly increased. That's what the Pentagon system is, in fact; it's the creation of a state-guaranteed market and subsidy system for high-technology production. There was a commitment under the Reagan Administration to protect this more powerful state from the public, which is regarded as the domestic enemy. Take the resort to clandestine operations in foreign policy: that means the creation of a powerful central state immune from public inspection. Or take the increased efforts at censorship and other forms of control. All of these are called "conservatism," but they're the very opposite of conservatism. Whatever the term means, it involves a concern for Enlightenment values of individual rights and freedoms against powerful external authorities such as the state, a dominant Church, and so on. That kind of conservatism no one even remembers anymore.

The "corporatization of America" during the past century has been an attack on democracy—and on markets, part of the shift from something resembling "capitalism" to the highly administered markets of the modern state/corporate era. A current variant is called "minimizing the state," that is, transferring decision-making power from the public arena to somewhere else: "to the people" in the rhetoric of power; to private tyrannies, in the real world.

Russell:

As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our troubles.

The modern power of the State began in the late fifteenth century and began as a result of gunpowder.

I have hundreds more, if you are still chirping.

 

[ProIndividual]

Rifleman:

It's not easy to reconcile political ideology and what is essentially a worldview/religion. You see the entire world through that lense.

I want to restore a Constitutional Republic. I'm unconvinced we are headed in the same direction but don't take it personally.

I'm a Christian Deist...so no conflict here with Christianity in general, or belief in God for that matter. I use a Jefferson Bible, and attend local Unitarian Church services. My worldview is simply that of ills, liberty is the lesser, and of virtues, liberty is the greater; in all things liberty is preferable to coerion. It's not a cure-all, it's admitting the problems still exist, just that they are better handled and controlled at the most decentralized level possible, and often that is the individual level.

If you think anarchists can arrive at anarchy without first achieving, and then passing, a Constitutional Republic like you want, then I question your sense of direction.

Then again we're also debating protectionism versus free trade elsewhere, and you support protectionism; so you operate under a lot of false notions.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Personally, I think it's pretty ignorant to proclaim someone else is ignorant, just because they don't agree with you.

Yes, but that's not why I claimed anyone ignorant. Certain people here are simply ignorant and try to wax eloquent about things they simply don't understand. Whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. (I'm not going to name names, because I don't want to violate forum rules or start another silly flame war)