Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[ding]

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.

No. A nation is a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

No. Believing that a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory can have sovereignty over that land is not critical theory. It is traditional theory.

YOU characterizing a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory as an authoritarian gang of human rights violators would be critical theory.

Now do you understand the difference?

 

[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.

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.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Don't be a fucking jackass. Is Guido the leg breaker giving the businesses he charges for protection a free choice? After all, they are free to move into some other extortionist's territory if they don't like his terms.

You obviously don't want to have an honest discussion. All you can do is lie about the meaning of terms. Complying with government force is not a free choice. Government does not own my property and has no moral authority to impose choices on me.

Unless you want to have an honest debate, then expect nothing but a hail of verbal abuse from me.

 

[ding]

You can't reason with anarchists.

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

Except for the fact that men do not follow the moral law. The main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No government does not mean no laws. That's your bogus theory. The English common law was not established by the king or the parlaiment. It was the product of hundreds of years of settling disputes privately
It's an example of private law.

I've already posted the explanation to your question. Go back a few pages and read the answer.

Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

 

[ding]

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.

Except that there are things we should discriminate against. So to argue that to be free of discrimination is a human right is not correct. That would be indiscriminate indiscriminateness.

 

[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.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

You say lunch I say dinner.

 

[ding]

You can't reason with anarchists.

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

He doesn't accept it.

I don't accept YOUR version of it.

 

[ding]

You can't reason with anarchists.

You can't reason, period.

^ dunning effect

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I've already posted the explanation to your question. Go back a few pages and read the answer.

Nobody has explained how these things are stopped without coercion, all of the examples use coercion.

Tell me how authority is enforced without coercion.

 

[ding]

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.

And you can always hand over your wallet to a mugger. Why would you obect to that? You were given a choice, weren't you?

Yes, absolutely. And sometimes that is the wise course of action. And sometimes it is not.

But you believe that 100% of your taxes is theft and that just isn't the case as there are valid functions of the government that we the people should be paying for.

But putting that aside, I'm not the one who believes he is being stole from. You are. And if you really believed that you would stop paying your taxes and let the chips fall where they may. But that's not what you are doing, is it? Instead you are in a public forum pissing and moaning about it all the while you pay your taxes like a good boy.

Beliefs not worth standing up for are beliefs not worth having.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't reason with anarchists.

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

He doesn't accept it.

I don't accept YOUR version of it.

Your version is a contradiction.

 

[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.

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.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

You say lunch I say dinner.

The wolf says I'll have a lamb chop please.

 

[ding]

You can't reason with anarchists.

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

He doesn't accept it.

I don't accept YOUR version of it.

Your version is a contradiction.

How so?

Because my beliefs are consistent with my actions. I believe government serves a valid and legal purpose. So when I pay my taxes I am being true to my belief.

You on the other hand believe that government does not serve a valid purpose and is illegal. So when you pay your taxes, you are behaving inconsistent to your belief.

 

[kaz]

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

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

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

So now you are refusing to read the answer to your question, because it was presented in an supposedly offensive way?

The problem here doesn't appear to be the lack of solutions but your inability to accept the said solutions. Anyway you can think whatever you wish, but don't pretend that this stuff hasn't been done to death and that there are no solutions, when that is certainly not the case.

Kaz has his fingers firmly inserted into his ears whenever any answers to his questions are posted.

If you need to refer to a link to explain your views, they aren't your views. You're exactly like the Democrats parroting their politicians

 

[kaz]

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

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

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

I've posted the same link to you several times, and each time you come up with some excuse for refusing to read it.

Same excuses:

1) You don't provide any content, you just say read this

2) You present it each time wrapped in dickish context

Those are the same two things every time

So what's your argument for why anarchy can't work? There is more than one law agency? Brilliant retort, because currently as we know, common law doesn't exist and there is only one court...

Basically you are asking of the impossible from the anarchists while asking of no standards from the government crowd. Let's review how ironic it was to talk about the barriers of your property while the government is taking over 40% of your stuff and handing it to someone you disagree with in every way. Once you deal with your impossible double standard all the questions will be answered.

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.

Right, it's not anarchist's job to defend their position, it's my job to prove them wrong

 

[bripat9643]

You can't reason with anarchists.

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

He doesn't accept it.

I don't accept YOUR version of it.

Your version is a contradiction.

How so?

Because my beliefs are consistent with my actions. I believe government serves a valid and legal purpose. So when I pay my taxes I am being true to my belief.

You on the other hand believe that government does not serve a valid purpose and is illegal. So when you pay your taxes, you are behaving inconsistent to your belief.

Wrong, douchebag. I'm complying because the only other choice is being arrested and serving a long prison sentence.

You're an idiot if you believe a rational person would make such a choice.

 

[bripat9643]

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

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

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

So now you are refusing to read the answer to your question, because it was presented in an supposedly offensive way?

The problem here doesn't appear to be the lack of solutions but your inability to accept the said solutions. Anyway you can think whatever you wish, but don't pretend that this stuff hasn't been done to death and that there are no solutions, when that is certainly not the case.

Kaz has his fingers firmly inserted into his ears whenever any answers to his questions are posted.

If you need to refer to a link to explain your views, they aren't your views. You're exactly like the Democrats parroting their politicians

I've posted the explanation:

Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

Try reading it before you shoot off your mouth.

 

[kaz]

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

Or why don't YOU show me this contract and the exact place where I signed it? If it truly exists as a contract and I consented to it, then this should be an easy task.

Absolute maddening stupidity. This person clearly took the class, because no one could come to conclusions as silly as this if they actually thought with their own brain for a minute.



Next they will tell you to take it up the ass, after all you consented. It's written in the skies.

That's a lame response that you didn't sign it. You participate in it, that is agreeing to it.

Bripat should be good reading it. He constantly posts links to things that other people wrote and says here, this is what I think ...

 

[bripat9643]

[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.

Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here