Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Oddball]

What is so frustrating about having this type of discussion (which I have for years) is when some refuse to accept the inevitability of government and continue to argue for its nonexistence.

It is akin to arguing with people about the inevitability of gravity. It's not like I like being weighed down all the time. I just can't wish gravity to go away and have it happen. I can try to overcome it some of the time. I can fight it and resist it, but that force will never, ever, ever, EEEHEHHEHEHEHEHHHEEEEVER go away.

This is one of the most frustrating disputes because some just refuse to hear me. I don't like or want government, just like I don't like or want old age. The argument looks like this:

Anarchist: Government will never behave. It is terrible to have government.

Me: I agree. Wish we could do something about it.

Anarchist: Why do you want to keep doing the same shit over and over.

Me: I don't. I wish government wouldn't keep rearing its ugly motherfucking dome.

Anarchist: Then stop allowing government.

Me: I...how? You asking the impossible.

Anarchist: We MUST find another alternative.

Me: Okay. What? How do we avoid the unavoidable.

Anarchist: Government will never behave. You can't tame it.

Me: I know. What do you want from me? I don't like it. I don't like death either, but....

Anarchist: We MUST consider alternatives to rid ourselves of government.

Me: (sigh)

So, you can't deal with people who accept your *opinion* that The State is inevitable....That's your problem, not anyone else's.

 

[Oddball]

I'm mostly anti government at this point. Not that I think government is a bad thing, in a limited form, but what we have now is far and away from what we were supposed to have.

I think we need a reboot. A complete removal of every politician in office, and elect a whole new group. Our government no longer serves the people, it only serves itself.

The best thing people could do in November is vote for anyone but the incumbent. Vote your party, but don't vote for the current establishment.

One of the only ways we will get our country back is to send a message to government, and that message is, "you are replaceable, and we will replace you of you do not get back to doing what it is that the people sent you there to do".

That's not a reboot...That's just changing the names and faces of the people occupying the Death Star...The power will corrupt them too.

 

[kaz]

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

Yes. "Small government" is not the real goal. It's "limited" government that we want. Scope, not size.

I do believe it is constructive to contemplate a state of Anarchy for the purpose of determining the appropriate scope of government. But, like I have said, Anarchy is impossible.

Agreed. The problem is that you can't have discussion with anarchists. Whenever you ask them to explain their views, their underwear gets wrapped up in a ball.

As I said to oddball before he broke down crying that he wants to be a mod again was so completely genuine. If he could explain to me convincingly how the government I still want could actually work in anarchy, he could convince me. I HATE government.

But he's so busy licking his wounds that he can't do it. Then again, other anarchists can't either. That's why I keep comparing them to Marxists. They are 100% ideology and 0% real world.

I'm a libertarian because I'm 100% real world. Government sucks. But there are problems I can't see solved any other way. We need a military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, recognition of property rights and management of limited resources.

But every time I ask an anarchist what their solution is other than government, they just melt down. It's pathetic.

Oddball is a typical leftist. To question his views is a personal insult to him. No, it's not, not at all. He needs to buy a dictionary and look up "personal"

 

[Oddball]

Straight up though, I'm disappointed. Something happened to you since you were here. I'm not sure why you can't defend anarchy, but it's not up to me, is it?

I *grew* to reject the presumed authority of The State...It's not me who has anything to defend, that task belongs to the statist.

 

[kaz]

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

Once again, demanding certainty of outcome, before taking any action...Even though you know for damn sure that the current model is unworkable, and that even your vision of "limited government" will eventually refuse to live within its constraints, and grow back into the mess we have now, or worse.

Oddball: I have no fucking idea.

You can't convince a small government libertarian who hates the shit out of government. I owned five businesses. Government HATES me. But you're so busy licking your balls you're not a mod any more, you put ZERO effort into making any argument or making any sense at all.

What I want is a discussion. You're not willing to engage in that. When you are, let me know. Just FYI, a discussion means that you need to participate with content

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, you can't deal with people who accept your *opinion* that The State is inevitable....That's your problem, not anyone else's.

And it continues.



What happens when two people in an Anarchy state of existence cannot resolve a despite between them? How do they resolve it?

But, whatever. Continue in your fantasy if you want.


The better option is to accept the MOTHERFUCKING TRUTH that govenmetn will always arise in ANY society and that your only hope is to never give it much power at all, and kill a bunch of people when it does get out of control.

Hoping for the impossible is a wasted effort.

 

[Oddball]

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

Once again, demanding certainty of outcome, before taking any action...Even though you know for damn sure that the current model is unworkable, and that even your vision of "limited government" will eventually refuse to live within its constraints, and grow back into the mess we have now, or worse.

Oddball: I have no fucking idea.

You can't convince a small government libertarian who hates the shit out of government. I owned five businesses. Government HATES me. But you're so busy licking your balls you're not a mod any more, you put ZERO effort into making any argument or making any sense at all.

What I want is a discussion. You're not willing to engage in that. When you are, let me know. Just FYI, a discussion means that you need to participate with content

You sound just like my GOP buddies, when I rejected their party and joined the Libertarians in 1995....Noodle on that for awhile.

 

[kaz]

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

Yes. "Small government" is not the real goal. It's "limited" government that we want. Scope, not size.

I do believe it is constructive to contemplate a state of Anarchy for the purpose of determining the appropriate scope of government. But, like I have said, Anarchy is impossible.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. Can you name one government that has ever allowed itself to be limited?

No, but no country has allowed itself to be anarchist either

 

[Foxfyre]

The original paradigm was the true classical liberal/libertarian one and it allowed the USA to become the most innovative, productive, generous, and free nation the world has ever known with little or no interference by the federal government. That is what we should look to now as the model to shoot for.

Then what?....They've already proven that they're uninterested in remaining constrained.

We have a permanent political class firmly entrenched in government that is determined to keep itself there. But I think there are enough people left who understand the basic concepts this nation was founded on.

I believe it was those people who elected a President who is not part of that permanent political class, no ideologue, no partisan, no interest in being politically correct, who is entirely willing to step outside the box and status quo, and who has no need for money or power. He may be entirely self serving in wanting to add to his own legacy, but to do that he has to actually make things better which I believe he firmly intends to do.

I do believe he may be our last best hope as I think this is the last generation left with sufficient numbers to turn things around and restore America as it was intended to be.

We'll see.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, but no country has allowed itself to be anarchist either

And why is that?

Because it's fucking impossible?

 

[Oddball]

Hoping for the impossible is a wasted effort.

Yet here you are, trying to argue that THIS time the government will remain limited, IF ONLY people with your mindset gain control of it....Not at all unlike the communists who claim that the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, ad nausem, could have worked, IF ONLY
the right people had been at the helm.

You've met the enemy, Bubba, and it is you.

 

[Moonglow]

Hoping for the impossible is a wasted effort.

Yet here you are, trying to argue that THIS time the government will remain limited, IF ONLY people with your mindset gain control of it....Not at all unlike the communists who claim that the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, ad nausem, could have worked, IF ONLY
the right people had been at the helm.

You've met the enemy, Bubba, and it is you.

Did they finally connect the electrodes and bring you back to life?

 

[Oddball]

We have a permanent political class firmly entrenched in government that is determined to keep itself there. But I think there are enough people left who understand the basic concepts this nation was founded on.

I believe it was those people who elected a President who is not part of that permanent political class, no ideologue, no partisan, no interest in being politically correct, who is entirely willing to step outside the box and status quo, and who has no need for money or power. He may be entirely self serving in wanting to add to his own legacy, but to do that he has to actually make things better which I believe he firmly intends to do.

I do believe he may be our last best hope as I think this is the last generation left with sufficient numbers to turn things around and restore America as it was intended to be.

We'll see.

He'd already be dead if the entrenched didn't think they could either roll him or wait him out.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yet here you are, trying to argue that THIS time the government will remain limited

No I am not. I said JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Here we are again. In the same loop discussion.

I cannot prevent government. I can't stop it. How? It will always come back to life. How do we kill it?

 

[kaz]

Whatever. I apologize for saying you're a quality poster. You're a snowflake who can't have a discussion because you're too busy crying that the mods took your dick away.

I asked you questions that you had a chance to engage in discussions, and you decided to keep melting, snowflake

Now who's all huffy and butthurt?

I refused to entertain your questions because I reject their premises...Deal with it.

You are

 

[kaz]

Straight up though, I'm disappointed. Something happened to you since you were here. I'm not sure why you can't defend anarchy, but it's not up to me, is it?

I *grew* to reject the presumed authority of The State...It's not me who has anything to defend, that task belongs to the statist.

View attachment 190354

If you can't defend, discuss and explain anarchy in your own words, then your words are hollow. I was interested in a discussion. You're not defending shit about your views. You're no different than all the useless Democrats on the site who just keep flipping their positions based on who's in power.

My offer to actually discuss stands. But you're going to have to pull the stick out of your ass and actually start answering questions and discussing the topic

 

[Oddball]

Agreed. The problem is that you can't have discussion with anarchists. Whenever you ask them to explain their views, their underwear gets wrapped up in a ball.

As I said to oddball before he broke down crying that he wants to be a mod again was so completely genuine. If he could explain to me convincingly how the government I still want could actually work in anarchy, he could convince me. I HATE government.

But he's so busy licking his wounds that he can't do it. Then again, other anarchists can't either. That's why I keep comparing them to Marxists. They are 100% ideology and 0% real world.

I'm a libertarian because I'm 100% real world. Government sucks. But there are problems I can't see solved any other way. We need a military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, recognition of property rights and management of limited resources.

But every time I ask an anarchist what their solution is other than government, they just melt down. It's pathetic.

Oddball is a typical leftist. To question his views is a personal insult to him. No, it's not, not at all. He needs to buy a dictionary and look up "personal"

Once again, you expect certainty of outcome in an uncertain world...You're talking and acting just like the statist educrats who refuse to privatize the schools, because nobody can say with absolute certainty that the sainted pooooor, won't get an education, as though they're getting one right now.

And speaking of certainty of outcome...Say we shrink The State back to terms that meet with your approval...What's YOUR guarantee that it won't grow back to the same unruly mob, or worse, that we have today?

 

[kaz]

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

Once again, demanding certainty of outcome, before taking any action...Even though you know for damn sure that the current model is unworkable, and that even your vision of "limited government" will eventually refuse to live within its constraints, and grow back into the mess we have now, or worse.

Oddball: I have no fucking idea.

You can't convince a small government libertarian who hates the shit out of government. I owned five businesses. Government HATES me. But you're so busy licking your balls you're not a mod any more, you put ZERO effort into making any argument or making any sense at all.

What I want is a discussion. You're not willing to engage in that. When you are, let me know. Just FYI, a discussion means that you need to participate with content

You sound just like my GOP buddies, when I rejected their party and joined the Libertarians in 1995....Noodle on that for awhile.

I'm not a Libertarian, never have been.

You shouldn't have come back. You're just embarrassing yourself. You used to be somebody to a lot of people. Now you're just a shell. I can't believe a website took your manhood away. Maybe they didn't and it was something else.

So tell me one thing if you're capable. Why are you not capable of discussing your views? What about that scares you so much?

 

[Oddball]

Straight up though, I'm disappointed. Something happened to you since you were here. I'm not sure why you can't defend anarchy, but it's not up to me, is it?

I *grew* to reject the presumed authority of The State...It's not me who has anything to defend, that task belongs to the statist.

View attachment 190354

If you can't defend, discuss and explain anarchy in your own words, then your words are hollow. I was interested in a discussion. You're not defending shit about your views. You're no different than all the useless Democrats on the site who just keep flipping their positions based on who's in power.

My offer to actually discuss stands. But you're going to have to pull the stick out of your ass and actually start answering questions and discussing the topic

I have nothing to defend...I'm not arguing to maintain the most destructive and murderous entity in the entirety of human history, you are....Your argument boils down to a variation of that used by the southern plantation owners, who claimed that the slaves were too stupid to know what to do with their new found freedom, and anyone who can't prove you wrong (i.e. prove a negative) can just just up.

You can call me what you will, but that simple dynamic remains.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not a Libertarian, never have been.

You shouldn't have come back. You're just embarrassing yourself. You used to be somebody to a lot of people. Now you're just a shell. I can't believe a website took your manhood away. Maybe they didn't and it was something else.

So tell me one thing if you're capable. Why are you not capable of discussing your views? What about that scares you so much?

I'm not interested in your insults, statist.