Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[bripat9643]

No, you're arguing to remove government and have us be conquered by warlords and their armies of former Democrats who want to be dependent.

Which is government.

The discussion goes around and around and the logical result is government.



Me: it would be cool if this ball would float in the air.

A: toss it up.

Me: I did, but it fell back to the ground. Wish it would stay up there. Can’t get rid of gravity.

A: have you ever tried?

Me: I just did. Didn’t work. I guess we will just have to live with gravity. Can’t get rid of it. Always pull me back to the ground.

A: Gravity pulls you down every single time, but you keep going back to to it like a battered wife.

Me: Well tell me how to get rid of gravity. I can’t do it. What do I do? I am stuck with it. I guess I will just have to deal with it.

A: how can you keep giving in and accepting gravity when you haven't tried anything else?

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

 

[kaz]

We live with too many people who dumb as fuck and way too intolerent to ever how that we can throw off government. It is a sad reality that is hard to come to grips with, but reality it is.

I would almost be in favor of executing all people too stupid or worthless to live free.

And those intolerant dumb fucks have a vote for politicians, who can force you to live the way they would have you....Why would any sane person want anything to do with a system that allows such a thing to happen?

Have you noticed how hostile these so-called libertarians get when you point out that their belief that government can be trusted to do the right thing is totally absurd?

Oddball melted down in complete microaggression hysteria that to disagree with him is to personally insult him. Neither you nor Brian Blackwell have done that, which is why I'm not insulting you. But I need more content than either of you have provided to move the discussion forward

 

[kaz]

No, you're arguing to remove government and have us be conquered by warlords and their armies of former Democrats who want to be dependent.

Which is government.

The discussion goes around and around and the logical result is government.



Me: it would be cool if this ball would float in the air.

A: toss it up.

Me: I did, but it fell back to the ground. Wish it would stay up there. Can’t get rid of gravity.

A: have you ever tried?

Me: I just did. Didn’t work. I guess we will just have to live with gravity. Can’t get rid of it. Always pull me back to the ground.

A: Gravity pulls you down every single time, but you keep going back to to it like a battered wife.

Me: Well tell me how to get rid of gravity. I can’t do it. What do I do? I am stuck with it. I guess I will just have to deal with it.

A: how can you keep giving in and accepting gravity when you haven't tried anything else?

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

 

[Oddball]

Have you noticed how hostile these so-called libertarians get when you point out that their belief that government can be trusted to do the right thing is totally absurd?

Small "a" aggressors.

 

[bripat9643]

We live with too many people who dumb as fuck and way too intolerent to ever how that we can throw off government. It is a sad reality that is hard to come to grips with, but reality it is.

I would almost be in favor of executing all people too stupid or worthless to live free.

And those intolerant dumb fucks have a vote for politicians, who can force you to live the way they would have you....Why would any sane person want anything to do with a system that allows such a thing to happen?

Have you noticed how hostile these so-called libertarians get when you point out that their belief that government can be trusted to do the right thing is totally absurd?

Oddball melted down in complete microaggression hysteria that to disagree with him is to personally insult him. Neither you nor Brian Blackwell have done that, which is why I'm not insulting you. But I need more content than either of you have provided to move the discussion forward

Like I said, I'm not going to compose entire book chapters for this forum. Unless I did that, Anything I posted would be incomplete, and you would attack all the holes in it because they weren't discussed.

Here, I'll post a short segment, and we'll all watch while you complain that it doesn't explain this or that:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

The Errors of Classical Liberalism

As widespread as the classical liberal view is regarding the necessity of the institution of a state as the provider of law and order, several rather elementary economic and moral arguments show this view to be entirely misguided.

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

However, this is only the mildest of errors. Government is not just like any other monopoly such as a milk or a car monopoly that produces low quality products at high prices. Government is unique among all other agencies in that it produces not only goods but also bads. Indeed, it must produce bads in order to produce anything that might be considered a good.

As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government's advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation — as flexible state-made law.

Even worse, the state is a monopolist of taxation, and while those who receive the taxes — the government employees — regard taxes as something good, those who must pay the taxes regard the payment as something bad, as an act of expropriation. As a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency, then, the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. It is an expropriating property protector, "producing" ever more taxes and ever less protection. Even if a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of the property of its citizens, as classical liberals have proposed, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor but equipped with the unique power to tax, a government agent's goal will invariably be to maximize expenditures on protection, and almost all of a nation's wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection, and at the same time to minimize the production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work to produce, the better off one will be.

In sum, the incentive structure inherent in the institution of government is not a recipe for the protection of life and property, but instead a recipe for maltreatment, oppression, and exploitation. This is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of ruined human lives.​

 

[kaz]

We live with too many people who dumb as fuck and way too intolerent to ever how that we can throw off government. It is a sad reality that is hard to come to grips with, but reality it is.

I would almost be in favor of executing all people too stupid or worthless to live free.

And those intolerant dumb fucks have a vote for politicians, who can force you to live the way they would have you....Why would any sane person want anything to do with a system that allows such a thing to happen?

Have you noticed how hostile these so-called libertarians get when you point out that their belief that government can be trusted to do the right thing is totally absurd?

Oddball melted down in complete microaggression hysteria that to disagree with him is to personally insult him. Neither you nor Brian Blackwell have done that, which is why I'm not insulting you. But I need more content than either of you have provided to move the discussion forward

Like I said, I'm not going to compose entire book chapters for this forum. Unless I did that, Anything I posted would be incomplete, and you would attack all the holes in it because they weren't discussed.

Here, I'll post a short segment, and we'll all watch while you complain that it doesn't explain this or that:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

The Errors of Classical Liberalism

As widespread as the classical liberal view is regarding the necessity of the institution of a state as the provider of law and order, several rather elementary economic and moral arguments show this view to be entirely misguided.

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

However, this is only the mildest of errors. Government is not just like any other monopoly such as a milk or a car monopoly that produces low quality products at high prices. Government is unique among all other agencies in that it produces not only goods but also bads. Indeed, it must produce bads in order to produce anything that might be considered a good.

As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government's advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation — as flexible state-made law.

Even worse, the state is a monopolist of taxation, and while those who receive the taxes — the government employees — regard taxes as something good, those who must pay the taxes regard the payment as something bad, as an act of expropriation. As a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency, then, the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. It is an expropriating property protector, "producing" ever more taxes and ever less protection. Even if a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of the property of its citizens, as classical liberals have proposed, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor but equipped with the unique power to tax, a government agent's goal will invariably be to maximize expenditures on protection, and almost all of a nation's wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection, and at the same time to minimize the production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work to produce, the better off one will be.

In sum, the incentive structure inherent in the institution of government is not a recipe for the protection of life and property, but instead a recipe for maltreatment, oppression, and exploitation. This is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of ruined human lives.​

If you can't answer questions without composing entire chapters of books then you don't really understand it. As a career in management and management has taught me, no one is going to accept "read a book" as an answer to their questions. As for what you just posted:

1) Arguing that government is evil isn't sufficient without offering a single alternate solution that would work better for the specific points I raised

2) This didn't offer a better solution for a single point that I raised.

Maybe you could go back and address the two scenarios I laid out for oddball which get to the heart of two specific issues why I can't accept full anarchy. He took my questions as a microaggression. But they as I said get to the heart of two key issues why I am not an anarchist.

I am definitely convinceable. I was pro-life, for the war on terror, for the war on drugs for example until the nineties when I flipped. I flipped on all those for practical reasons based on actual arguments that people made to me that in reality is was better to be pro-choice and against the wars on terror and drugs. I was convinced by actual policy, not pie in the sky government is evil ideology

 

[Oddball]

 

[kaz]

View attachment 190439

What a useless post. All my answers can be questioned. I'm asking you to destroy them. I want you to. But you have no answers, no content, no possibilities, nothing. I'd love to be convinced to be an anarchist. But I have a list of specific things that I can't solve without general recognition, which means government. I want to change my answers. I've asked you to.

For example, there is great value to my liberty to have generally recognized property lines that I don't need to spend all day in a tower defending. There is no liberty in my spending all day in a tower defending what I consider my property lines and no one else recognizes.

kaz: so? can you give me a possible solution?

oddball: Nope, not clairvoyant

Another useless post by the contentless poster.

You used to be a great poster. You brought great comments to discussions. You challenged assumptions. Now you're a microaggression whiner. What happened to you since you left? Seriously?

 

[Foxfyre]

Which is government.

The discussion goes around and around and the logical result is government.



Me: it would be cool if this ball would float in the air.

A: toss it up.

Me: I did, but it fell back to the ground. Wish it would stay up there. Can’t get rid of gravity.

A: have you ever tried?

Me: I just did. Didn’t work. I guess we will just have to live with gravity. Can’t get rid of it. Always pull me back to the ground.

A: Gravity pulls you down every single time, but you keep going back to to it like a battered wife.

Me: Well tell me how to get rid of gravity. I can’t do it. What do I do? I am stuck with it. I guess I will just have to deal with it.

A: how can you keep giving in and accepting gravity when you haven't tried anything else?

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

 

[kaz]

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

That doesn't contradict my argument at all. Did you misunderstand the conversation and who's on what side? That would have been a good question to Oddball, Bripat or Brian

 

[Foxfyre]

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

That doesn't contradict my argument at all. Did you misunderstand the conversation and who's on what side? That would have been a good question to Oddball, Bripat or Brian

Nope. It was specifically a response to your statement asking for an argument in favor of government as opposed to anarchy. I prefer to argue a concept or issue instead of attacking other members who disagree with me. Call me silly.

P.S. I also think it is good to encourage critical thinking by asking people and also ourselves to provide a rationale--not links or other people's opinions--but their own rationale for the point of view they hold. When I find myself struggling to defend my own opinion, I have to consider that my opinion is flawed.

We can be sure that anybody's opinion is most often going to be flawed when it is based on hatred or contempt for or resentment of somebody no matter who it is.

 

[kaz]

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

That doesn't contradict my argument at all. Did you misunderstand the conversation and who's on what side? That would have been a good question to Oddball, Bripat or Brian

Nope. It was specifically a response to your statement asking for an argument in favor of government as opposed to anarchy. I prefer to argue a concept or issue instead of attacking other members who disagree with me. Call me silly.

I didn't ask anarchists to make an argument in favor of government, that never happened.

I gave them a list of things that I believe cannot be done without government and two scenarios from that list and asked them to explain how it can be done without government.

Bripat, Brian, Oddball and Kevin Kennedy have all said they can't answer questions about anarchy. We need to read books and/or trust them that we'll figure it out. I don't see any way to solve those specific problems without government.

Government is the worst solution to any problem. When is the worst solution the best solution? When it's the only solution. You can't have two militaries, two law enforcement agencies, two criminal courts, two civil courts, two roads, two systems for recognition of property rights or two systems to manage limited resources.

In the words of the Highlander, there can be only one!

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

You're in constant risk of losing life, injury, loss of property, etc. in even the most minimal of government scenarios...You already have what you fear the most, what do you lose by just letting go?

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

It's like Marxism, except that it's not....M'kay.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

The "social contract" is a mythical and nebulous contradiction in terms....The word "contract" presumes you have willing participants, specifically delineated terms of service, and ways out for the principals, should one or more of the parties renege on their part of the bargain....Under the "social contract" you can sue The State, at your expense, if you don't like it, and if you lose (which happens more often than not) you can just suck it.

And who says that people voluntarily pooling resources to mutual benefit eventuates a government, which acts as a proactive aggressor against all, under the rubric that it's there be our pal?

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

Cool story, but nowhere in that scenario can the things you mentioned not be done on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis...You're appealing to tradition.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

I know that's the pop culture and the statist's stereotype of anarchy, but just suppose for a moment that's not true....Also, speaking of self-serving people operating within The State, I direct you toward Chapter 10 of F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom...To encapsulate: The State will never stop growing and infringing upon the rights of the people. Therefore, this dynamic will ALWAYS attract to it those who seek that power as an end unto itself... Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

You're in constant risk of losing life, injury, loss of property, etc. in even the most minimal of government scenarios...You already have what you fear the most, what do you lose by just letting go?

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

It's like Marxism, except that it's not....M'kay.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

The "social contract" is a mythical and nebulous contradiction in terms....The word "contract" presumes you have willing participants, specifically delineated terms of service, and ways out for the principals, should one or more of the parties renege on their part of the bargain.

And who says that people voluntarily pooling resources to mutual benefit eventuates a government, which acts as a proactive aggressor against all, under the rubric that it's there be our pal?

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

Cool story, but nowhere in that scenario can the things you mentioned not be done on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis...You're appealing to tradition.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

I know that's the pop culture and the statist's stereotype of anarchy, but just suppose for a moment that's not true....Also, speaking of self-serving people operating within The State, I direct you toward Chapter 10, of F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom...To encapsulate: The State will never stop growing and infringing upon the rights of the people. Therefore, this dynamic will ALWAYS attract to it those who seek that power as an end unto itself... Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

When I go out to get gas for the car, or pick up a prescription at Walgreens or get groceries, I do not have any kind of fear that I will be held up, robbed, raped, or murdered. Could it happen? Of course. But is it so common that I even think about it? Nope.

Last week we took a 1400 mile round trip through four different states, and at absolutely no time did I fear being held up, robbed, raped, or murdered short of locking the car when we left it unattended. In Arkansas we didn't even lock the doors at night and I had no fear.

That is a precious thing to me and I attribute it to Christian values, a society that mostly prefers peace to violence and/or preying on one another, and a government that has put laws in place that deter most who might do violence to another's person or property were there not legal deterrents in place. Yes there are anarchists out there who care nothing for the rights of others, but they are in a distinct minority and the behavior they sometimes exhibit is by no means encouraged or condoned by society as a whole.

Yes, the Founders, most especially Jefferson, warned us that it would take constant vigilance by the people to keep a check on government and those in power. When we failed to heed that advice, it was then that government began spiraling out of control. And when we failed to act when it could have been stopped, we gave up all our rights and are now wholly subject to its dictates whether those be harmful or not.

You and I will no doubt remain very divided on that. But I am confident of my position on it and will agree to disagree.

 

[Oddball]

When I go out to get gas for the car, or pick up a prescription at Walgreens or get groceries, I do not have any kind of fear that I will be held up, robbed, raped, or murdered. Could it happen? Of course. But is it so common that I even think about it? Nope.


Last week we took a 1400 mile round trip through four different states, and at absolutely no time did I fear being held up, robbed, raped, or murdered short of locking the car when we left it unattended. In Arkansas we didn't even lock the doors at night and I had no fear.

So The State is to get the credit for this?...I think not...You've applied the post hoc fallacy...You're using the same argument that the statists use to maintain abominations like the TSA..."Well, we've not had another 9/11 since putting it in place, so it must be working!"...You have to know what a load of crap that is.

That is a precious thing to me and I attribute it to Christian values, a society that mostly prefers peace to violence and/or preying on one another, and a government that has put laws in place that deter most who might do violence to another's person or property were there not legal deterrents in place. Yes there are anarchists out there who care nothing for the rights of others, but they are in a distinct minority and the behavior they sometimes exhibit is by no means encouraged or condoned by society as a whole.

None of which precipitates the existence of The State, as a matter of course, in any way...In fact, The State seeks to inculcate its (arbitrary and capricious) values upon everyone else by force, as though it is God on Earth...How does that go again, about serving two masters?

Yes, the Founders, most especially Jefferson, warned us that it would take constant vigilance by the people to keep a check on government and those in power. When we failed to heed that advice, it was then that government began spiraling out of control. And when we failed to act when it could have been stopped, we gave up all our rights and are now wholly subject to its dictates whether those be harmful or not.

You and I will no doubt remain very divided on that. But I am confident of my position on it and will agree to disagree.

"WE" have done nothing to bring this on ourselves...All of the mechanizations of the current travesty that is The State were set in motion far before either of us were born...Yet, here we are, expected to tolerate and toil under an yoke of oppression that none of us signed up for, and that the Founders would find intolerable....Yeah, I'll take my chances with nothing at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

When I go out to get gas for the car, or pick up a prescription at Walgreens or get groceries, I do not have any kind of fear that I will be held up, robbed, raped, or murdered. Could it happen? Of course. But is it so common that I even think about it? Nope.


Last week we took a 1400 mile round trip through four different states, and at absolutely no time did I fear being held up, robbed, raped, or murdered short of locking the car when we left it unattended. In Arkansas we didn't even lock the doors at night and I had no fear.

So The State is to get the credit for this?...I think not...You've applied the post hoc fallacy...You're using the same argument that the statists use to maintain abominations like the TSA..."Well, we've not had another 9/11 since putting it in place, so it must be working!"...You have to know what a load of crap that is.

That is a precious thing to me and I attribute it to Christian values, a society that mostly prefers peace to violence and/or preying on one another, and a government that has put laws in place that deter most who might do violence to another's person or property were there not legal deterrents in place. Yes there are anarchists out there who care nothing for the rights of others, but they are in a distinct minority and the behavior they sometimes exhibit is by no means encouraged or condoned by society as a whole.

None of which precipitates the existence of The State, as a matter of course, in any way...In fact, The State seeks to inculcate its (arbitrary and capricious) values upon everyone else by force, as though it is God on Earth...How does that go again, about serving two masters?

Yes, the Founders, most especially Jefferson, warned us that it would take constant vigilance by the people to keep a check on government and those in power. When we failed to heed that advice, it was then that government began spiraling out of control. And when we failed to act when it could have been stopped, we gave up all our rights and are now wholly subject to its dictates whether those be harmful or not.

You and I will no doubt remain very divided on that. But I am confident of my position on it and will agree to disagree.

"WE" have done nothing to bring this on ourselves...All of the mechanizations of the current travesty that is The State were set in motion far before than either of us were born...Yet, here we are, expected to tolerate and toil under an yoke of oppression that none of us signed up for, and that the Founders would find intolerable....Yeah, I'll take my chances with nothing at all.

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Not really. I think a lot of the corruption is handed down from the senior officials to the newer ones. Remove everyone and hopefully that goes away.

As it is now, it will be impossible to remove the corruption without sending a very clear signal. These politicians run their office the way they do because, for the most part, they know they will win every election cycle. They know their base will keep voting for them over and over, there is no incentive for them to change.

Send a message like this and it will wake the newly elected officials up.

The problem.is, we don't hold our government accountable. They sit up there on capitol hill and do as they do, without consequence, for the most part. Then, when things go south as a result of their decisions, we the citizens fight and argue amongst ourselves, as seen here on usmb. For the government, this is a win win. They keep messing up, and we attack each other.

I think it's time we hold then accountable for the actions they take.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So, if we can never realistically expect to ever reach a state of Anarchy, what are we left with?

Government.

What do we do about that?

FUCKING KILL MOTHERFUCKERS WHO TAKE MORE CONTROL THAN WE PERMIT!!!!

Until you convince me that Anarchy can happen, I know the only choice I have is violence against the government we have until it obeys and behaves.

There’s only one way true and lasting anarchy can happen - if a significant minority stop supporting and believing in external authority, and express these ideas to others. Until we do this ourselves, we cannot reasonably expect it to happen. From there you can go kill motherfuckers and what have you, though I don’t think it will do much good.

 

[dblack]

So, if we can never realistically expect to ever reach a state of Anarchy, what are we left with?

Government.

What do we do about that?

FUCKING KILL MOTHERFUCKERS WHO TAKE MORE CONTROL THAN WE PERMIT!!!!

Until you convince me that Anarchy can happen, I know the only choice I have is violence against the government we have until it obeys and behaves.

There’s only one way true and lasting anarchy can happen - if a significant minority stop supporting and believing in external authority, and express these ideas to others.

I think it runs a bit deeper than that. Anarchy (and by that I mean the absence of compulsive state government) will require a consensus on the rejection of force as a means of problem solving. And I actually think that is possible. But it will require a radical shift in our social morality, and likely require many years (centuries) before it takes hold.

As an example, cannibalism is a practice considered, by nearly every society on earth, to be beneath humanity. Although there may be some on the books, we really don't need any laws to prohibit the practice. Anyone who even hints at adopting it will be shunned by all civilized people. If the idea of violence against another person reaches that level of "unthinkableness", anarchy might be a viable approach.

 

[Norman]

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

That doesn't contradict my argument at all. Did you misunderstand the conversation and who's on what side? That would have been a good question to Oddball, Bripat or Brian

Nope. It was specifically a response to your statement asking for an argument in favor of government as opposed to anarchy. I prefer to argue a concept or issue instead of attacking other members who disagree with me. Call me silly.

I didn't ask anarchists to make an argument in favor of government, that never happened.

I gave them a list of things that I believe cannot be done without government and two scenarios from that list and asked them to explain how it can be done without government.

Bripat, Brian, Oddball and Kevin Kennedy have all said they can't answer questions about anarchy. We need to read books and/or trust them that we'll figure it out. I don't see any way to solve those specific problems without government.

Government is the worst solution to any problem. When is the worst solution the best solution? When it's the only solution. You can't have two militaries, two law enforcement agencies, two criminal courts, two civil courts, two roads, two systems for recognition of property rights or two systems to manage limited resources.

In the words of the Highlander, there can be only one!

Well, we already have over 200 countries, meaning over 200 governments.

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

Anyway this discussion is rather moot. When the tax rates are approaching 60% I don't much care about the 0% or 5% distinction. The important thing is getting back to that 5% as it used to be. What we are dealing with here is a much worse problem than one of ideological differences. Bunch of people are using the state for their own gain at the expense of others, and that's their reason for the support. You see these folks on the forum every day...