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

[Deborah K]

This was also what I pointed out...

Yes, and I noticed you conveniently ignored my response:

Show me where - anywhere on this forum - where I have stated that this movement is about gathering up conservatives. If anything, I have stated over and over that Ron is the only candidate who unites us all - dems, reps, indys, etc.

And just because you are an atheist, doesn't make you an extremist. And just because someone is an anarchist, doesn't make them an extremist. Way to misconstrue the point.

 

[mczerone]

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?

Who enforces "the law" in a minimalist state? A communal organization run by a bureaucracy beholden to special interests, mob-rule, and self-favors. And this is immune from the price mechanism. How much "property protection" are you willing to pay for? Would you live in abject poverty to fund a gestapo that patrolled everything 24-7? Maybe you would, and anarchy would give you that option. But it would also give you the option to devote little to no money to protection if you desired "living on the edge".

If you can convince me, and 100% of everyone else, that there is a single, perfect, level of property rights protection, we may join your system. Until then, how does your minimalist state handle dissenters? Those who see that public-choice economics and monopoly theory prove that a single entity providing ANY good or service will inflate their prices and reduce their quality are awaiting your answer.

You want something (property rights, a well-suited defense force, legal system, health-care system, education system, etc.), pay for it or find a benefactor. TANSTAAFL. Be the change you wish to see.

Who enforces the law in an anarchic society? YOU DO! You get to choose the best service, you get to choose the method of enforcement, AND YOU HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE to others who see your law as unjust. And they to the rest of society. Do you have some need to be ruled, or is it that you have the need to rule others?

 

[ProIndividual]

Besides the moral and natural truth of anarchism, this is the thing that really convinced me to turn away from minarchism. How many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain? It has been just 10 scant generations - approximately 3 or 4 full human life-times - since the installation of a system of government that had gone further than any other system of government in human history to restrain the power of the state over individuals. And yet, look at us now. We individuals are burdened with the largest, most powerful and growing government in human history. 200 years. That isn't really long. It's not really uncommon for one person alone to live half of that time period.

Son of Liberty, you speak the truth (imho). For 200+ years we have tried to get minimal government, and have continuously watched it grow into large government. Repeating the same behavior over and over expecting a different result is...the definition of insanity. Why not try for anarchism, and if we get small Constitutional government instead, I'll cry me a river while you dance in the street. At least it's more of what we all want, right?

 

[Deborah K]

Chomsky:




Russell:





I have hundreds more, if you are still chirping.

Irrelevant. Hitler had some pretty snappy quotes too. Doesn't absolve these guys of their basic philosophies i.e. advocate of eugenics; socialism - which is in oppositon to my own.

Stop attacking. It isn't becoming.

 

[Deborah K]

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)

Like who for instance? Who in your mind is 'waxing eloquent'?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Like who for instance? Who in your mind is 'waxing eloquent'?

I told you before

I'm not going to name names, because I don't want to violate forum rules or start another silly flame war

I can pm you some examples if you really want.

 

[Travlyr]

As far as the name, it's Greek...an- means without, archon means ruler...Archons were Greek regional tyrants, at the dawn of the city-states. The name is thought of negatively and synonamous with things it has nothing to with, like chaos, disorganization, and violence, because State school, being part of the /state, have a vested interest in having children believe maximum liberty is negative.

The definition of the word ANARCHY goes to the heart of why I oppose using it to describe anything other than lawlessness. Without ruler means without rules by default because as soon as a rule is made, the question immediately becomes "Who enforces the rule?" Then either a ruler is chosen to enforce the rule so anarchy is abandoned, or everybody is their own ruler which is chaos.

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.

The definition of anarchy is no rulers. Rules require rulers. Either a society has no rules and no need for rulers, or it has rules and rulers. It is silly to use it to describe a philosophy. Voluntaryism makes much more sense.

Everyone is the "ruler" of their property. So in that sense, there are rulers who can enforce rules.

Exactly, which by definition is no longer anarchy.

 

[Deborah K]

I told you before I can pm you some examples if you really want.

Please do, I'm interested, I'll keep your confidence.

 

[Wesker1982]

Exactly, which by definition is no longer anarchy.

I am really trying to stop using the term, but just for clarification, anarchy means the absence of the State in the context used a lot of the time. Not necessarily "no ruler". See SV's blog if you haven't: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?352-Anarchy-Government-and-the-State.

 

[ProIndividual]

Once again, ACPTulsa, how is anarchism responsible for the failure of State? how is it taking credit for the economic boom after it's fall? And how is anarchism somehow responsible for a theocratic Islamic State that followed?

It's nonsense., sorry.

 

[mczerone]

Rules require rulers.

I don't think I'll join game night at your house...

The term refers to rulers OVER OTHER PEOPLE, having dominion over property is not "ruling" it, and rules need not be enforced by a single Ruler. If we hypothesize that one ruler was needed, who would keep him acting within the rules so that the rule of law was not just a myth? The ruled? Another Ruler? In either case, if a set of rules is going to remain neutral between men it must devolve into anarchy: no one person truly is a Ruler because they always have to answer to someone else.

 

[ProIndividual]

Wesker, ty for all your help...but..

Everyone is the "ruler" of their property. So in that sense, there are rulers who can enforce rules.

If self governance be government, then I am for government. If ownership of property be "ruler" or "ruling", then I'm for ruling.

However...ruling implies coercion and gang turf not willing to be ceded...whereas property is alienable (it can be transferred to another), not inalienable, so you never "rule" it, you own it. You will cede it upon death, unlike your inalienable (non-transferrable) rights...assuming you don't sell it first.

This is perhaps semantics, but in the spirit of the meaning of the word, anarchy meansd literally "without rulers".

 

[ProIndividual]

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.

Incorrect. Iriquois, for example, allowed even women to hold property of their own, not mergable with the husbands land, thereforew in divorce they retained their own homesteas and wealth...

...they also had communal farm land and hunting areas...

...so it's not quite so black and white.

Remember also, they counted coupe sometimes to hash out battles, instead of mass killing each other (not always, but still).

 

[ProIndividual]

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?

And I've explained why dictionaries are bad sources for definitions...they are politically correct, conformed to State lingo.

Read anarchists for yourself, they almost never advocate for such things...and those who do are largely viewed as fake anarchists among the anarchist community, as any coercion is non-anarchistic, violence (not in self defense) disqualifies you automatically.

And again, how is a legal system lawless?

 

[cjm]

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

The non-anarchists, generally speaking, do not appear to be anti-anarchist to me. They might be anti-anarchism (opposed to the philosophy of anarchy), but that's what makes them non-anarchists by definition. Some non-anarchists ask the anarchists to tone down the anarchy talk but, again generally speaking, non-anarchists don't tell the anarchists to go away and don't attack them personally. The discussions are often lively, but the majority of posts on both sides are very thoughtful and respectful. I'm sure you can find individual examples of anti-anarchist non-anarchists, but your question is about the general atmosphere and I don't see anti-anarchist attitudes.

As for anarchy threads scaring away potential Ron Paul supporters, I don't buy that. If people can't tell the difference between Ron Paul's positions and the philosophies of his supporters, they are going to fall for whatever the MSM is pushing anyway. And if they are put off by challenging discussions and prefer "A is more presidential than B", then they probably don't embrace liberty all that much and will vote for whichever candidate paints the scariest terrorism picture. The open discussions on RPF are thought provoking and refreshing. Anyone craving a little freedom of expression (within admin/mod set limits, of course), will find RPF a breath of fresh air. I certainly did.

 

[Travlyr]

Who enforces "the law" in a minimalist state?

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

A communal organization run by a bureaucracy beholden to special interests, mob-rule, and self-favors. And this is immune from the price mechanism. How much "property protection" are you willing to pay for? Would you live in abject poverty to fund a gestapo that patrolled everything 24-7? Maybe you would, and anarchy would give you that option. But it would also give you the option to devote little to no money to protection if you desired "living on the edge".

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

If you can convince me, and 100% of everyone else, that there is a single, perfect, level of property rights protection, we may join your system. Until then, how does your minimalist state handle dissenters? Those who see that public-choice economics and monopoly theory prove that a single entity providing ANY good or service will inflate their prices and reduce their quality are awaiting your answer.

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.

You want something (property rights, a well-suited defense force, legal system, health-care system, education system, etc.), pay for it or find a benefactor. TANSTAAFL. Be the change you wish to see.

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.

Who enforces the law in an anarchic society? YOU DO!

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

You get to choose the best service, you get to choose the method of enforcement, AND YOU HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE to others who see your law as unjust. And they to the rest of society.

This is the same as minarchy.

Do you have some need to be ruled, or is it that you have the need to rule others?

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.

I don't think I'll join game night at your house...

The term refers to rulers OVER OTHER PEOPLE, having dominion over property is not "ruling" it, and rules need not be enforced by a single Ruler. If we hypothesize that one ruler was needed, who would keep him acting within the rules so that the rule of law was not just a myth? The ruled? Another Ruler? In either case, if a set of rules is going to remain neutral between men it must devolve into anarchy: no one person truly is a Ruler because they always have to answer to someone else.

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.

 

[Wesker1982]

However...ruling implies coercion and gang turf not willing to be ceded...whereas property is alienable (it can be transferred to another), not inalienable, so you never "rule" it, you own it. You will cede it upon death, unlike your inalienable (non-transferrable) rights...assuming you don't sell it first.

This is perhaps semantics, but in the spirit of the meaning of the word, anarchy meansd literally "without rulers".

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.

 

[ProIndividual]

You are putting yourself in the category of extremist, not I.

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 is wrong.

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

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

Ignorance, btw, doesn't mean stupid...it means uneducated. Like most people are ignorant to any writing about anarchism beyond a State school textbook or State influenced politically correct dictionary. Just like MOST Americans are ignorant to the Constitution, and it's original intent.



Lastly, and for the second time, I'm a Christian Deist (a constructional Deist)...so why use the Christianity loathing angle on me? It doesn't apply. Also, I'm not against the Constitution, if it's "consent of the governed", and I mean individually as well as States. You might see this as "sacreligious", but I see it as the logical end of your own argument....I hope that clears that little misunderstanding up.

 

[Deborah K]

The non-anarchists, generally speaking, do not appear to be anti-anarchist to me. They might be anti-anarchism (opposed to the philosophy of anarchy), but that's what makes them non-anarchists by definition. Some non-anarchists ask the anarchists to tone down the anarchy talk but, again generally speaking, non-anarchists don't tell the anarchists to go away and don't attack them personally. The discussions are often lively, but the majority of posts on both sides are very thoughtful and respectful. I'm sure you can find individual examples of anti-anarchist non-anarchists, but your question is about the general atmosphere and I don't see anti-anarchist attitudes.

As for anarchy threads scaring away potential Ron Paul supporters, I don't buy that. If people can't tell the difference between Ron Paul's positions and the philosophies of his supporters, they are going to fall for whatever the MSM is pushing anyway. And if they are put off by challenging discussions and prefer "A is more presidential than B", then they probably don't embrace liberty all that much and will vote for whichever candidate paints the scariest terrorism picture. The open discussions on RPF are thought provoking and refreshing. Anyone craving a little freedom of expression (within admin/mod set limits, of course), will find RPF a breath of fresh air. I certainly did.

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.

 

[Wesker1982]

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

The same people would be the consumers choosing which defense agencies to fund.

You can't simultaneously believe that the consumers (the people) are too stark-raving mad and ignorant to govern themselves and choose to fund non-sociopathic defense services, while believing the very same people are sane and educated enough to elect mentally sound, non-corrupt, and wise leaders. It would be explicit doublethink to hold this view.