Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[ding]

The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.

God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.

 

[ding]

BTW open borders has got to be the worst idea ever.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended.

Could you be a dear and scare up a copy of it for us?...I'd like to get a look at the terms and conditions, along with the defaults that let me out of it if the other party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

 

[Foxfyre]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

You mentiomed law as a deterrent, but law is not the deterent; defensive force is the deterent. Would-be criminals fear cops because cops have guns, and license to use them. Cops represent 1/325th of the population. A free society has more people with guns, all with moral license to use them in a defensive capacity. In other words, a far stronger deterrent.

Respectfully disagree. If the social contract does not set parameters as to what is civil, legal, socially acceptable,etc. then everybody decides that differently and that will inevitably lead to conflict, aggression, and sooner or later a society formed out of survival of the fittest.

Erm, well... I hate to be the guy to brush aside a kindness, but it's sort of not respectful to disagree without actually refuting what was said. You kind of owe it to truth itself to establish your position on valid premises and logical arguments.

I could basically just respond to your post with "Says you" and be well within reason, since it's all speculative opinion.

I have been making my position and the rationale for it in some detail on this thread, most of which would refute most of your post. Excuse me if I choose not to repeat all that in a single response to your post.

And you have provided nothing to support your opinion that I responded to for that matter. The reason we have law enforcement officers, for instance, is because they are needed to enforce the law. You might spend some time talking with police officers and even riding with them as I have done, and that truth would become quite evident. To assume there would be no increase in crime, including violent crime, without them and the laws they enforce, is simply absurd.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

 

[Tehon]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ That has been the progressive agenda since day one. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

/——/ That has been the progressive agenda since day one. Thanks for admitting it.

Which of the 487 post in this thread are you responding to?

Is the quote function a bit too confusing for you?

 

[Tehon]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

Exactly, I take a lot of pride in maintaining my lawn!

Heaven help my neighbor if he decides to dam up the stream running across our properties.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I would describe myself as a libertarian, however I do not agree with the libertarian stance on borders. I strongly believe in national borders and a very small government.
The hell with globalist.

To hell with globalists, indeed. Though it's a shame they usurped what should be a nice idea - one world, and all that. But evil is nothing if not perversion.

Anyway, do you subscribe to the non-aggression principle?

Non Interventionist - I don't think we should be telling people what they can do in their own countries. that is no concern of ours. No World Police.

However, if they attack the US, then non-aggression principle is history and we should nuke them till they glow and then shoot them in the dark

So “no” then. Non-aggression is the idea that it’s wrong to initiate force against innocent parties (defensive force is acceptable). A nuke is insufficiently precise to be used in a purely defensive capacity.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

BTW open borders has got to be the worst idea ever.

Tell it to God, or whatever. Open borders is not an idea, it’s a description of reality.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.

God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.

Hi ding. I agree that people get the government they deserve. The problem is that they impose it on those who don’t.

 

[kaz]

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...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

 

[ding]

BTW open borders has got to be the worst idea ever.

Tell it to God, or whatever. Open borders is not an idea, it’s a description of reality.

No. It is a really really bad idea that is totally unworkable. I get the logic behind it, which by the way is flawed as well, but it is the untenable problems it creates.

Additionally, we have no obligation to non-citizens and you have no valid complaint that we do.

That's actually three different points in case you were wondering.

 

[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

We can give some suggestions about how to solve these problems, of course, but there are important reasons why the anarchist is reluctant to do this...

First of all, it's speculative and useless. None of us will claim centralized control over a free society, quite obviously, so what difference does it make what solutions we personally propose? When people say "I'm not clairvoyant" they're pointing to the fact that necessity will birth solutions unimaginable previous to that necessity arising. They're also citing how solutions will develop through consultation and cooperation, and may differ somewhat, in certain regards, from area to area, so asking one person to solve all these problems is unreasonable. And it's no more their responsibility to figure this stuff out than it is yours, so why don't you take a crack at these questions yourself?

It's also a question of morality, which you do not seem to care about at all. To be moral, you've got to take immoral solutions off the table, and think from that standpoint. Your questions are no different than the 19th century southerner who says, "Tell me how we will maintain our economy, and THEN I will consider the abolition of slavery." Um, no. You don't get to keep people in bondage because you don't know how to figure out another way. That's not reasonable practicality, that's simply immorality. Justifying government is no different than the justification for any other criminal act. There is always some benefit, some problem solved, by acting immorally - that's why people do it - so citing this as your justification is just called "being a bad person", just like any common purse-snatcher.

Finally, remember, that the only thing the anarchist is opposed to is authority, not cooperation and organization.

It's funny how you think not having any answers to how your ideology would work in the real world is a virtue. I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue. It's a failed argument

 

[ding]

The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.

God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.

Hi ding. I agree that people get the government they deserve. The problem is that they impose it on those who don’t.

Bullshit. That is a textbook example of an external locus of control. I will take our fucked up government over the anarchy you desire. At least with our fucked up government we have a chance of avoiding anarchy.

 

[kaz]

Basically my questions hit the two extremes. Legitimate disputes between honest citizens and criminals.

1) Your town is small. You have a house, fields, a pond and a patch of woods. You have a trail through the woods. You take a walk every day. You don't develop it because you want it the way it is. One day you're taking a walk and a new neighbor is cutting down your trees. You say it's your property, you use it. He says walking through it isn't using it, building houses and farming is and he is going to farm it. What do you do?

2) You go to bed early because you're tired. You wake up, go downstairs, and your wife and kids are dead. What do you do?

You know what? No. You don’t get to justify an inherently invalid and immoral system of coercive violence until someone on a message board satisfies your concerns about how to deal with life’s problems.

This ain’t a goddam sales call. I’ll talk with you all day long about these issues, but only after you understand and accept that full acknowledgement of man’s natural freedom is not optional, and not a moment before.

Saying you have no idea but government is evil is not an answer. Until you want to discuss specifics, I'll banter with you, but until anarchists are willing to do that, you're just pissing in the wind.

I say I want property rights to be respected. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I say I want my family protected from criminals. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I pick government in those. Fine, then I pick evil. At least I have a live family and clear property rights. You and oddball can live in the trees and pick flies off each other's coats

Private, voluntarily-funded defense organizations. Could be the same guys doing it now, with the same toys and everything, just no more exemption from morality (i.e. authority).

This is just fairy dust and hand waiving. You're going need to be a lot more specific than that. There are 2,000 obvious issues that would need to be overcome to have a military which is funded, staffed and armed without eminent domain or any other government capability

 

[Norman]

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...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

 

[kaz]

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.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

You said you hate government and keep repeating it. That's your whole argument.

I said I hate government and gave you a list of the several things that I see no other way to solve since they require general recognition and whatever form that general recognition takes, it's government.

You must for example have property lines that are respected by the community. There cannot be more than one arbiter of property lines.

You haven't for this example given a whiff of a solution to that problem.

I seriously doubt you hate government more than I do as someone who's owned five businesses. Maybe as much, but I loathe government.

However, that you hate government isn't an argument to specific issues as you seem to believe