Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Brian Blackwell]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

So you don't have a problem with extortion, as long as you approve of (or deem "necessary") the subsequent expenditure?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

Thank you for showing how generous and enlighten you, and sharing your keen understanding of the social and economic forces that effect human lives beyond their control and thus the recognition that in a complex society we are all interconnected.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To be free of discrimination is a human right

You entitled little shit

Thank you for that brilliant, sensitive and cogent response to an important philosophical question relevant to our troubled times. You are a true asset to the conversation and constantly raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB.

There is no human right to be free from discrimination. Thats just dumb.
Only statists think bullshit like that. Stop bein such a puss, dude.
Oh, and you are welcome

Thank you AGAIN for that brilliant, sensitive and cogent response to an important philosophical question relevant to our troubled times. You are a true asset to the conversation and constantly raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.​

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun

1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

What kind of a fake anarchist wants to trade one authority for another one and just give it a different name?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

What do you think is the single greatest tool available to banks and corporations to further their dastardly agendas?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

To be free of discrimination is a human right, and if you are going to claim that the public does not need protection from corporations through regulation, you are either a shameless liar or hopelessly stupid.

So to be free of discrimination is a human right, but to be free of violent coercion (taxation, etc.) is not? I'm not understanding the principles at the core of your position.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Not unlike your voluntary residence in this country.

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.

Actually I have every authority to search a guest in my home if I choose to.

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.

Who are you to tell me what my authority is? Why do you have the authority to do such a thing? As an anarchist, the only authority is each unique individual. Their authority is whatever they say it and have the capability to back up.

Other than that there is no authority in anarchy.

 

[Flash]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

So you don't have a problem with extortion, as long as you approve of (or deem "necessary") the subsequent expenditure?

I don't paying for the roads that ride on because if I don't pay they ain't gonna get built. I don't mind paying for police protection and don't mind paying the soldiers that protect my country providing that is what they are really doing.

I am not a greedy welfare queen that wants somebody else to pay for them.

I prefer user fees to general taxation.

 

[Flash]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

Thank you for showing how generous and enlighten you, and sharing your keen understanding of the social and economic forces that effect human lives beyond their control and thus the recognition that in a complex society we are all interconnected.

I am a very generous person. I probably give a lot more money to charity each year than you do. I believe in what is taught in the Bible that charity is from the heart, family and church. Nothing about having the Romans take my money by force and dole out to their special interest groups.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?!

Morality is a purely human construct unless you are appealing to a deity that dictates morality. There is no set morality, one man finds being filthy rich to be an immoral act and another does not. One man finds cheating on their spouse to be an immoral act and another one does not. You lack the authority to tell either they are wrong.

I am not saying you gave implied consent, I am saying you give 100% explicit consent by your presence in this society. Nothing is implied. If I join the Lion's club my act of joining is my giving consent to follow their rules.

If you go to a baseball game you buying the ticket and waking into the stadium is you giving your consent to follow the rules of the venue and the MLB.

By you choosing to live in this society you have given you consent to follow the rules decided upon by the society. Just as nobody is forced to join the Lions club or go to a baseball game, you are not forced to live in this society.

Telling me to "love it or leave it" is just bully bullshit.

I am not telling you to love it or leave it, I am telling you that my freely choosing to live here you agree to follow the rules of the society or face consequences.

 

[bripat9643]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

There is no right to be free of discrimination, and regulations are not the only way to prevent corporations from "preying on people." No corporation preys on people 1/100th as much as the federal government preys on people.

To be free of discrimination is a human right, and if you are going to claim that the public does not need protection from corporations through regulation, you are either a shameless liar or hopelessly stupid.

Wrong. It's not a human right. Discriminating is the most essential function of your brain.

I can't help it if you're entirely lacking in imagination.

Regulations do little to protect the public. The tort system is the most effective method of preventing corporate abuses.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

Not unlike your voluntary residence in this country.

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.

Actually I have every authority to search a guest in my home if I choose to.

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.

Who are you to tell me what my authority is? Why do you have the authority to do such a thing? As an anarchist, the only authority is each unique individual. Their authority is whatever they say it and have the capability to back up.

Other than that there is no authority in anarchy.

Of course there is authority - the authority of natural law morality (i.e. reality). To this we are bound inextricably. It's the cause-and-effect of human behavior. If this --> then that. If immorality --> then slavery. That's what morality is: guidance for desirable results. Desirability is not subjective on the macro scale. As the Dalai Lama said, "All humans want happiness, and do not want suffering." You do not get to just make up whatever authority you want without suffering the consequences of that wrong (erroneous, and thus immoral) behavior.

You would compare my voluntary employment at the NFL with being born in a particular area? A man makes a decision to go for a job at the NFL. He walks in of his own free will and says, "Want to make a deal? I agree to follow your rules if you give me money." This is nothing like me being born and having some asshole tell me I owe him half my salary, or else I must move away from my family and the place of my birth.

Consent. Remember that? The word has a meaning, and it's not "I get to say what you've agreed to."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

I didn't sign off on it, and I have a "representative" only because the Constitution imposed one on me.

Nothing is imposed on you. You freely choose to live here and by doing that you willingling accept to follow the rules of the society or face the consequences.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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?!

Morality is a purely human construct unless you are appealing to a deity that dictates morality. There is no set morality, one man finds being filthy rich to be an immoral act and another does not. One man finds cheating on their spouse to be an immoral act and another one does not. You lack the authority to tell either they are wrong.

I am not saying you gave implied consent, I am saying you give 100% explicit consent by your presence in this society. Nothing is implied. If I join the Lion's club my act of joining is my giving consent to follow their rules.

If you go to a baseball game you buying the ticket and waking into the stadium is you giving your consent to follow the rules of the venue and the MLB.

By you choosing to live in this society you have given you consent to follow the rules decided upon by the society. Just as nobody is forced to join the Lions club or go to a baseball game, you are not forced to live in this society.

Telling me to "love it or leave it" is just bully bullshit.

I am not telling you to love it or leave it, I am telling you that my freely choosing to live here you agree to follow the rules of the society or face consequences.

Ok, so by posting on these boards, you imply your consent to me kicking you in the shins every morning on the way to work. If you resist this shin-kicking, the consequence is that 10 of my friends will drag you to a cage in my basement.

Please explain to me why this is invalid. I'm not being facetious.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

So you don't have a problem with extortion, as long as you approve of (or deem "necessary") the subsequent expenditure?

I don't paying for the roads that ride on because if I don't pay they ain't gonna get built. I don't mind paying for police protection and don't mind paying the soldiers that protect my country providing that is what they are really doing.

I am not a greedy welfare queen that wants somebody else to pay for them.

I prefer user fees to general taxation.

I don't mind paying for certain things either, I just believe it's wrong to demand I do so by threat of violence. So, would you be willing to take the position that you're anti-taxation? Saying you don't prefer it is a point of contention because I'm citing it as a moral issue. To me, that's like saying, "I don't prefer that people be mugged" as opposed to saying, "I'm anti-mugging". Sort of a fence position, and I want to be clear about what you think.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course there is authority - the authority of natural law morality (i.e. reality).

The natural law has no morality. There is no morality among bears and lions and tigers (oh my). A wasp that lays its eggs in the body of another insect and kills it when they hatch is not immoral. Immorality is a purely human construct that has changed over the millennia.

To this we are bound inextricably. It's the cause-and-effect of human behavior. If this --> then that. If immorality --> then slavery. That's what morality is: guidance for desirable results. Desirability is not subjective on the macro scale. As the Dalai Lama said, "All humans want happiness, and do not want suffering." You do not get to just make up whatever authority you want without suffering the consequences of that wrong (erroneous, and thus immoral) behavior.

Your desired result might be different than my desired result which might be different than Ding's desired result. The Dalai Lama was wrong, some humans want to bring suffering to others as it makes them happy. Who are you to tell them they are wrong for doing so? With now laws or rules, then once again the only "law" is that might makes right and anything you have the power to do is "right". This is what you are suggesting we become.

You would compare my voluntary employment at the NFL with being born in a particular area? A man makes a decision to go for a job at the NFL. He walks in of his own free will and says, "Want to make a deal? I agree to follow your rules if you give me money." This is nothing like me being born and having some asshole tell me I owe him half my salary, or else I must move away from my family and the place of my birth.

What difference does it make where you were born? No asshole said that to you when you were born, they said that to you when you freely choose to get a job in a society with such rules. And by accepting the job you agreed to such a thing. You are not forced to live in this society, it is your choice.[/quote]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ok, so by posting on these boards, you imply your consent to me kicking you in the shins every morning on the way to work. If you resist this shin-kicking, the consequence is that 10 of my friends will drag you to a cage in my basement.

Please explain to me why this is invalid. I'm not being facetious.

When I joined this board I agreed to follow the rules of the board. If when I was signing up they told me one of the rules of the board was that I got kicked in the shin every morning on the way to work or that 10 of your friends will drag you to a cage in my basement, then I would not have joined the board. Seems simple enough.

If the rules changed and that became one of the rules of the board I would then choose to leave the board as I would not abide by that rule.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I've already shown that claim to be false.

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.​

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun

1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

What kind of a fake anarchist wants to trade one authority for another one and just give it a different name?

Yeah, we know you can find a definition that conforms to your prejucides. However, the only defintion that matters is the one that anarchists use. Anarchy means absense of government.

We aren't opposed to "authority" no matter what the form. We are only opposed to authority backed by coercion. Unless you want to discuss the topic based on that definition of the term, then go fuck yourself. I'm not interested in playing your word games.

 

[Flash]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

So you don't have a problem with extortion, as long as you approve of (or deem "necessary") the subsequent expenditure?

I don't paying for the roads that ride on because if I don't pay they ain't gonna get built. I don't mind paying for police protection and don't mind paying the soldiers that protect my country providing that is what they are really doing.

I am not a greedy welfare queen that wants somebody else to pay for them.

I prefer user fees to general taxation.

I don't mind paying for certain things either, I just believe it's wrong to demand I do so by threat of violence. So, would you be willing to take the position that you're anti-taxation? Saying you don't prefer it is a point of contention because I'm citing it as a moral issue. To me, that's like saying, "I don't prefer that people be mugged" as opposed to saying, "I'm anti-mugging". Sort of a fence position, and I want to be clear about what you think.

Are you suggesting that taxation for the few necessary government functions should be optional?

For the kind of minimal government services I am talking about that would be very close to being impossible. How do we pay for a military on an optional basis? Most people would take the protection but not belly up the payment. The same with courts and police.

I prefer most things be based upon a user fee but there are a few (very few) things that should be collective.

We could have a very Libertarian or even an anarchy society that could work but not with the population that we have.

I am for very small government and a Libertarian and I hate government but I am not an anarchist. Maybe if the US had a population of 5 million it would be feasible but not with 330 million.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, we know you can find a definition that conforms to your prejucides. However, the only defintion that matters is the one that anarchists use. Anarchy means absense of government.

We aren't opposed to "authority" no matter what the form. We are only opposed to authority backed by coercion. Unless you want to discuss the topic based on that definition of the term, then go fuck yourself. I'm not interested in playing your word games.

Ok, lets flesh this out then...

explain how authority works without coercion.

Let's say that you get your way and there is no more government. Since there is no government there are no laws, so the guy down the street starts raping women on a daily basis. What authority stops him from doing so without coercion?

or let's say you own 20 acres of land and someone keeps dumping their trash on it every week. What authority gets them to stop that does not include coercion?