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

[Deborah K]

I'm all for this, and on board. And if we ever reach that goal, count on me being one of the guys saying, "Hey, this is great! Now, wouldn't it be great if we took it juuuuust a couple steps further!?"

That works!

 

[Revolution9]

Your dialectics are amusing, but sub-par, Travlyr. You would do well to study classical dialectitions.

Your rebuttals lack substance and bearing and come off mostly like one who has been pwned in public with their own phraseology and trying to forego the embarrassment by pretending it did not happen that way.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

:thumbs: We're proof of peace extending across this philosophical divide.

Only took 65 pages. Pat yourself hard on the back and try not to gag.

Rev9

 

[CCTelander]

awwww, can ya feel the love?

Honestly?

No, not much.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Your rebuttals lack substance and bearing and come off mostly like one who has been pwned in public with their own phraseology and trying to forego the embarrassment by pretending it did not happen that way.

Rev9

I don't need to make a lengthy rebuttal to an argument with no substance (such as yours) any more than I need to make a rebuttal to someone who thinks they are clever by making a joke about my mother. I was not pwned, and you know this. You don't even know why you're on the offensive against me. You have deluded yourself into thinking I am an anarchist or an apologist for one. It could not be further from the truth. In fact, I've numerous times offered my services as an artist/musician/composer on these very boards for no charge, as long as the projects are related to RP's campaign or a relevant cause.

You should take all the effort you put into insulting others and use it to find a way to make minarchy work, as noone else has been able to do it these past 230 years.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Your rebuttals lack substance and bearing and come off mostly like one who has been pwned in public with their own phraseology and trying to forego the embarrassment by pretending it did not happen that way.

Rev9

Your posts in this thread have contributed nothing to the discussion here. One wonders why you bother. You've said that you've debated it in the past and don't care to make the case for your repeated unsubstantiated claims like "anarchy is false freedom" and "anarchists are tools of the bankers", so why bother posting in the thread at all? You've said that it's because you enjoy "smacking" around us anarchists. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that you've done nothing of the sort. This is a childish tactic, and I'd guess that if everyone in this thread were completely honest, they'd say the same thing. You merely lash out angrily, posting nothing of a coherent counter-point to the many that have been posed, and not only do you lack the grace and humility to acknowledge this, you actually think you're contributing in some way? I'm actually kind of embarrassed for you.

 

[Deborah K]

Incorrect. It is my creator the allows me to speak freely. The government can and does censor speech it doesn't like. (remember the persecution of Julian Assange?)

I think you know what I meant by that. But if not, then allow me to restate it - you have the freedom in this country to harshly criticize the government whereas in many other countries doing so would get your head cut off.

Until the rise of liberalism in the West, there was always tyranny (strictly speaking), except in a few places in the world that the various empires hadn't reached. Anarchy may not break tyranny everywhere, but anarchists in the past have ended tyranny locally. Interestingly, the kings of old were much less tyrannical than modern presidents. If you are concerned about preventing tyranny with constitutional government, you should argue for a limited monarchy, as Hamilton originally did.

Anarchists are not the only ones who have ended tyranny in the past. And my argument is not about preventing tyranny with a Constitutional gov't. My argument is that no matter what you put into place, the cycle will eventually repeat itself because man is a mere mortal with tendencies toward domination. It is foolish to think that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the answer.

Why do you consider yourself an individualist if you don't believe others have the right to opt out of the government in favor of a government they prefer?

Because I don't consider that the litmus test. And besides, I have no problem with people opting out of government - knock yourself out.

Whether the Constitution gives the government permission to use violence does not and will not prevent it from happening anyway.

Exactly, because of man's nature. So why would you think any substantial change would come from an anarchic society? Oh, perhaps in the beginning, like with all system changes, there's freedom - yaye! Then the cycle repeats itself till we're right back where we started.

It is not willful ignorance to say that governments led by mere mortal men lead to tyranny.

It most definitely is, when you are of the impression that somehow mere mortal man will only become tyrannical with a government and not in an anarchic environment.

It is the most consistent trend in civic history. This is why many (if not most) classical American theorists insisted government be manned by god-fearing men. The Constitution offers no objective moral code for governance. This is one of the reasons I want the option to choose a moral government. If men were angels, you would have a good case. But they are not.

Nice chatting with you, as always.

Taken by itself, the Constitution does not offer a moral code, but taken with the DOI, it does. I suspect that the Founders didn't anticipate the country being infiltrated by marxism and secularism. But even so, I doubt installing a moral code in the Constitution would have prevented what has happened. Men aren't Angels. That has been my argument all along, and that is why your ideal - anarchy - will fall into the same cycle as everything else.

 

[Wesker1982]

Congratulations!

TY all

You might want to just pass on those 40+ pages, however. They're not likely to do much for your mood!

Yeah, so far it doesn't seem like anything new lol.

I just want to know if anyone has addressed this yet:

Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.

and

But more profoundly, would a laissez-fairist recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from that country? Is it legitimate for West Ruitania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why not? And if so, then how can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual? Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled.

I have posted these questions quite a few times but I have not received even one response. It is completely ignored, yet important imo.

I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.

Absolutely! I don't spend hours debating with certain people here to necessarily change their minds. It is nice if that happens, but I have no delusions about the stubborn cognitive dissonance and/or Stockholm syndrome that isn't likely to wither in some people. Watching other people debate each other about anarcho-libertarianism on the 2+2 forum is how my mind was changed too, btw.

I really appreciate the discussion, though. The minarchists will probably lol at this, but thanks to them, I have an answer for everything now. I have had to ponder about certain criticisms that never even crossed my mind before some of the debates here occurred. It is so easy to get stuck in auto-pilot answering easy questions about roads or taxes that sometimes I forget that once in a while someone might actually come up with a criticism that I haven't addressed 10,000 times already. That is the main reason why I post.

They have also inspired me to continually desire more knowledge in economics. At some point I figured out that many of the criticisms are based on many of the same economic fallacies that frustrate the minarchists themselves when debating the average American. Oddly enough (but makes perfect sense now), studying economics, not anarchist theory, has helped me understand how a voluntary society would function.

In my dream scenario of crowds of friends and family coming up to me and asking: "Ok Master Obi-Wan, we are your apprentices. Where should we begin our training?" I know now that I would definitely start them (or at least make sure they have a basic understanding of the material) with Economics in One Lesson, How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, and Meltdown.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think you know what I meant by that. But if not, then allow me to restate it - you have the freedom in this country to harshly criticize the government whereas in many other countries doing so would get your head cut off.



Anarchists are not the only ones who have ended tyranny in the past. And my argument is not about preventing tyranny with a Constitutional gov't. My argument is that no matter what you put into place, the cycle will eventually repeat itself because man is a mere mortal with tendencies toward domination. It is foolish to think that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the answer.




Because I don't consider that the litmus test. And besides, I have no problem with people opting out of government - knock yourself out.



Exactly, because of man's nature. So why would you think any substantial change would come from an anarchic society? Oh, perhaps in the beginning, like with all system changes, there's freedom - yaye! Then the cycle repeats itself till we're right back where we started.




It most definitely is, when you are of the impression that somehow mere mortal man will only become tyrannical with a government and not in an anarchic environment.




Taken by itself, the Constitution does not offer a moral code, but taken with the DOI, it does. I suspect that the Founders didn't anticipate the country being infiltrated by marxism and secularism. But even so, I doubt installing a moral code in the Constitution would have prevented what has happened. Men aren't Angels. That has been my argument all along, and that is why your ideal - anarchy - will fall into the same cycle as everything else.

Deborah, you keep claiming my ideal to be anarchism, when I have told you repeatedly it is not.(though I respect anarchists' desire to secede and form their own anarchist territory, as Jefferson accepted States' rights of secession) I am a voluntaryist. My ideals are more in line with the Declaration of Independence (and general individualist liberty/classical liberalism) than yours. We can't have a conversation if you are going to go on putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my positions this way.

 

[Deborah K]

Deborah, you keep claiming my ideal to be anarchism, when I have told you repeatedly it is not. I am a voluntaryist. My ideals are more in line with the Declaration of Independence (and general individualist liberty/classical liberalism) than yours. We can't have a conversation if you are going to go on putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my positions this way.

That's not my intention. When I use the term 'anarchy' I try to be inclusive of all forms of it by writing 'anarchy' et al. And I'm not trying to single you out. Actually, I'm not really even trying to argue against anarchy, et al. as much as I'm arguing that the focus should include our biggest obstacle to true freedom - man's nature.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's not my intention. When I use the term 'anarchy' I try to be inclusive of all forms of it by writing 'anarchy' et al. And I'm not trying to single you out. Actually, I'm not really even trying to argue against anarchy, et al. as much as I'm arguing that the focus should include our biggest obstacle to true freedom - man's nature.

I agree that man's nature is a big obstacle. (I'm reminded of the Jefferson quote in my sig) However, it would be better to allow people to find ways to deal with man's nature in peaceful, voluntary ways. I'm sure some people would accept the constitutional way, and I don't mind that. Other people will find their own ways. These various ways of developing peaceful interactions don't necessarily have to be in conflict any more than Texas affairs are separate from California affairs or Indian tribes vs. States, and so on. Nice chatting with you, my friend.

 

[Deborah K]

I agree that man's nature is a big obstacle. (I'm reminded of the Jefferson quote in my sig) However, it would be better to allow people to find ways to deal with man's nature in peaceful, voluntary ways. I'm sure some people would accept the constitutional way, and I don't mind that. Other people will find their own ways. These various ways of developing peaceful interactions don't necessarily have to be in conflict any more than Texas affairs are separate from California affairs or Indian tribes vs. States, and so on. Nice chatting with you, my friend.

No argument from me on this. Always a pleasure, HB.

 

[ProIndividual]

Here we are, back to debating philosophy, when the request was to please stop bashing Ron Paul's positions on Christianity and restoring the Constitution.

Except we never bashed ANY of Ron Paul's positions on Christianity or restoring the Constitution...it aids our cause to shrink the State. Unwilling as you may be, we are allies.

So why keep posting and keeping the thread alive, when you claim the thread hurts RP 2012?

Because you're the problem...you are your attacking friends. Stop making up stuff, and we'll quit defending ourselves.


The fundamental flaws of what all the small government statists are saying here:

1. Aggression is always wrong unless in self defense (we agree), or if the State does it (we disagree).

2. Self defense is always okay (we agree), unless it's in response to attacks from small government statists on anarchists (we disagree).

3. Our self defense to YOUR attacks somehow harm the RP2012 campaign (we disagree).

For #3, the real problem is YOUR attacks. The thread would be dead by now if not for YOU guys and YOUR attacks on what WE have proved to be false definitions of the word "anarchy", and for that matter "anarchism".

Either READ and accept you were wrong about the definitions in question...or just stop coming to this post and re-assereting your nonsense. Either way, the post only continues with the presence of statist attackers, and the definition doesn't just magically change because a State school taught it to you wrong in order to propagandize you, nor does it change because you refuse to READ anything that conflicts with that bastardized, false, and propaganda-filled definition you seem to hold so dear.

Last I checked, anarchists aren't destroying this country or it's government...the statist are. You might want to a long hard look in the mirror and decisde if WE are the real problem in the world, or YOU (and those you enable) are.

But maybe your conscience doesn't have mirror, like mine does.

 

[ProIndividual]

The fact is, the history of the nature of man is cyclical: liberty, complacency, dependency, tyranny, revolution. Anarchy is not going to break that cycle.

Actually, anarchy does break that cycle, because we aren't competing for this monopoly on violence the State lauds over everyone but who holds it.

The cycle you speak of, I also spoke of in a previous post you didn't read. I said the State never expects stability...it always accepts a violent overthrow as it it's only way to release power over others. This is expected and accepted by statists, as they cannot conceive of simply getting rid of the monopoly on power that causes the violent overthrows to begin with. No one overthrows things unless it takes a control OFF of them, and/or gives them control of others.

The anarchist realizes stability is a myth, propagated by the false dichotomy of who should run the government, Gang A or Gang B. We are MORE stable in essence, because we do not accept the idea that any one group should laud absolute power over others without their consent. So, since stability of governance is a myth, and life is actually ordered by a capitalist principle, spontaneous order, we can expect whoever has power to a greater or lesser extent at any given time to vary. For example, you hold power over your child, but at a certain age, the child resists, and they disobey and rebel. Then the child becomes an adult, and the power is now theirs over themselves. Later you age, and they hold power over you now. The order of life, and the power structure of it, are time dependent and situational. Since we do not fight this "free market of power", and free markets always become niche, due to Division of Labor, there are no "booms" and "busts" of power, i.e. violent overthrows of a monopoly that doesn't exist.

The same way the FED causes booms and busts in the finanical economy, the statists and the State cause booms and busts in the political economy. Stop blowing up the bubble, fighting market forces that cause growth and contraction cyclically and predictably in political power structures, and you'll quit having your busts of violent takeover.

Gang A and Gang B are no way to run a moral or civil political system. It's just two gangs.

 

[ProIndividual]

Also...let me say...I see agreement on many points now...

...GOOD.


If you go back and read all my lengthy posts on here, you'll find these points of current agreement were stated then.

I also agree completely of course with what the Constitutionalists and minarchists, and anarchists (or Free Constitutionalists, or Natural Lawyers, Lysander Spooner called us) are now agrreing to.

This is all we seek...the right to opt out of the government unless we have harmed someone (not it's forceful abolition), and the right to organize voluntarily, or not.

This is why I pointed out several times that minarchy and anarchy are compatable even if different, as no land area is designated with coercion to hold a monopoly on violence (statist law). The State says minarchists and anarchists may not exist...only one top-down law applies to everyone in a certain area. The Minarchy says there is no such area, but is such a government system without it. In that, anarchists are free to secede and live without any governance external from them at all, given they do not harm others.

None of us have to agree on which is the best way to organize society if we all agree to the basic tenant that this organization is voluntary. No one has to follow laws beyond harm unless they choose to, no matter what area they are in. The only way this applies differently is if a group gives over their property rights voluntarily to a collective, and then makes rules for that area...but even then, it only effects the voluntary residents and their children, not anyone who happens to be in this collectivist area.



Like I said from the beginning...we are allies. We all should agree on some basic tenants. It's the word "anarchy" that causes the problem for those who do not know it's history or what it actually means. Us being allied isn't dependent on semantics, and doesn't suggest we completely agree either. It just implies we agree on MOST things, or at least SOMETHING of importance. I just hope all the statists can see, we didn't want to pick a fight here...we just don't want to be told false things about our own philosophy and ethics, and don't want to told that IF we reach the small government statist view of the Constitution that we will be then excluded from pursuing any further of a voluntary and logical end for ourselves.

In most Revolutions in history (not the American Revolution though, which is telling), the anarchists who fought along side the "patriots" were often rounded up and shot or deported right after the revolution.

This is why we oppose any violent revolution...we know we are next in most cases (that, and a moral stand against aggression NOT in self defense). This is also why we so love Ron Paul and his ideas...he not only shrinks the State back to levels where a discussion like this can happen and have a possibility of implementation, but he also genuinely seems not to reject us (and therefore not keen on rounding us up and shooting or deporting us).

I hope the statists can see, I'm not your enemy, I am your ally. We will only come into conflict IF we reach your goal of Constitutional society FIRST. We cannot bypass Constitutionalism and go straight to anarchy...unless we fail, and the State completely collapses. Even then, I doubt a voluntary society will spring forth (anarchy/minarchy, depending on what you choose), it's far more likely chaos will ensue and a tyrant will replace the tyranny we have already. None of us want that.

Ron Paul 2012...it's all any of us want.

I'll take it as a peace treaty if we stop arguing on the philosophy and ethics and start saying nice things about each others points of agreement.



I'll start:

DeborahK, your last post to heavenlyboy just got +rep'd.

 

[TER]

The anarchist realizes stability is a myth, propagated by the false dichotomy of who should run the government, Gang A or Gang B. We are MORE stable in essence, because we do not accept the idea that any one group should laud absolute power over others without their consent. So, since stability of governance is a myth, and life is actually ordered by a capitalist principle, spontaneous order, we can expect whoever has power to a greater or lesser extent at any given time to vary. For example, you hold power over your child, but at a certain age, the child resists, and they disobey and rebel. Then the child becomes an adult, and the power is now theirs over themselves. Later you age, and they hold power over you now. The order of life, and the power structure of it, are time dependent and situational.

Pardon me, but this is what was the snake whispered to Adam and Eve.

The fact is that before you, was your parents, and before them, their parents, and on and on and on all the way back to our Source and Creator, Who blew His Breath and Spirit into the creation He made which was good. Whether evolving from monkeys or from microscopic amoebas or from invisible cosmic dust, but not whether, but rather through and in communion with and in loving relationship, the lion laying down with the sheep and the living all and in all.

And from dust we were formed and in dust our flesh will become, for the flesh profit nothing compared to the Spirit. And so, it is how we live in these garments of skin which will justify us before the Final Judge.

But to say that the child has power over their parent as the normal and natural cycle of human beings reveals much, and reminds me why I, and the vast majority of people who have ever lived, have rejected anarchy as a facilitator of a peaceful and just society, but rather the breakdown of.

 

[TER]

Gang A and Gang B are no way to run a moral or civil political system. It's just two gangs.

And the Revolutionary Patriots of this country were also a 'gang'.

 

[TER]

That there should be order is good. Note, I am not saying 'tyranny'! Liberty for all, by all means! But there should be order and laws, namely, a Republic, democratically elected. Because out of the utter chaos of nature, there develops laws of entropy. And from these laws comes order order and beauty and goodness. Not one at the expense of the other or as a substitute for, but rather all together, a unity of many, a singularity and oneness.

The very values of life do not lead to chaos, but harmony, symmetry and enjoining. In a word, communion.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Except we never bashed ANY of Ron Paul's positions on Christianity or restoring the Constitution...it aids our cause to shrink the State. Unwilling as you may be, we are allies.

<snip>

Don't even start with me. I've been around here a long time. All we are asking is that you stop attacking the Constitution and Christianity during the campaign. If you have not seen it, you are blind. Promoting anarchy on a forum bearing Ron Paul's name is not too smart, either. That is, if you want him to have a chance at winning.

This is his last election. I hope we all will support him in his efforts and do our best not to do harm to his campaign.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The anarchist realizes stability is a myth, propagated by the false dichotomy of who should run the government, Gang A or Gang B. We are MORE stable in essence, because we do not accept the idea that any one group should laud absolute power over others without their consent. So, since stability of governance is a myth, and life is actually ordered by a capitalist principle, spontaneous order, we can expect whoever has power to a greater or lesser extent at any given time to vary. For example, you hold power over your child, but at a certain age, the child resists, and they disobey and rebel. Then the child becomes an adult, and the power is now theirs over themselves. Later you age, and they hold power over you now. The order of life, and the power structure of it, are time dependent and situational. Since we do not fight this "free market of power", and free markets always become niche, due to Division of Labor, there are no "booms" and "busts" of power, i.e. violent overthrows of a monopoly that doesn't exist.

The same way the FED causes booms and busts in the finanical economy, the statists and the State cause booms and busts in the political economy. Stop blowing up the bubble, fighting market forces that cause growth and contraction cyclically and predictably in political power structures, and you'll quit having your busts of violent takeover.

This is a very interesting way of stating the anti-state viewpoint, as well as a very interesting interpretation of the justification for statism - the desire to exert control and eliminate instability. Thanks.