Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Oddball]

[

Discrimination is a form of violence. Taxation is not in my view. Do you actually think that the government should not collect taxes? If so then you are saying that there should be no government. Think about that. There will be no government to " violently coerce" you, but consider those roving bands of war lords who will have their way with you with no government to intercede. Now that will be violent coercion. How does life in Somalia sound?

 

[Oddball]

So if your house is burning or you're being assaulted, you should give a credit card number when calling the fire department or police?

You'd probably have a subscription to a fire service, whether from contract services, community covenants, or through your freely purchased insurance policy.

 

[Oddball]

Would you be so kind as to explain that further?

It's known as "freedom of association".

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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

Tell me how authority is enforced without coercion.

They're not stopped with coercion...All The State can do is act after the fact when civilians perpetrate violent antisocial acts...But the The State can go commit all the aggression they want at will, with virtually zero accountability to anyone.

 

[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.

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?

But that aggregate of people is not whose sovereignty you want me to recognize; it’s their government. Sovereignty to rule over the people inhabiting the territory defined by their borders; an act which clearly ignores individual sovereignty.

It has nothing to do with culture, history and all that. There is no way of using that standard to determine who is part of the nation and who is not. The measure is “does this person have the stamp of government that says they are a U.S. citizen? Are they one of ours to control and tax?”

I recognize the sovereignty of each individual, but you are making a differentiation, asking me to recognize the sovereignty of a “nation”. So what can that mean if not government? And government is not the people, contrary to the indoctrinated cultural paradigm. It’s an ever-changing ruling class that claims rights in excess of what other individuals have.

In other words, a band of thugs who’ve tricked everyone into believing that they have an exemption from morality. They can extort and call it “taxation”. They can kidnap innocents and call it “law enforcement”. They can murder and call it “national defense”. It’s all legit - see, we wrote it down right here, and that man with the black robe slammed a hammer on his desk, and this other guy put his hand on a book and said some words - now pay up and shut your trap, unless you’re some kind of anti-American, freeloading terrorist trying to undermine our “civilization”.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Discrimination is a form of violence.

Horseshit.

Taxation is not in my view.

More horseshit.

Do you actually think that the government should not collect taxes?

Yes.

If so then you are saying that there should be no government.

Exactly. I think we have made that quite clear.

Think about that. There will be no government to " violently coerce" you, but consider those roving bands of war lords who will have their way with you with no government to intercede. Now that will be violent coercion. How does life in Somalia sound?

Warlords don't rove, and they are a form of government. It's called Fuedalism.

Who "intercedes" for me when government becomes tyrannical? Answer: nobody. You've simply pushed the problem back.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

You cannot protect natural law rights by violating them. Claiming authority over an individual is a violation. If government was strictly defensive, it would no longer be government.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

Self defense is not coercion.

Does self defense use force or threats to persuading someone to do or to stop doing something?

Sure it does. When the clerk at the local 7-11 points a gun at someone who is trying to rob the place, is he defending himself and the property? Is he using a threat of force?

Yes, he is using the threat of force to get someone to stop what they are doing..which is the dictionary definition of coercion.

That is two post in a row where you defeated your own argument.

Thanks!

I'm not even going to bother with a substantive response to this idiocy.

 

[gipper]

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.

But government fails miserably at protecting our rights. They generally are much better at taking our rights.

 

[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.

"How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery." Now that's a load of crap. Redistribution of wealth is fundamentally different from other taxes. Other taxes may or may not be justified, but redistribution of wealth is wrong 100% of the time. Of course it is, what a load of crap. And BTW, you're not an anarchist, at least you said you're not

Ok, a bit of a misunderstanding here. Yes, redistribution is wrong, and no it is not the same as taxation for police in that you derive direct benefit from police. But it IS the same in the way that matters most - it’s extortion, and thus immoral. This point stands no matter how you spend the money.

I don’t know what you mean by “you’re not an anarchist, at least you said you’re not”. But we can drop that if you’d like, as the only thing I care about is achieving logical consistency regarding what we condone.

 

[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.

You have no idea what I give to charity and whether or not it is more than you give, so stop being so damned presumptuous. But common sense should tell you that charity cannot come close to meeting the needs of the victims of capitalism and the free market economy. The redistribution of wealth from the top down and a social safety net are necessities of the reality of our economy. The alternative is socialism and I do not think that you will go for that. You might want to read "Regulating the Poor " by Piven and Cloward before you continue to belly-ach about taxes.

"Common sense" should tell you that the friggin government should never be in the business of forcefully taking money from the people that earn it and giving it away to the people that didn't earn it.

If you are like most filthy Liberals you are stingy with your money but want other people to be forced to give away their money.

I am quite capable of determining who I should help and who I shouldn't. That concept is called free choice. Something you asshole Liberals hate. You can take your goddamn government oppression and thievery and shove it up your Moon Bat ass.

If you stupid Moon Bats would stop electing Liberals that fuck up the economy with failed Left economic policies then there would plenty of jobs for everybody and there would be none of the poverty that we get with a dismal welfare state economy.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

Apparently you were a lot less logical than I am.

My positions are consistent that the only government I support is government where there can be only one. There can be only one military, police department, civil and criminal courts, set of roads, recognition of property rights and management of limited resources.

That's where anarchy falls apart. For everything else it holds, which is why we agree on everything else. You guys jump through big hoops to justify how things where there can be only one would work without there being only one, and you fall flat on your face every time

Being logically consistent with a false premise isn’t laudable. You fail to acknowledge that supporting governmental authority is an inherent violation of natural law rights, and is thus immoral and ultimately destructive, regardless of any other considerations.

If you had rent due and didn’t have the money, you would sit down at the table and try to figure out a plan. You would think of any way to get that money without simply going to your neighbor’s house with a gun and robbing him. You would hopefully move back with your parents before doing that. Maybe even be homeless.

And yet when it comes to this, it’s just a matter of course. “Yeah, we gotta extort people, ya know, no biggie, just the cost of doing business in a “civilized” society.”

No. It’s not ok because there’s a parchment somewhere, or because of a series of religious rituals that promise to cleanse the bloody hands. It’s wrong. That should matter. And if it doesn’t, then have some self-respect and quit the charade. Get out there and really DO it. Bags on heads, everyone in the corner, don’t move bitch or I’ll shoot you, the whole thing.

A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but I’m tryjng to get through to you - what you’re condoning is not Ok.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I’m not talking about the rules of the board. I’m talking about MY assertion of what your action implies. I’m stating that you imply your consent to the aforementioned terms by posting here. So do you accept this or not? If not, why not?

You are making no sense. How can I imply my consent to rules that do not exist?

Why don’t they exist? I just stated them plainly.

 

[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.

Discrimination is a form of violence.

Horseshit.

Taxation is not in my view.

More horseshit.

Do you actually think that the government should not collect taxes?

Yes.

If so then you are saying that there should be no government.

Exactly. I think we have made that quite clear.

Think about that. There will be no government to " violently coerce" you, but consider those roving bands of war lords who will have their way with you with no government to intercede. Now that will be violent coercion. How does life in Somalia sound?

Warlords don't rove, and they are a form of government. It's called Fuedalism.

Who "intercedes" for me when government becomes tyrannical? Answer: nobody. You've simply pushed the problem back.

Who the hell are these warlords statists keep talking about? Like Genghis Khan is going to come riding down out of Canada or some shit...

 

[Oddball]

 

[Flash]

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.

Thank you for explaining yourself so thoroughly.

Considering our upbringing, it feels as though by saying “there should be no coercive taxation” that we are making a pro-active decision. But in reality, no coercive taxation is the natural state of things, and in every moment that we support something else, we are pro-actively making that choice.

In other words, if things were in their natural, free state, when would be a good time to say “Hey, you know what we should do to get funding for what we deem important? We should threaten everyone with violence. Then we’ll get all the funding we need, and we don’t have to bother convincing people that what we want is important!”

You see how a paradigm shift reveals the true nature of our actions. Immorality always has short-sighted benefits that circumvent the hard work of doing things the right way. But there are no shortcuts, and we pay, one way or another.

There’s no reason why things have to be organized across 325 million people. If the Federal Government was dissolved, we may be connected by a shared culture and commercial market, but we could generally have our voluntary society organized more locally. In any case, moral people really don’t have the option to rob people, regardless of the problems that creates. I trust that mankind can find new solutions to new challenges, just as it always has.

I understand your points and am in sympathy with your basic concept.

I can't believe I defending government. I hate government. I wish the Federal government was 1/20th the size that it is now. I wish human nature was such that we didn't need a military and police and courts and things like that. I wish the government would get out of my life. Government robs us of liberty and is a mechanisms for state sponsored thievery.

Maybe if there were only a few of us we could live like you suggest. However, in a population of over 300 million in the US and seven billion in the world then we do need some collective services.

 

[Oddball]

I understand your points and am in sympathy with your basic concept.

I can't believe I defending government. I hate government. I wish the Federal government was 1/20th the size that it is now. I wish human nature was such that we didn't need a military and police and courts and things like that. I wish the government would get out of my life. Government robs us of liberty and is a mechanisms for state sponsored thievery

Good.

Maybe if there were only a few of us we could live like you suggest. However, in a population of over 300 million in the US and seven billion in the world then we do need some collective services.

So, you don't believe that you can have such collective services, free of aggression and coercion?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

If you want to call a small government libertarian a statist and lump us with Marxists, then your words lose all meaning as they are simply hyperbole

You endorse the state, so by definition you are a statist.

That isn't what statist means. Apparently in your anarchy world they don't have dictionaries either?

Why do people always do this? Terms like this evolve, and the guy is telling you what he means when he uses it, so there’s no confusion anyway. In anarchist circles, “statist” means anyone who supports government. I know it originally had a more radical connotation, but anarchists rightly perceive any support of violent coercion as radical, and thus use the term more broadly now than in the past.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I’m not talking about the rules of the board. I’m talking about MY assertion of what your action implies. I’m stating that you imply your consent to the aforementioned terms by posting here. So do you accept this or not? If not, why not?

You are making no sense. How can I imply my consent to rules that do not exist?

Why don’t they exist? I just stated them plainly.

But they are make believe, they are not part of the rules of this board.