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

[ProIndividual]

And to Vessol...

...I LOVE your comments.

To Wesker...

...You rock as well.

To all the other Voluntaryists, anarchists, and REAL minarchists (not to include small government statists)...

...thank you for your help...it is massively appreciated.

Keep up the good fight!


And to small government statists...insofar as we all want Ron Paul elected, you also keep up the good fight...we are not enemies.

 

[ProIndividual]

And one more, for the record...

Do you guys think that Ron wears black and gold ties by coincidence? He is an Austrian economist, aka, anarcho-capitalist. So, the idea he isn't sympathetic to anarchism in general, or doesn't consider himself ancap, is my opinion willfull blindness.

Sure, he is NOT a full blown anarchist...but to be a true free market capitalist, you must at least agree that ANY regulation of the markets beyond harm (or the intention of it) is tyranny...and economically backwards. This is certainly what Austrians believe.

So, you all, if you are free market capitalists anyway (which not all of you are), support anarchy in economics (whether you know it or not). Therefore, you just disagree with us on social and moral theory...and hence why we feel safe in saying our ideas are consistant, plausible, and better overall in a moral and social sense.

You do not have to agree with us...but we certainly aren't "in the wrong place", or very far off of your beliefs. Even the small government statists resemble us immensely in comparison to most other social and moral theories in our population of America. We all occupy the same area of the philosophical game board. We simply feel that we take the main principles to the logical ends, instead of stopping short of the logical end with small government statism, minarchism, or any other form of philosophy and ethics closely resembling our own.

We get the most scorn because we are the position that cannot be "out-flanked". There is no one smaller government than us, so in order to not feel inconsistant or more authoritarian than us, many will dismiss our beliefs as nonsense, impractical, or without historical merit...

...but generally, this is done without EVER reading any of the writings of anarchists, agorists, voluntaryists, minarchists, etc., etc. (depending on your position philosophically).

Like minarchist or small government statist libertarians, anarchist libertarians (words that are synonymous everywhere in the world but here) arrived at our beliefs through education and reading...not a lack thereof.

We read Locke and Hobbes, Bastiat and Ricardo, etc., etc...we just happen to disagree on some substantive points. These men are not holier-than-thou, and are NOT beyond criticism. We prefer Spooner, Tucker, Konkin III, etc., etc. when it comes to moral and social theory (although we see their economics as flawed, and criticize them like all Austrians do).

I myslef am not a pure Austrian, or Rothbardian...but variance is cool for us all...this is why anarchists NEVER wish to use laws to seek uniformity. The same cannot be said for many of the fans of our opposing, and yet similar, schools of thought.

 

[Revolution9]

And how does a lack of Archons mean something bad? Seems to me those Archons you're describing in some Greek mythological terms (fuckin' reptiles and fetuses you say...lol) are BAD. So, anything opposed to these INVADERS would be anarchists...without archons.<snip banalities and falsities>

I didn't describe anything. You understood nothing in your rush to defend your babble. The description comes from ancient texts. They are the ones describing the two types of entities..long before the modern UFO flaps. Anarchy is an illusion and counterfeit of freedom. I have no interest in it except to stop them from trashing the furniture our grandfathers and their grandfathers put in place for their grandchildrens benefit. Be nice if they woke up instead of spewing endless dogma about counterfeit freedom.

Rev9

 

[ProIndividual]

Anarchy is an illusion and counterfeit of freedom

Again you state this as fact, and have nothing to support the assertion other than religious mumbo jumbo, ala...

The description comes from ancient texts. They are the ones describing the two types of entities..long before the modern UFO flaps.

You are one of these David Icke lizard people believers aren't you?

Yeah, it's me who is being unreasonable...lol.

 

[Vessol]

I didn't describe anything. You understood nothing in your rush to defend your babble. The description comes from ancient texts. They are the ones describing the two types of entities..long before the modern UFO flaps. Anarchy is an illusion and counterfeit of freedom. I have no interest in it except to stop them from trashing the furniture our grandfathers and their grandfathers put in place for their grandchildrens benefit. Be nice if they woke up instead of spewing endless dogma about counterfeit freedom.

Rev9

Care to elaborate?

You're just stating, you are not trying to propose any logical argument.

 

[Revolution9]

Care to elaborate?

You're just stating, you are not trying to propose any logical argument.

Yeah..it was meant to be a set of tacks in the road of this continuously and always the same debate. I stepped in to spread some enlightenment..and now I got some attention This subject, The Archons is not easy to sum up or debate in a post or two...or probably even a millennia of writings..and then you either "know it" through analysis of reality or "you don't know it", but let's see if I can toss out a view of the overall and supplement with some further links.

The Archons are the true enemy. They are an alien intrusion of an inorganic intelligence. They affect us through our minds with illusion by manipulating our perceptions of reality. The Head Archon claims to have created The Universe, or at least this part of it. He is blind and mistook matter for The Creation. There are two types according to ancient texts, a neonate or embryonic like entity with large unmoving eyes and a draconic or reptile like entity with a tail. They envy us for our Divine Soul and feed on our fear. They hate The Creation because they do not understand it. They were called the 'Soul Stealers that came at night' in the old texts and there was prescriptions for dealing with them. This was considered the most important of issues facing Man till The Library of Alexandria was sacked and burned. Their goal is the destruction of Man through debasement by replacing reality with illusion and the trashing of the environment of this planet. They work through "leaders" by affecting them mentally with various self delusions. It is the inhuman force behind the tyrant, genocider and killer. Anarchy is archonic in its very form and dialectic verbiage. It is a counterfeit and illusion of true Divine Ordained freedom. The Archons are messengers of deception.

The Gnostic Theory of Alien Intrusion by John Nash - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/esp_vida_alien_18v.htm
An Archive of Archon related texts with links in the docs to reference further informations. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/alien_archons.htm

See also the works of Jacques Vallee, medieval demonology, the Nag Hammadi texts, The Hypostasis of The Archons, Don Juan of Castaneda books telling us about The Enemy giving us its morose and corrupt mind in a stupendous battle maneuver. That oughta keep you busy a while. It is an interesting subject and something to seriously dwell on in many respects.

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[LibertyEagle]

And one more, for the record...

Do you guys think that Ron wears black and gold ties by coincidence? the fans of our opposing, and yet similar, schools of thought.

Oh how funny. Surely you must be kidding. All kinds of men of all kinds of political persuasions wear black/gold ties.

I'm sorry, but this reminds me of when so many people on here absolutely insisted that Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand. It wasn't true of course.

 

[AceNZ]

That is a wild mis-characterization of what I or any other voluntaryist proposes.

I've been talking about anarchy, which to me means no laws and no government.

What's sad is that I've seen this complete misrepresentation before on these boards. it shows a general lack of the history of law and 'punishment'. For the majority of history, and especially in medieval Iceland and Ireland, law systems were part of the free market and there was no set laws and incarceration imposed of by the State. Rather, there was a system of paying reparations to the victim as decided by a private arbitrator whose reputation depended on his impartialness.

I'm OK with reparations and no incarceration (mostly; there are corner cases). But I do think we need objective laws and a minimal, stripped-to-the-bones government.

Are you advocating a return to medievalism? In those days, the "private arbitrator" basically was the law. That's not anarchy.

No voluntaryist is proposing a company that would assassinate people. They would never support anything that supports the initiation of force. Please stop strawmaning us.

I never said you would support it. But with anarchy, it could be done, right? And who's to say that assassination is necessarily an initiation of force? What if the company only killed in retaliation against others who initiated force?

Then it wouldn't be a government, it would be a company. Please explain to me how they would be any different from a private company if they depend on attracting customers to their services.

It's different because it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of (defensive) force, outside of immediate self-defense type scenarios. Also, the people who run it would be elected.

 

[AceNZ]

You might be an anarchist, but because of the perversion of today's definition of it, you may not wish to call yourself that. But what you are describing is anarchic, for sure.

Anarchy means no government and no laws. I'm not in favor of that at all. As I said above, what I support is a bare minimum government and bare minimum laws. I call that minarchism ("min," as in "minimal").

I may be mistaken, but I believe you refer to yourself as a minarchist...but if you reject all social contracts (the Constitution is a social contract), then you are an anarchist essentially. Without the social contract, no gang turf can be established, and therefore no gang can run it by violence, or threat therof.

I disagree.

In anarchy, what's to stop a gang with guns from running things through violence? They certainly don't need a contract, social or otherwise, to do so. What's your defense? Another gang?

I don't want to tell you what to call yourself...but certainly minarchy requires a social contract.

Disagree again.

Again, minarchists can co-exist with anarchists, whereas the State cannot co-exist with either. Minarchy has a voluntary social contract, but do not force anarchists into them. So, no matter which you are, you are our ally .

I don't support pure anarchy. However, you might think of me as an ally in the sense that I would only actively oppose it if it was being proposed for an area where I live -- unlike Collectivism, which I oppose no matter where it appears. I would also never trade with someone who I knew supported anarchy; too much uncertainty and risk.

Ps. You mention "morality" vs consent...errrrrr wrong! There is no morality that can coerce another without consent, unless that person has caused or intended a harm previous to the coercion. Your individual sovereignty prevents it.

I did not say that morality will coerce. I said that it is your morality that binds you to a proper government, not a social contract.

This may be a semantic point, but certainly "consent of the governed" is required for ANY social contract that is moral.

I reject the entire concept of social contracts, so obviously that includes any required consent.

A "proper government" is one by consent....the only exception is when harm is intended or caused by the individual you wish to govern.

If a proper government exists, and you are born into it, and therefore have not explicitly consented to it, does that mean the government is no longer proper?

If you are a criminal and decline to give consent to the government, does that mean it's not proper?

I am my own "proper government", as I have the ability, and therfore the right, to govern myself, as long as no one else is harmed, or intended to be harmed, in the process.

Being your own "government" is fine, as long as you never interact with others. If/when you do, though, in a civilized society, those interactions require certain standards. For example, exactly who determines whether you harmed or intended to harm someone else (or whether you violated their property rights)? You? What if the other person disagrees? I know, back to third party arbitration -- but then you really aren't governing yourself, right?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Anarchy means no government and no laws.

Anarchism, strictly defined, means a system with no leader. Law is a separate issue. Anarchists have varying opinions on law.

 

[Revolution9]

Anarchism, strictly defined, means a system with no leader. Law is a separate issue. Anarchists have varying opinions on law.

And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to? You do realize what a joke you clowns are with this crap. It is akin to talking back to mommy and daddy except yer frakking adults. I refuse to take any of you seriously. You give me no good reasons at all. Just obfuscation and shuffle rolls around the issue.

Rev9

 

[A Son of Liberty]

And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to?

Etymology?

You do realize what a joke you clowns are with this crap. It is akin to talking back to mommy and daddy except yer frakking adults. I refuse to take any of you seriously. You give me no good reasons at all. Just obfuscation and shuffle rolls around the issue.

Rev9

LOL

 

[Deborah K]

Etymology?



LOL

Are you sure you're not just parroting certain people who consider themselves "authorities" on the subject?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And from what AUTHORITY does this strictly defined definition arise you collectively adhere to? You do realize what a joke you clowns are with this crap. It is akin to talking back to mommy and daddy except yer frakking adults. I refuse to take any of you seriously. You give me no good reasons at all. Just obfuscation and shuffle rolls around the issue.

Rev9

Mutually agreed-to authority (viz. a contract-unlike the mythical "social contract" advanced by minarchists). Where do you get the AUTHORITY to form a government? I would say you're the one begging to be nannyed like a child (the state taking the paternal role). I refuse to take you seriously because you rely on inductive reasoning, which is unsound by its very nature. I've never obfuscated anything here. Quit your whining and admit you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Travlyr]

Mutually agreed-to authority.

At what age?

 

[Deborah K]

At what age?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

At what age?

An adult in this society is 18. At that age, he can choose. Till then, his parents choose for him. However, this number is obviously arbitrary, as some people mature faster than others. In this case, a person younger than 18 would have to legally divorce himself from parental authority. The mechanism for doing this depends on the time and place. This is basically the way things worked before the modern State, and humanity did just fine (even better than now, in many ways).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're too impatient, Deb. I can't attend to every question immediately. Have patience, little one.

 

[Travlyr]

An adult in this society is 18. At that age, he can choose. Till then, his parents choose for him. However, this number is obviously arbitrary, as some people mature faster than others. In this case, a person younger than 18 would have to legally divorce himself from parental authority. The mechanism for doing this depends on the time and place. This is basically the way things worked before the modern State, and humanity did just fine (even better than now, in many ways).

Interesting.
And to what authority would someone under 18 appeal in order to get the divorce?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Are you sure you're not just parroting certain people who consider themselves "authorities" on the subject?

Stay thirsty, my friend.