Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[bripat9643]

The more both sides go back and forth on this, the more Anarchist I become.

Damn all of you.

That's because logic beats bullshit and propaganda every time.

 

[bripat9643]

Hey, I can see the attraction. No laws, no rules, just do what the hell ever you want to do.

Well, that's not true, but I can understand the misconception.

But, you call yourself a libertarian. I have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.

It is true. Anarchy is the absence of authority. Without authority there can be no rules, there can be no laws, the is nothing but the individual and what they decide is “right”.

That's pure horseshit. Does the NFL have rules? People can mutually agree to rules. They don't need some Guido with brass knuckles to impose rules on them.

Under anarchy the only “rule” is that might makes right. If you have the might to rape your neighbors wife then there is nothing under anarchy that would find this to be a “bad” thing to do.

I've already shown that claim to be false.

That is because you do not know what libertarians actually believe.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong. I know exactly what they believe. That's how I know you are no libertarian. You're a statist masquerading as a libertarian.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hey, I can see the attraction. No laws, no rules, just do what the hell ever you want to do.

Well, that's not true, but I can understand the misconception.

But, you call yourself a libertarian. I have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.

It is true. Anarchy is the absence of authority. Without authority there can be no rules, there can be no laws, the is nothing but the individual and what they decide is “right”.

That's pure horseshit. Does the NFL have rules? People can mutually agree to rules. They don't need some Guido with brass knuckles to impose rules on them.

Under anarchy the only “rule” is that might makes right. If you have the might to rape your neighbors wife then there is nothing under anarchy that would find this to be a “bad” thing to do.

I've already shown that claim to be false.

That is because you do not know what libertarians actually believe.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong. I know exactly what they believe. That's how I know you are no libertarian. You're a statist masquerading as a libertarian.

You are a confused individual, but the again you claim to be an anarchist and support tariffs all at the same time, so confusion must be your middle name.

You do not even seem to know what anarchy is.

Anarchy is not the absence of government, it is the absence of authority...all authority.

There is no absence of authority in the NFL, there are 1000s of rules enforced by the authorities of the league. Thus the NFL is not an example of anarchy. Would you like to try again?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bripat9643]

Hey, I can see the attraction. No laws, no rules, just do what the hell ever you want to do.

Well, that's not true, but I can understand the misconception.

But, you call yourself a libertarian. I have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.

It is true. Anarchy is the absence of authority. Without authority there can be no rules, there can be no laws, the is nothing but the individual and what they decide is “right”.

That's pure horseshit. Does the NFL have rules? People can mutually agree to rules. They don't need some Guido with brass knuckles to impose rules on them.

Under anarchy the only “rule” is that might makes right. If you have the might to rape your neighbors wife then there is nothing under anarchy that would find this to be a “bad” thing to do.

I've already shown that claim to be false.

That is because you do not know what libertarians actually believe.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong. I know exactly what they believe. That's how I know you are no libertarian. You're a statist masquerading as a libertarian.

You are a confused individual, but the again you claim to be an anarchist and support tariffs all at the same time, so confusion must be your middle name.

I don't support tariffs, but all the hysteria surrounding Trump's threat's to impose tariffs is totally overblown. He hasn't yet actually imposed any tariffs. It's mostly a negotiating tactic, and it has achieved results.

You do not even seem to know what anarchy is.

Anarchy is not the absence of government, it is the absence of authority...all authority.

There is no absence of authority in the NFL, there are 1000s of rules enforced by the authorities of the league. Thus the NFL is not an example of anarchy. Would you like to try again?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Horseshit. Anarchy is the absence of government. The idea that you couldn't have a game of football with rules under anarchy is pure idiocy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hey, I can see the attraction. No laws, no rules, just do what the hell ever you want to do.

Well, that's not true, but I can understand the misconception.

But, you call yourself a libertarian. I have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.

It is true. Anarchy is the absence of authority. Without authority there can be no rules, there can be no laws, the is nothing but the individual and what they decide is “right”.

That's pure horseshit. Does the NFL have rules? People can mutually agree to rules. They don't need some Guido with brass knuckles to impose rules on them.

Under anarchy the only “rule” is that might makes right. If you have the might to rape your neighbors wife then there is nothing under anarchy that would find this to be a “bad” thing to do.

I've already shown that claim to be false.

That is because you do not know what libertarians actually believe.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong. I know exactly what they believe. That's how I know you are no libertarian. You're a statist masquerading as a libertarian.

You are a confused individual, but the again you claim to be an anarchist and support tariffs all at the same time, so confusion must be your middle name.

I don't support tarrifs, but all the hysterial surrounding Trump's threat's to impose tarrifs is totally overblown. He hasn't yet actually imposed any tariffs. It's mostly a negotiating tactic, and it has achieved results.

You do not even seem to know what anarchy is.

Anarchy is not the absence of government, it is the absence of authority...all authority.

There is no absence of authority in the NFL, there are 1000s of rules enforced by the authorities of the league. Thus the NFL is not an example of anarchy. Would you like to try again?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Horseshit. Anarchy is the absense of government. The idea that you couldn't have a game of football with rules under anarchy is pure idiocy.

I was right, you do not know what anarchy is. All you are wanting to do is replace one authority with another. You are no anarchist, just anti-American


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Flash]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, that's not true, but I can understand the misconception.

But, you call yourself a libertarian. I have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.

It is true. Anarchy is the absence of authority. Without authority there can be no rules, there can be no laws, the is nothing but the individual and what they decide is “right”.

That's pure horseshit. Does the NFL have rules? People can mutually agree to rules. They don't need some Guido with brass knuckles to impose rules on them.

Under anarchy the only “rule” is that might makes right. If you have the might to rape your neighbors wife then there is nothing under anarchy that would find this to be a “bad” thing to do.

I've already shown that claim to be false.

That is because you do not know what libertarians actually believe.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong. I know exactly what they believe. That's how I know you are no libertarian. You're a statist masquerading as a libertarian.

You are a confused individual, but the again you claim to be an anarchist and support tariffs all at the same time, so confusion must be your middle name.

I don't support tarrifs, but all the hysterial surrounding Trump's threat's to impose tarrifs is totally overblown. He hasn't yet actually imposed any tariffs. It's mostly a negotiating tactic, and it has achieved results.

You do not even seem to know what anarchy is.

Anarchy is not the absence of government, it is the absence of authority...all authority.

There is no absence of authority in the NFL, there are 1000s of rules enforced by the authorities of the league. Thus the NFL is not an example of anarchy. Would you like to try again?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Horseshit. Anarchy is the absense of government. The idea that you couldn't have a game of football with rules under anarchy is pure idiocy.

I was right, you do not know what anarchy is. All you are wanting to do is replace one authority with another. You are no anarchist, just anti-American


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I quoted the dictionary definition of anarchy. It does not say "the absense of all authority."

You're just plain out lying because you're getting your ass whipped in this thread.

anarchy

an·ar·chy
(ăn′ər-kē)n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.​

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Hey, I can see the attraction. No laws, no rules, just do what the hell ever you want to do.

Well, that's not true, but I can understand the misconception.

But, you call yourself a libertarian. I have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.

It is true. Anarchy is the absence of authority. Without authority there can be no rules, there can be no laws, the is nothing but the individual and what they decide is “right”.

That's pure horseshit. Does the NFL have rules? People can mutually agree to rules. They don't need some Guido with brass knuckles to impose rules on them.

Under anarchy the only “rule” is that might makes right. If you have the might to rape your neighbors wife then there is nothing under anarchy that would find this to be a “bad” thing to do.

I've already shown that claim to be false.

That is because you do not know what libertarians actually believe.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong. I know exactly what they believe. That's how I know you are no libertarian. You're a statist masquerading as a libertarian.

You are a confused individual, but the again you claim to be an anarchist and support tariffs all at the same time, so confusion must be your middle name.

You do not even seem to know what anarchy is.

Anarchy is not the absence of government, it is the absence of authority...all authority.

There is no absence of authority in the NFL, there are 1000s of rules enforced by the authorities of the league. Thus the NFL is not an example of anarchy. Would you like to try again?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Authority is a term with multiple meanings and connotations. The authority cited by an expert, for example, is an appeal to his knowledge, not his power. The NFL is an “authority” in the sense that it retains the right to dictate certain behaviors while you are under voluntary employment.

It’s similar to the authority you have over voluntary visitors to your home. You do not have authority to search your guests, or cage them if they won’t take off their hat. Your only authority is to defend your right of association and property by telling them to leave. It is rooted in your rights, respectful of theirs, and there is no inequality of rights. He has the same rights you do, it just so happens that his property rights are not applicable at the moment - being in your house - but yours are.

This is not the authority of government, which claims fallacious rights in excess of any individual and does not require your expressed consent to act upon you in a myriad of ways.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

Why don’t the 51% have a right to dictate law to the 49%?

 

[ding]

You recognize your right to limit access to your property, right? That's sovereignty.

If your nation has no sovereignty, you have no sovereignty. You cannot have a valid claim to your property if our nation has no valid claim to its property as your valid claim rests upon their valid claim. I don't believe you have thought this through.

Sovereignty is inherent to the individual, whether others choose to recognize it in any given instance or not. My valid claim to property is not dependent upon any other human being. If I build a boat, it's my boat because it exists as an extension of my intellectual and bodily labor.

In fact, if my "nation" has sovereignty, I do not have sovereignty. My nation's government has a claim upon my property that supersedes my own. They can tell me what plants I can grow, what substances I can use, what objects I can own, which people are allowed to visit. They can also charge me tax on property I already purchased. Where is my sovereignty in all of this?

Luckily, my "nation" does not have sovereignty, and so mine yet remains. Though since they act immorally by not recognizing this fact, I've got a huge problem, and that problem is partially your fault if you support government. So thanks for that.

You do have a problem if you don't recognize the sovereign right of all nations and expect for others to recognize yours.

 

[Flash]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

Why don’t the 51% have a right to dictate law to the 49%?

That is like saying since I have an AR-15 then why don't I have the right to come to your home and steal everything you have?

Thieves have the ability to steal things but that don't make it right.

 

[ding]

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

Can you scare me up a copy of this contract?...I'd like to have my attorney give it the once-over and see if it's worth signing.

It's called the constitution. Your representative signed off on it.

 

[ding]

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

Do you understand that you don't get to decide when I give my consent?

One party cannot validly determine the terms of what constitutes consent unilaterally. If you believe they can, then what's stopping anyone from saying, "By wearing a low-cut top to a night club you imply your consent to being raped"? Even if the club posted a sign to this effect, wrote up documents confirming the implication and had a million people sign it, that does not mean the woman gives her consent; it does not make the rape justifiable. Do you understand this???

Man does not have the power to alter morality. Not by any means. 100% universal consensus would still not make an immoral act moral. To believe in this bogus, indoctrinated hogwash of "implied consent" is to grant license to anyone to do anything. If you say I imply my consent, and I expressly deny my consent, both claims can't be valid, so whose takes precedence? Considering that we're talking about personal consent, I'd say the person saying "Hey! I don't give my consent!" has the greater claim. I mean, ffs, what could be more bloody obvious?!

Telling me to "love it or leave it" is just bully bullshit. Love that I take your lunch money everyday, or leave the school. Love that I have shootouts at the park while your kids are playing or leave the neighborhood. Love that I rape you every night or leave the marriage. Hey, you're free to leave, so you must love it since you're still here. I'll stop now because I'm getting mad. Snap the fuck out of it and be a human being, for God's sake.

You live in a Republic. There's no crying in a Republic.

 

[ding]

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.

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

No court system has ever upheld that being born constitutes agreement to any contract, so your claim is obvious horseshit.

If you disagree you can always leave.

Or you could try to find a court that agrees with you and get an injunction.

 

[ding]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

Why don’t the 51% have a right to dictate law to the 49%?

Because we live in a Republic.

 

[ding]

You can't reason with anarchists.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You can't reason with anarchists.

They are not even real anarchist, they do not have a problem with authority, all they want to do is change where that authority lies.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Flash]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

Why don’t the 51% have a right to dictate law to the 49%?

Because we live in a Republic.

Democracy is as terrible as any other form of government when it takes away Liberties and enables thievery.

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Our Republic is weak when it doesn't protect liberties and allows the thievery. That is why we need a stronger Bill of Rights to prevent oppression.

I don't want all the assholes that live in the big city shitholes electing dumbassea that pass laws to take money away and give to the welfare queens that elected them, do you? If you do then you are an idiot or one of the welfare queens.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You do have a problem if you don't recognize the sovereign right of all nations and expect for others to recognize yours.

I'm a person, for God's sake! A "nation" is an just an intellectual construct. A construct, mind you, that defines the territory an authoritarian gang of human rights violators. Believing that a "nation" can have sovereignty is to fail to earnestly engage in the very process you cite in your signature:

"Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity."

And you did not address my previous post. The sovereignty of a nation, and the sovereignty of the individually are mutually exclusive.

 

[Oddball]

Logical Fallacy Lesson 6: Argumentum Ad Nauseam | The Rational Response Squad

Your signature cracks me up on a daily basis. Hahahah Fight the good fight, brother.