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

[Deborah K]

No, I didn't call myself extremist, you did...so no.

You know as well as I do the only view worthy of being called "extreme" is a view that advocates violence. Any attempt to say someone's ideas are "extreme" otherwise is simply a Marxist propaganda model called "guilt by association".

Anarchists are not extremists...we may be somewhat fringe, I'll admit that...but to label us with the same kind of people who blow themselves up for religious idealism and to thwart occupation to attempt to discredit our logic without addressing it.

Maybe that's not how you meant it...so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until your next comment shows otherwise.

This is a feeble attempt at wordsmithing. Have you bashed Christianity or the Constitution here? I think you are smart enough to get the jist of my concern. That you are wanting to play the victim is somewhat befuddling to me. I have no interest in reiterating my point. Perhaps it would help you to look up the various definitions of the word extremism

 

[ProIndividual]

Rules require rulers.

No, rules do not require rulers. Again, courts and governments existed before the State. It's historical nonsense to say the State is needed (rulers) in order to have government function or for courts and law to exist.

Voluntaryism makes much more sense.

Voluntaryism doesn't have rulers ( a State). You might want to read up on the conflicts in what you're saying.

Exactly, which by definition is no longer anarchy.

I adressed this issue by responding to Wesker. When he said land owners "rule" their property as "rulers" I feel he makes a semanctical error. Please go back and read my response.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You are missing the point. It isn't about philosophical debate. It is about extreme points of view that include bashing values that Ron holds near and dear, like Christianity and the Constitution. The point is, if newcomers who also have the same values as Ron, pay a visit and see over and over again on this forum, those views being relentlessly belittled - they will view the forum as a whole, as a group who abides by views they don't agree with. In addition, we have the challenge of the media scrutinizing us in a very calculating way. Most would be more than happy to paint us with that broad brush if they had the chance - as a way to discredit Ron. The bashing really needs to come to a screeching halt. That is the point.

+1

 

[Travlyr]

No, rules do not require rulers.

Then why have rules? Unenforcible rules are meaningless.

All I am really saying is that most people will use the dictionary if they want to know the meaning of a word. Using ANARCHY to describe a peaceful orderly society doesn't work well.

 

[ProIndividual]

What I mean by "ruler" is that I can apply rules to my property. In this sense, I am a ruler (one who rules?) only because I applied a rule to my property. Anyone who is subject to my ruling does so on a voluntarily basis. Voluntarily subjecting yourself to rulers is consistent with Voluntaryism.

In this sense, I agree...it's the use of the word ruler to imply the enforcer of rules I have a problem with. A Judge is not ruler, and yet enforces rules...for this reason a ruler just isn't an enforcer of rules, but a coercer.

Now, in your sense of the word, I again agree, because all social contracts are legal in anarchism....you can choose any harmful social contract yopu like, even if I think it tyranny. It's the p[ure voluntary nature that makes it compatable with anarchism....and Voluntaryism is very much a form of anarchism. The difference might be social theory, class theory, etc.

And in that I point to Konkin III and agorism, which isn't "pure" anarchism to agorists either. To me, however, agorism and voluntaryism are just different strains of anarchism, which have different views on problem solving w/o a State.

I'd say using the word "ruler" will get things confused....but it depends who you are speaking with. Personally I'd refrain from using it.

But your point is true, and again, I'm just pointing out semantics.

 

[erowe1]

I'm a non-anarchist who is not anti-anarchist.

When I first got involved in supporting RP in 2007 I thought the anarchists were nuts. Now I consider them important allies with a coherent philosophy that I can respect. I feel the same way about the protectionist paleo-con wing of RP supporters too, though I'm not one of them either.

 

[cjm]

You are missing the point. It isn't about philosophical debate. It is about extreme points of view that include bashing values that Ron holds near and dear, like Christianity and the Constitution. The point is, if newcomers who also have the same values as Ron, pay a visit and see over and over again on this forum, those views being relentlessly belittled - they will view the forum as a whole, as a group who abides by views they don't agree with. In addition, we have the challenge of the media scrutinizing us in a very calculating way. Most would be more than happy to paint us with that broad brush if they had the chance - as a way to discredit Ron. The bashing really needs to come to a screeching halt. That is the point.

I'm missing your point? I addressed your concern with disagreement. I didn't miss it. We were all newcomers to this site at one time. We didn't fall into the trap you describe. You need to give people more credit. Those that cannot distinguish between Ron Paul and some posts on RPF are not thinking for themselves anyway. They will go with whomever Fox or CNN tells them to go with.

As for bashing, it exists, but not to the degree you describe. I stand by my point that RPF threads are generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful.

 

[ProIndividual]

This is a feeble attempt at wordsmithing. Have you bashed Christianity or the Constitution here? I think you are smart enough to get the jist of my concern. That you are wanting to play the victim is somewhat befuddling to me. I have no interest in reiterating my point. Perhaps it would help you to look up the various definitions of the word extremism

This is what I mean...you just used the Marxist propaganda model "guilt by association", and "buzzword", AGAIN.

You are the extremist...there now we are even. Stop with your childish name calling and address the logic of the issues. Anything else conceded intellectual defeat.

And STOP using Marxist propaganda models. Wikipedia "propaganda", please!

 

[ProIndividual]

Then why have rules? Unenforcible rules are meaningless.

Ugh!

Again, for the last time, over 80% of human history had rules, but no State. they had rules enforced by Stateless government and courts.

This doesn't seem to be sinking in. I've only wrote it like 3 times...lol.

Get it through your head...law existed before States (including city-states).

Wow.

All I am really saying is that most people will use the dictionary if they want to know the meaning of a word

Yes, and this is why democracy fails; the majority is USUALLY wrong.

Using dictionaries for scholarly reference is a poor excuse for research. It's like me continuously pointing at a "fact" that can be easily disproven, and yet still asserting it because it's politically correct and popular.

Argumentum ad populum : the informal logical fallacy of appealing to majority opinion, votes, or polls to prove the legitimacy of an argument.

 

[Deborah K]

I'm missing your point? I addressed your concern with disagreement. I didn't miss it. We were all newcomers to this site at one time. We didn't fall into the trap you describe. You need to give people more credit. Those that cannot distinguish between Ron Paul and some posts on RPF are not thinking for themselves anyway. They will go with whomever Fox or CNN tells them to go with.

As for bashing, it exists, but not to the degree you describe. I stand by my point that RPF threads are generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful.

I agree that RPF is generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful. I would also add ingenious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, pro-liberty, and exceptional activists. But as for bashing, it indeed exists to the degree I describe. On that you are entirely mistaken. And I am not alone in my opinion.

 

[mczerone]

In a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people do.

Who is this nebulous "people"? Certainly not everyone's voice can be heard and respected, so how do we decide who counts, who runs the state on a day-to-day basis, and how much money (i.e. resources) it needs to get its jobs done? Why is a devotion to a "republic" favorable to and more universal than "free-association govts" of whatever internal form? All this talk about "the people" sounds awfully Marxist to me (only returning your lob).

What we have now is Merchantilism which is nothing even close to a minimal government.

Read what I wrote, and you'll see that I wasn't intending to describe what "we" have now, but any minimalist governance scheme that has a territorial monopoly.

I do not believe that we can find Utopia in this life, so we do have to put-up with each other's nonsense from time to time. Laissez-faire free-market capitalism is as close to perfect as it gets in this world and it works every time it is tried.

So why do you get to decide that "Laissez-faire free-market capitalism" works for producing food, clothing, land management, etc., but preclude me from trying Laissez-faire free-market capitalism in the realm of personal and group defense and law provision? Besides, I wasn't trying to claim that yours or any system was being described as an unattainable Utopia, I was asking you what right you have to impose your system on dissenters.

A lot of this is straight out of Karl Marx's doctrines. It can only be achieved with fiat money central planning and the inflation tax of debasement of currency.

I am in favor of a constitutional republic and separation of state and money. State constitutions are lawful along with County and City charters. City/States are not as inherently bad as anarchists claim, imo.

Lolwut? Because I borrowed a line from Ghandi, you attack it for being "straight out of Marx's doctrines"? What about individuals needing to decide for themselves what their resources should be spent on, either individually or in cooperation with others, is Marxist? You've laid out a smear here, and I don't even see what part of what I said could be construed in that manner.

I'm glad you support the separation of state and money, but what if your "constitutional republic" representatives don't agree with you? Why couldn't I subscribe to a government that not only set regulations on it's members behaviors, but also coined money for external trade or tokens for internal trade? Do you have any evidence that these systems are worse than forcing a govt agency to stay out of the money industry entirely?

Then you, ex nihilo, claim that "State constitutions are lawful along with County and City charters." Why? What does "lawful" mean if you circularly define it by whatever is in a state constitution? And I don't personally have problems with certain "city charters" if the all the just landowners voluntarily enter into an agreement, but they only have jurisdiction over the members of the charter - all of which can be determined by private land and contract law.

Then you are the ruler which by definition is no longer an anarchic society.

Again, see the difference between "one who rules over others" and "one who sets the rules for his property". It seems that you're working hard not to understand what we're arguing about.

This is the same as minarchy.

Again, lolwut? You're saying that in minarchy I can keep my property, real and personal, and choose a different law and/or defense provider? That's not minarchy.

Not at all. I just realize that rules require rulers. If no ruler is designated, then the strongest will be the ruler. If a ruler is designated, then it is best to strive for impartiality. I believe that a constitutional republic can do that better than any other form of organization.

If One is designated Ruler, he will be the strongest. If no ruler is designated, then you are free to solve problems by listening to a central authority or by bargaining for your own solutions. Do "the strongest" have certain advantages in life? Yes, but your system gives them power; voluntarism allows the meek to work together to defend themselves and seek a balance of powers. I don't understand how you can live in a post-Machiavellian world and claim that a designated ruler has as it's own best interest to "strive for impartiality".

It's okay that you believe that a "constitutional republic" is the best solution, but is this based on anything but faith? And again, what if I don't agree with you?

Lolz... self-rule is not bad as long as everybody plays nice. What happens though is somebody cheats and then the ruler has to make a decision... whoever that is whether designated or not.

What happens when someone cheats at game night where you are assembled as equals? If you have a "ruler", what if its the "ruler" that's doing the cheating?

 

[ProIndividual]

I'm a non-anarchist who is not anti-anarchist.

When I first got involved in supporting RP in 2007 I thought the anarchists were nuts. Now I consider them important allies with a coherent philosophy that I can respect. I feel the same way about the protectionist paleo-con wing of RP supporters too, though I'm not one of them either.

Ty for the positive comment...I agree pretty much. All philsophies are valid, althoug I may disagree with them.

 

[Deborah K]

This is what I mean...you just used the Marxist propaganda model "guilt by association", and "buzzword", AGAIN.

You are the extremist...there now we are even. Stop with your childish name calling and address the logic of the issues. Anything else conceded intellectual defeat.

And STOP using Marxist propaganda models. Wikipedia "propaganda", please!

Hit a nerve, did I? How about you just get back to your argument and quit taking offense where it isn't aimed. Good grief.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Ron Paul was on the Alex Jones Show today. Alex, a "small" government advocate and seemingly sincere and sweet man with a nationally syndicated radio, internet and satellite program is nonetheless largely considered (outside of his numerically-but-not-proportionally large following) to be an utter lunatic by the vast majority of the population who has heard of him, given his theories concerning the September 11th attacks and other organizations and historical events. Alex has been on The View, and other mainstream media outlets, and he's been the subject of a feature article in Rolling Stone magazine.

But I should be ashamed for using the word 'anarchist' on this forum. el oh el

 

[cjm]

I agree that RPF is generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful. I would also add ingenious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, pro-liberty, and exceptional activists. But as for bashing, it indeed exists to the degree I describe. On that you are entirely mistaken. And I am not alone in my opinion.

I guess you're right. This comes down to opinion.

 

[Pericles]

My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of answering to the point being made. For example, we have this work by Rothbard on the self enforcing nature of contracts http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html where we are presented with some basic concepts "[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality." and this concept "[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual."

This has one very important principle - the importance of reputation, if I am thought to be a person on business with a bad reputation, fewer people will want to deal with me - this is the economic incentive to do what I say I will do. Thus, anyone who harms my reputation, does me harm. But Rothbard can't go there because if he did, he would have to allow that I have an economic interest or an ownership interest in my reputation, and my economic competitors have an interest in destroying my reputation, as I have an interest in destroying theirs. In the current legal framework, the concept of libel, keeps this in check.

However, Rothbard can't allow to have the concept of libel in his anarchist society - http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
"[/FONT]Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement." Rothbard then goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all.

So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets

There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything other than academic interest.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Who is this nebulous "people"?

This is the whole point, isn't it? There is no "the people". The "people" cannot think; the "people" cannot feel. There are individual human beings, each created equal, and as such not one of which is entitled to rule.

 

[Deborah K]

Where did anyone say you should be ashamed of using the word 'anarchist'? Wow! The sensitivity level is beyond the scope of reason today folks. And btw, this isn't about you. It's about electing the only hope we have right now. No one is asking anyone to table their philosophies, just to have an understanding that as a member of RPFs, and a supporter of Ron, that in a sense, you are an ambassador and it behooves us all to stop with the bashing of the values he holds near and dear. It's NOT about your views, it's about the bashing of Ron's values. I see it as extreme (oh no's - that awful word again) to be touting an opposing view while degrading another. That's it.

 

[mczerone]

I agree that RPF is generally lively, thoughtful, and respectful. I would also add ingenious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, pro-liberty, and exceptional activists. But as for bashing, it indeed exists to the degree I describe. On that you are entirely mistaken. And I am not alone in my opinion.

100% agree - as someone who is more in the "anarchist" and "atheist" camps, I see a ton of bashing coming from fundamentalists of the other stripes (I wouldn't use either term to describe myself, but for convenience).

If there are 2000 members on RPFs, there are 4000 sets of opinions on the contentious issues, just remember that it is only those who are mad enough to post that do, and those who passively agree might hand out some +rep. Live with love, despite differences in opinion, and these threads and bashing posts won't be so upsetting.

 

[Deborah K]

I guess you're right. This comes down to opinion.

Opinions are all we really have here.