Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Tehon]

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.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

 

[Norman]

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

Hmmm, wrong. We had civilization before we had government. The later is a parasite on the former.

Anarchy and civilization do not mix, pick one or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Anarchy for sure won't work for those whose only way is to loot the system.

That's one of the big plusses.

 

[bripat9643]

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

Hmmm, wrong. We had civilization before we had government. The later is a parasite on the former.

Anarchy and civilization do not mix, pick one or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You certainly haven't proved that. LIke I said, cities and towns existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. That's an irreftuable fact of history.

Jericho - Wikipedia​

Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BC),[12][13] almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch of the Earth's history.[14][15]​

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

There is no voluntary form of taxation. According to the definition, taxation isn't voluntary. It's compulsory.

 

[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.

Under our current system, the odds that you will be looted, robbed and possibly killed are 100%

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

The odds are 100%. Just look at your paystub if you don't believe it. Those deductions are all robbery.

You should do something about that if that is what you believe.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Under our current system, the odds that you will be looted, robbed and possibly killed are 100%

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

The odds are 100%. Just look at your paystub if you don't believe it. Those deductions are all robbery.

You should do something about that if that is what you believe.

What should I do, go on a shooting rampage at the U.S.Treasury?

 

[Oddball]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

 

[Oddball]

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

Please, careful about the language!

No you didn’t curse anyone out, you’re just not giving words their proper consideration. They’re dull tools already, let’s not compound the problem by wielding them recklessly.

Society is just people relating to each other the way they do everyday. Government is not required for me to buy eggs from my neighbor’s farm, for a man to start a bus company to take people where they want to go, for a charity to have a fund-raising event, for people to start a meetup group... come on now... oxymoronic? Really?

Anarchism is not compatible with civilization? So advanced organization is not possible without government? Please explain to me how robbing and hurting people is an absolute necessity for organization? Because that is all governmental authority adds to organization. Remove that, keep everything else, and what have you got?

How does Apple manage to design, manufacture, distribute, and sell iphones without robbing and beating people? Voluntary cooperation. Happens all the time.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

When consent is required, it’s not taxation; it’s charity, or business, or something else. Taxation means hand it over or be punished. If not, we could just ignore the IRS like a Salvation Army Santa. It doesn’t work like that and you know it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

The statists have never really thought about why they believe what they believe. Thus, they have no answers when you point out the flaws in their arguments.

I have trouble understanding or accepting how someone can be motivated to a position by personal preference or perceived benefit, even in the face of ironclad logic to the contrary. That’s just not how my brain works, I guess.

When I heard someone describe how external authority is slavery, I immediately saw the validity of the claim, emptied my pockets of everything I believed in opposition to that information and thought, “Fuck - I’m an anarchist”.

It took me a month to get over it. I was excited by the discovery, but scared of the implications. I had all the same questions statists do. But I saw that I was on a crumbling iceberg and there was only one ship taking people off. So I struggled with these questions from on-deck as the ship pulled out; I didn’t refuse to board just because I didn’t know where it was headed.

Self-respect demands that one accept truth when recognized, so I hope that they have no inkling; because to see even a glimmer and remain stubbornly planted as misunderstanding transforms into willful ignorance is a discrace no man should abide.

 

[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.

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.

The logic is that you have no right to violently prevent presumably innocent people from walking across an imaginary line into property you don’t have a rightful property claim to. What’s flawed about that?

I have a valid genral complaint that you’re supporting something immoral as per the argument above. I also have a valid personal complaint that billions of potential friends do not have access to my private property because you (by proxy) are denying them admittance to this area without just cause.

 

[ding]

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.

Under our current system, the odds that you will be looted, robbed and possibly killed are 100%

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

The odds are 100%. Just look at your paystub if you don't believe it. Those deductions are all robbery.

You should do something about that if that is what you believe.

What should I do, go on a shooting rampage at the U.S.Treasury?

That's your call. You are the one who believes that every single penny of your federal taxes are theft. How about you just stop paying your taxes? Stop the theft.

 

[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.

The logic is that you have no right to violently prevent presumably innocent people from walking across an imaginary line into property you don’t have a rightful property claim to. What’s flawed about that?

I have a valid genral complaint that you’re supporting something immoral as per the argument above. I also have a valid personal complaint that billions of potential friends do not have access to my private property because you (by proxy) are denying them admittance to this area without just cause.

Of course we do. It is called sovereignty. Unless of course you think it is OK for me to walk into your property anytime I want. Are you OK with that? Can I bring some of my friends with me?

 

[ding]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

 

[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.

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.

The logic is that you have no right to violently prevent presumably innocent people from walking across an imaginary line into property you don’t have a rightful property claim to. What’s flawed about that?

I have a valid genral complaint that you’re supporting something immoral as per the argument above. I also have a valid personal complaint that billions of potential friends do not have access to my private property because you (by proxy) are denying them admittance to this area without just cause.

Of course we do. It is called sovereignty. Unless of course you think it is OK for me to walk into your property anytime I want. Are you OK with that? Can I bring some of my friends with me?

Sovereignty of who? In regard to what? Who has a valid property claim on half a continent and beyond?

The difference is that I am the valid owner of my property. I inhereted it by direct family lineage. The claimed property is currently in use, reasonable in size, and its borders have not been disputed by neighbors.

You can’t compare the two at all, or at least you must explain how they are comparable.

 

[bripat9643]

Under our current system, the odds that you will be looted, robbed and possibly killed are 100%

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

The odds are 100%. Just look at your paystub if you don't believe it. Those deductions are all robbery.

You should do something about that if that is what you believe.

What should I do, go on a shooting rampage at the U.S.Treasury?

That's your call. You are the one who believes that every single penny of your federal taxes are theft. How about you just stop paying your taxes? Stop the theft.

You know as well as I do that the criminal gang known as "the government" will not allow that.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

 

[Norman]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

I would like to hear why he thinks that taxes aren't theft.

Are they not:
- Taking of property.
- Without consent.

Which of the two conditions isn't fulfilled? This isn't exact rocket science.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

I would like to hear why he thinks that taxes aren't theft.

Are they not:
- Taking of property.
- Without consent.

Which of the two conditions isn't fulfilled? This isn't exact rocket science.

Definition of ROBBERY

Definition of robbery

plural robberies
: the act or practice of robbing; specifically : larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat​