Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Unkotare]

Anarchists are arrested-development morons.

So listen to the book I posted above, and prove it by refuting its arguments.

Nah, you won’t do that. Why bother? It’s so much easier to just dismiss them as morons, especially since most people agree... at least for now.

Not my first rodeo, junior. I don’t need a book on tape to know what’s what.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Weird how I never hear productive, hard working, successful people talk about this “ruling class”....yet the 39 year olds with neck tattoos, driving pintos and living in mamas converted garage always seem to bring it up. Aren’t they they ones who need a “ruling class”...doesn’t their survival depend on a “ruling class”?

Oh, so people who achieve success are less likely to acknowledge the injustices of the system within which they succeed? Amazing! I can’t imagine why this is so...

Good, productive, hard working successful people don’t have time to dwell on “injustices”...we’re too busy making money, raising families, becoming and doing better, enjoying life and controlling our own destinies...weird huh?

 

[toobfreak]

.

Brian, there are so many obvious, gaping, horrible flaws in your tiresome reasoning as you try to make a case for anarchy, that I finally decided against even trying to reason with you on a point by point basis, I know that would be a total waste of my time. Instead, I suggest the best thing for you to do is grow a long beard and walk up and down the street of a city somewhere with one of those signs you wear over your body front and back proclaiming the evils of the world and your solution------ anarchy.

Say, were you by chance a Haight-Ashbury hippie in the '60's?

 

[toobfreak]

Man, your head is crammed full of more crap than a waste car on its way to a shit landfill in Alabama---- let me tell you, I'm about as much against big government as anyone, but you cannot have law and order to a society, ie, a hedge against chaos and anarchy, without some officially recognized hierarchy of authority. Local authority, state and federal jurisdiction, each with a different set of responsibilities each to govern by law. People abide by laws as a central foundation to the very essence of civilization; the very word anarchy defines a state where there is no law, no central authority, and it is every man for himself.

Someone sure did a fuck job on your head, man, you are really messed up. Most telling was when I gave you that video and rather than focusing on the CONTENT, you triggered on the background music and images that were a mere video accompaniment to go along as illustration for what the dialog was about, as if it were some sort of "conspiracy." I don't know where your brain went wrong, if your parents dropped you on your head as a baby, but you have some seriously bad wiring. Another USMB Loon added to my list of idiots.

Actually, like most Anarchist with which I have interacted, Blackwell is very thoughtful. He actually takes time to examine his own beliefs and consider alternatives. He effectively and efficiently lays out his thought process, which is fairly persuasive.

The best laid-out disasters in history were well-reasoned ones. I'm sure even Adolf Hitler made very congruent and persuasive arguments to his generals for the extermination of the Jews. But the tragedy of history has always been the failure of people to see the gross errors of their reasoning until they actually try to implement it and find out too late that the results are horribly different from what they expected.

 

[dblack]

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

Unfortunately, there's so much equivocation on those concepts that your claims are hard to pin down to anything specific. Party or ideological identification gives us a general idea where someone is coming from without asking a bunch of more detailed questions.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Anarchists are arrested-development morons.

So listen to the book I posted above, and prove it by refuting its arguments.

Nah, you won’t do that. Why bother? It’s so much easier to just dismiss them as morons, especially since most people agree... at least for now.

Not my first rodeo, junior. I don’t need a book on tape to know what’s what.

Oh, great! So please explain to me how voters validly delegate rights to Congress that none of them have individually (such as the right to tax, or create law which others must obey under threat of violence).

 

[dblack]

That quote is amazing! Hahahaha

I think it's a quite depressing statement. It comes from the mindset that the only criteria for political convictions is personal. Democrats are currently parroting this view when the insist that the only reason poor people would fail to vote Democrat is because they're kidding themselves. It's inconceivable to them (the Democrats, and apparently Steinbeck), that people - even poor people - might have moral convictions outside their direct self-interest.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

.

Brian, there are so many obvious, gaping, horrible flaws in your tiresome reasoning as you try to make a case for anarchy, that I finally decided against even trying to reason with you on a point by point basis, I know that would be a total waste of my time. Instead, I suggest the best thing for you to do is grow a long beard and walk up and down the street of a city somewhere with one of those signs you wear over your body front and back proclaiming the evils of the world and your solution------ anarchy.

Say, were you by chance a Haight-Ashbury hippie in the '60's?

I don't buy into many of the theories of Anarchy either, mainly because it behaves like chlorine gas released into the atmosphere, where it immediately binds with other gases to become something else. But, exploring how society can exist without a State is a useful, if not necessary exercise if we ever want to maintain individual liberty.

Break down your reasons for believing that society is necessary. Examine the benefits of humans living in society verse living wild. Why do some individuals in society believe that others in society owe them more than mutual respect for the liberty of individuals?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Weird how I never hear productive, hard working, successful people talk about this “ruling class”....yet the 39 year olds with neck tattoos, driving pintos and living in mamas converted garage always seem to bring it up. Aren’t they they ones who need a “ruling class”...doesn’t their survival depend on a “ruling class”?

Oh, so people who achieve success are less likely to acknowledge the injustices of the system within which they succeed? Amazing! I can’t imagine why this is so...

Good, productive, hard working successful people don’t have time to dwell on “injustices”...we’re too busy making money, raising families, becoming and doing better, enjoying life and controlling our own destinies...weird huh?

Exactly. So you don’t give a fuck as long as you’re doing ok. Glad to be sharing a planet with noble heroes such as yourself.

Just so you know, that hamster wheel you’re so “successful” at has been purposefully orchestrated for your entrapment. Way to buy into a con hook, line, and sinker. But you love being a mark for city-slicker carpetbaggers like the one in your avatar, so there’s no surprise you take pride in your golden shackles.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But, just like Anarchy, pure communist utopia cannot exist.

Marx believed that Socialism was the stepping stone to the stateless utopia. He was wrong. The brief existence of utopia almost instantly evolves into Socialism. If the means of production is held in common, somebody has to decide how those means will be utilized.....BOOM....Socialism.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

.

Brian, there are so many obvious, gaping, horrible flaws in your tiresome reasoning as you try to make a case for anarchy, that I finally decided against even trying to reason with you on a point by point basis, I know that would be a total waste of my time. Instead, I suggest the best thing for you to do is grow a long beard and walk up and down the street of a city somewhere with one of those signs you wear over your body front and back proclaiming the evils of the world and your solution------ anarchy.

Say, were you by chance a Haight-Ashbury hippie in the '60's?

Just as I thought; nothing to say. You could deftly refute all my arguments, but you don’t want to spend the time. But there’s plenty of time for insults, right? I bet you shower with Windex. Who the hell are you kidding?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

Unfortunately, there's so much equivocation on those concepts that your claims are hard to pin down to anything specific. Party or ideological identification gives us a general idea where someone is coming from without asking a bunch of more detailed questions.

He’d have to confirm this, but I think “Constitutional libertarian” fits the bill.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think it's a quite depressing statement. It comes from the mindset that the only criteria for political convictions is personal. Democrats are currently parroting this view when the insist that the only reason poor people would fail to vote Democrat is because they're kidding themselves. It's inconceivable to them (the Democrats, and apparently Steinbeck), that people - even poor people - might have moral convictions outside their direct self-interest

I get your point on that, but Ayn Rand, and many like her, argued that noble motives are still selfish. You do charity. It makes you feel good. You defend the rights of another. It makes you happy and also garners reciprocity.

I stopped lying to myself about my motives. They are 100% selfish to the bone. But, that does not mean my motivations are harmful to others.

 

[toobfreak]

You could deftly refute all my arguments,

Easily. The amazing thing is that even you realize that your arguments are porous while still sticking by them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Easily. The amazing thing is that even you realize that your arguments are porous while still sticking by them

You may very well be correct. I guess we will never know if you don't take a stab at it. Blackwell listens and considers other ideas and opinions.

Give it a whirl, squirrel.

 

[dblack]

I think it's a quite depressing statement. It comes from the mindset that the only criteria for political convictions is personal. Democrats are currently parroting this view when the insist that the only reason poor people would fail to vote Democrat is because they're kidding themselves. It's inconceivable to them (the Democrats, and apparently Steinbeck), that people - even poor people - might have moral convictions outside their direct self-interest

I get your point on that, but Ayn Rand, and many like her, argued that noble motives are still selfish. You do charity. It makes you feel good. You defend the rights of another. It makes you happy and also garners reciprocity.

I stopped lying to myself about my motives. They are 100% selfish to the bone. But, that does not mean my motivations are harmful to others.

That's why I stipulated 'direct' self-interest. The core of morality is the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to see thing from a perspective outside yourself. And to recognize that what comes around goes around.

I think poor people, even more so than others, know what it's like to have the state override their personal decisions. They know what it's like to hide from the cops because they can't afford to abide by someone else's idea of the proper way to live.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's why I stipulated 'direct' self-interest. The core of morality is the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to see thing from a perspective outside yourself. And to recognize that what comes around goes around.

I think poor people, even more so than others, know what it's like to have the state override their personal decisions. They know what it's like to hide from the cops because they can't afford to abide by someone else's idea of the proper way to live.

Empathy is the very thing that allows people to live peacefully, rather than like animals, constantly trying to kill each other for prey and pussy.

The poor man hiding from cops because he cannot live by another's ideal demonstrates that society has failed to meet his needs, and he has no use for society. Is there any wonder why many like him resort to violence?

Why has society failed to meet his needs?

Was it because others failed to respect his individual liberty to the point where he was unable to peacefully pursue his own "happiness" (food and fucking)?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You could deftly refute all my arguments,

Easily. The amazing thing is that even you realize that your arguments are porous while still sticking by them.

Nonsense. I hold my position by logical necessity, due to the seeming irrefutability of the arguments. I can find no valid refutations to the arguments made by men like Lysander Spooner and Larken Rose, and have heard none from anyone else. The inequality of rights between lawmakers and all other individuals alone is a dead give-away that something’s amiss, as is the oxymoronic notion of “giving up” unalienable rights in order to protect them.

And surely you must realize that claiming you can refute something but stubbornly refusing to do so is deemed a cop-out by nearly everyone, and a sure sign that you can do no such thing.

 

[toobfreak]

You could deftly refute all my arguments,

Easily. The amazing thing is that even you realize that your arguments are porous while still sticking by them.

I hold my position by logical necessity, due to the seeming irrefutability of the arguments. I can find no valid refutations to the arguments

Rubbish. Too late to try to duck and run now. You've already admitted others could "deftly refute all my arguments" (your words). One does not refute facts, but opinions, and all opinions have the potential to be wrong. The fallacy of reason and the failing of many great philosophers is their proofs often being made contingent upon the presumed validity of many invalid statements.

And surely you must realize that claiming you can refute something but stubbornly refusing to do so is deemed a cop-out by nearly everyone, and a sure sign that you can do no such thing.

Doubly rubbish. I could also try to grow a Lilly in the crack of a boulder if I gave it enough water, time and care, but why bother when so much easier and more fruitful application of one's time to simply do so in a pond? I was teaching others about truth tables, axiomatic tautologies and the like in 1975. You're wasting your time trying to goad me into what is obviously a dead-end pseudo-intellectual argument with you; The inequality of rights between lawmakers and all other individuals, as you put it, isn't a condemnation of a republic or whatever you think, it merely shows a system being abused by a developing benign oligarchy too long allowed to game the system for themselves to a complaint base.

But to jump from the best system ever conceived to saying the solution is to just abandon all law and authority and think it might work better is to say you have clabber for brains; a fact so self-evident that it hardly befits me or any other person in spending time trying to "prove" it to someone who accepts it as fact!

 

[Oddball]

Man, your head is crammed full of more crap than a waste car on its way to a shit landfill in Alabama----

Projection.

...let me tell you, I'm about as much against big government as anyone, but you cannot have law and order to a society, ie, a hedge against chaos and anarchy, without some officially recognized hierarchy of authority.

Against big gubmint before you regurgitate every stale excuse for supporting it.

Local authority, state and federal jurisdiction, each with a different set of responsibilities each to govern by law.

Each and every one of which has, time and again, demonstrated that they're completely disinterested in staying in their box.

People abide by laws as a central foundation to the very essence of civilization;

Meaningless platitudes aren't arguments.

...the very word anarchy defines a state where there is no law, no central authority, and it is every man for himself.

Without rulers ≠ without rules.

Someone sure did a fuck job on your head, man, you are really messed up. Most telling was when I gave you that video and rather than focusing on the CONTENT, you triggered on the background music and images that were a mere video accompaniment to go along as illustration for what the dialog was about, as if it were some sort of "conspiracy." I don't know where your brain went wrong, if your parents dropped you on your head as a baby, but you have some seriously bad wiring. Another USMB Loon added to my list of idiots.

Irrelevant ad hominem attack is irrelevant...It also can't distract form the intellectual vapidity of your argument.