Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[iceberg]

The right of the political spectrum is about liberty...the left is about oppression.

This from the guy that fights to deny people the liberty to use marijuana if they choose to. You my friend are a fraud, you are all about control and nothing else

Oh, I see. Pot is that big a deal to you. Hey, shoot some heroin too...I don’t give a fuck. I just want Mexican cartels destroyed and not glorified by lazy fucking stoners.

No, it is not a big deal to me as I do not wish to use it. But if I can sit in my house and drink a beer someone else should be able to sit in their house and smoke a joint.

That is what is known as liberty

But you do not care about liberty, you only care about control....what you can put in your body, who you can marry...and then you lie and pretend to care about liberty.

So someone should be able to sit in their car before walking into work and down a six pack...just like people who sit in their car and get high before going into work?

um -

he said at home so you "bait and switch" to change the situation he said was acceptable.

so far it does seem you are after control under the name of liberty. that was a pretty big party strawman foul, dude.

 

[iceberg]

The right of the political spectrum is about liberty...the left is about oppression.

This from the guy that fights to deny people the liberty to use marijuana if they choose to. You my friend are a fraud, you are all about control and nothing else

Oh, I see. Pot is that big a deal to you. Hey, shoot some heroin too...I don’t give a fuck. I just want Mexican cartels destroyed and not glorified by lazy fucking stoners.

No, it is not a big deal to me as I do not wish to use it. But if I can sit in my house and drink a beer someone else should be able to sit in their house and smoke a joint.

That is what is known as liberty

But you do not care about liberty, you only care about control....what you can put in your body, who you can marry...and then you lie and pretend to care about liberty.

So someone should be able to sit in their car before walking into work and down a six pack...just like people who sit in their car and get high before going into work?

Neither one of those things are what I said. I said someone should be able to smoke a joint in their own house just like I can drink a beer.

How do you take that and twist it into people getting drunk before work?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yea, he 100% lost me there too. guess he had to "control" the conversation and ensure it was unfolding on his terms of liberty.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Call to 911: My house is on fire ! My son is trapped on the third floor!
What agency do you contract with?
Shit! I don't know! Oh Fire services Inc.
I'll try them. Getting their answering service. Oh OK got them
Fire Service inc. That credit card is expired . Do you have an update
May son is trapped !!
I understand but we must arrange payment first
OK, oK! Here is my new number
Sorry but you are only subscribed to the silver plan that provides protection and rescue up to the second floor. Would you like to upgrade now?
My son is dead!

YOU PEOPEL ARE MORONS AND MAKE ME SICK!

Fictitious scenario is fictitious....So many holes and preposterous presumptions in that mess to even try to take it seriously.

Methinks you don't even want to bother to listen and learn, from a place that's disconnected from knee-jerk emotional responses.

Fictitious but plausible. Why don't you tell me how you see user fees for emergency services working? I have been watching and learning for 70 fucking years, and I know stupidity and bullshit when I see it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In your anarchist world if someone wanted to rape your wife, how would you stop them? Would you use violent coercion to stop them?

Yes. The difference is aggressive vs. defensive, and that makes all the difference in the world.

When we speak of the coercion of the state, it's implied that we are referring to aggression, though we do not qualify our speech every time. The coercion that a cop uses to stop a natural law violation in progress is not in question here. This is a valid function of a protector. However, ticketing a car for having an expired registration is an act of aggressive coercion.

As I've said, if government was reduced to purely defensive functions, it would no longer be government, as it would be in accord with morality and freedom. Government IS immorality. This is very important to understand, and if you don't understand why, I will explain it again.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Anarchy is social evolution at its finest, if you have the power or resources to defend yourself you will survive, those without the resources will be killed off by those with it. The only rule that fits anarchy is "might makes right".

Your worldview is skewed, which is no surprise, as there is a purposeful effort in place to accomplish this. Media has warped your perception, as it has to all of us, but if you understood the primacy of individual experience, you would not feel as you do. When you walk around a grocery store, are you under the impression that if not for law, those people would just be knocking each other over, and shooting each other in the face to be first in line? Who are these people that you think are going to be attacking your home every five minutes? Do you understand how minuscule, percentage-wise, aggressors are in our society?

There's about 2.2 million people in prison right now. Considering that many of them are wrongly imprisoned for non-aggressive, victimless crimes, and that many people have not been caught or imprisoned for their crimes, let's allow those two groups to cancel each other out and stick with the 2.2 million figure. There are 325 million people in the U.S., which gives us a ballpark figure of 0.007% of people being aggressors. Considering the established fact that defense, not a lofty respect for law, is the only real deterrent, and that defense is stronger in a free society, where resides the valid foothold for your concerns about violent chaos in a free society? You have bought into a purposeful con; a lie designed specifically for your enslavement.

You have no concept of:
- Human nature
- What anarchy is
- How infringement on freedom is the only evil
- The effects of cultural indoctrination
- Why external authority is slavery
- How aggression and defense are antithetical
- Why law exists
- What natural law is
- Your inherent self-ownership
- How all mankind's positive progress is derived from the natural order of freedom, in spite of (not because of) external authority.

This is not an insult. I can make a list much longer than this of things I have no concept of, but none of the above are on that list. Since the above represents the topic of discussion here, you are at a distinct disadvantage. No shame in it, but you must admit (at least to yourself) that you're not in a position to opine on this topic with clarity. So why not earnestly seek an understanding, instead of holding firm to an uninformed position?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We cannot cite human nature because we don’t know human nature. It’s never been free enough in recorded history to show its true quality. Technology has liberated us from many hardships of our environment, and widespread sharing of information has made the height of man’s knowledge available at our fingertips.

There's an aspect of human nature that I believe explains a lot: The limbic cortex, aka the "lizard brain".

One of its jobs is to be vigilant for mortal danger....But we in the modern world don't need to escape cheetahs or protect ourselves from marauding bands of barbarians, so we make them up...This is how all modern neuroses originate...There's no real threat, so one must be built in so that the function is fulfilled.

I think the people in the seats of power know this and exploit it to their greatest advantage...But if enough people learned to just let go....

Yes, this is very much true. I've fallen victim to inappropriate absolutes once again (not that there are no valid ones). There are things we know about human nature, and what you described is extremely relevant. I know you understand this, but for clarity of the records here, I was trying to cite how man's true ability has not been seen because it requires a state of freedom to fully express. I was also noting that the violence attributed to "human nature" is in large part more accurately attributable to the effects of the aforementioned exploitation, and the immoral conditions of external authority.

Much obliged. I appreciate your willingness to keep everyone in check, regardless of their position.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We do know human nature, we see human nature every day. Being "free" does not change human nature. 20 years in the Marine Corps in countries all over the world I have seen human nature in its most raw form, and it is nothing like you dream of it being.

You need to get out among the people more.

What you've seen is the behavior of caged animals with their back against the wall. I'll accept this as "human nature" in the literal sense, but I will not accept it as indicative of how people behave in their natural, free state. Conditions matter, and the condition of authoritarianism makes people worse, not better. By logical inference (and common sense) this makes it reasonable to suppose that people will behave better in a free society, not worse. But the anarchist argument does not hinge upon this speculation, so it's rather tangential, in any case.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You do not have the power or the authority to enforce such rules so I don't really care about your fantasies. But if you did have the power to do so, then I would not post on this board. Seems simple enough.

Well, it's just an example, but worthy of some consideration because it targets the heart of this discussion - the validity of governmental authority.

You say I do not have the power or authority. I suppose the "power" refers to my ability, so we can put this aside since we both agree that might does not make right. But what about the authority? Why do I not have the authority? What makes my assertion of implied consent invalid, but government's assertion valid? What would I have to do to mine valid?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The right of the political spectrum is about liberty...the left is about oppression.

The right supports a coercive state with the authority to make law which others must obey. Arguing about which things that authority should be used to impose upon everyone is hardly a pro-liberty position.

Freedom does not have degrees.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The right of the political spectrum is about liberty...the left is about oppression.

This from the guy that fights to deny people the liberty to use marijuana if they choose to. You my friend are a fraud, you are all about control and nothing else

Oh, I see. Pot is that big a deal to you. Hey, shoot some heroin too...I don’t give a fuck. I just want Mexican cartels destroyed and not glorified by lazy fucking stoners.

Mexican cartels exist because of the black market created by governmental drug laws. Want cartels gone? Dry up the market by getting rid of the laws. Overnight success where decades of the theatrical "war on drugs" has failed. You really must consider whether Republicans could have possibly believed that a crackdown via drug laws would be successful in achieving its purported purposes, and if not, what were their true motives?

 

[Flash]

[

So you expect to have a society with no laws? Social contract theory...read up on it.

Anarchy is just like socialism. It sounds good but never works in real life.

When my sons were young they would have loved to have anarchy on a family basis. They would love to be able to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted without any authority over them.

Good thing my wife and I were not so stupid as to allow anarchy to prevail. Not only would our home been destroyed but my sons would have gown up being totally screwed up.

The same thing would happen on a national basis.

Instead we practiced National Socialism in our home. I was the Fuehrer. My wife was the Minister of Fatherland Security and the boys were one step away from being sent to the concentration camp (grounded in their room) if they acted up.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

[
There are more than enough guns in the country to arm every man, woman, and child...Trying to mount a land war here would be an historical military blunder...And let's let other people worry about their own nation's defense.

My 50 or so firearms would not be very effective against Russian or Chinese tanks, ships, bombers or nuclear missiles, would they?

No, but you can't occupy a country until you get out of your vehicle.

Every blade of grass, my friend; you should know this better than anyone.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

[

So you expect to have a society with no laws? Social contract theory...read up on it.

Anarchy is just like socialism. It sounds good but never works in real life.

When my sons were young they would have loved to have anarchy on a family basis. They would love to be able to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted without any authority over them.

Good thing my wife and I were not so stupid as to allow anarchy to prevail. Not only would our home been destroyed but my sons would have gown up being totally screwed up.

The same thing would happen on a national basis.

Instead we practiced National Socialism in our home. I was the Fuehrer. My wife was the Minister of Fatherland Security and the boys were one step away from being sent to the concentration camp (grounded in their room) if they acted up.

And thus is revealed the indoctrinated perspective that grown adults need to be treated like children.

Not you, though, right? Only other people.

It raises the question, though... Who is grown enough to be authority over them?

 

[Flash]

[
There are more than enough guns in the country to arm every man, woman, and child...Trying to mount a land war here would be an historical military blunder...And let's let other people worry about their own nation's defense.

My 50 or so firearms would not be very effective against Russian or Chinese tanks, ships, bombers or nuclear missiles, would they?

No, but you can't occupy a country until you get out of your vehicle.

Every blade of grass, my friend; you should know this better than anyone.

That is why they make missiles and bombers and nukes and cluster bombs and things like that. So they don't have to get out of the vehicle. Things that wouldn't be funded on our side with anarchy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anarchy is social evolution at its finest, if you have the power or resources to defend yourself you will survive, those without the resources will be killed off by those with it. The only rule that fits anarchy is "might makes right".

Your worldview is skewed, which is no surprise, as there is a purposeful effort in place to accomplish this. Media has warped your perception, as it has to all of us, but if you understood the primacy of individual experience, you would not feel as you do. When you walk around a grocery store, are you under the impression that if not for law, those people would just be knocking each other over, and shooting each other in the face to be first in line? Who are these people that you think are going to be attacking your home every five minutes? Do you understand how minuscule, percentage-wise, aggressors are in our society?

There's about 2.2 million people in prison right now. Considering that many of them are wrongly imprisoned for non-aggressive, victimless crimes, and that many people have not been caught or imprisoned for their crimes, let's allow those two groups to cancel each other out and stick with the 2.2 million figure. There are 325 million people in the U.S., which gives us a ballpark figure of 0.007% of people being aggressors. Considering the established fact that defense, not a lofty respect for law, is the only real deterrent, and that defense is stronger in a free society, where resides the valid foothold for your concerns about violent chaos in a free society? You have bought into a purposeful con; a lie designed specifically for your enslavement.

You have no concept of:
- Human nature
- What anarchy is
- How infringement on freedom is the only evil
- The effects of cultural indoctrination
- Why external authority is slavery
- How aggression and defense are antithetical
- Why law exists
- What natural law is
- Your inherent self-ownership
- How all mankind's positive progress is derived from the natural order of freedom, in spite of (not because of) external authority.

This is not an insult. I can make a list much longer than this of things I have no concept of, but none of the above are on that list. Since the above represents the topic of discussion here, you are at a distinct disadvantage. No shame in it, but you must admit (at least to yourself) that you're not in a position to opine on this topic with clarity. So why not earnestly seek an understanding, instead of holding firm to an uninformed position?

I do not take it as an insult at all, I read it and I laugh.

You live in a fantasy world where human nature is benevolent and loving and caring. That is not reality, that is some utopia fueled fantasy.

I have been all around this world, I spent 4.5 years of my childhood in Iran, I went to more than a dozen countries as a Marine and helped in multiple humanitarian missions. I have traveled to even more countries as a civilian and seen what human nature is and does.

I have watched as what you would assume are normal well rounded individuals throw unused MRE parts over a fence so they could watch the starving children fight over them like a pack of dogs and take bets on which will win. These are the same people walking your grocery store aisles. These are the same people you will assume will get your back in your anarchist utopia, how utterly clueless you are to human nature.

I understand these things far better than you, as your understanding of them is not rooted in reality but in some fantasy of what “could be” if only...

You do not even really understand anarchy, pure anarchy is chaos not order and goodness.

You preach anarchy lite, moving authority from one source to another instead of true anarchy that is against all authority.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Flash]

[Q

And thus is revealed the indoctrinated perspective that grown adults need to be treated like children.

Not you, though, right? Only other people.

It raises the question, though... Who is grown enough to be authority over them?

You think that those tens of millions of welfare queens living in the big city sucking off the teat of government don't have the mentality and responsibility of children? How about the gang members? The thieves that would take what you have if they could get away with it? Hardly responsible adults, are they?

No, humans are too screwed up to be responsible. History is full of those examples. It ain't gonna change now.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

[
There are more than enough guns in the country to arm every man, woman, and child...Trying to mount a land war here would be an historical military blunder...And let's let other people worry about their own nation's defense.

My 50 or so firearms would not be very effective against Russian or Chinese tanks, ships, bombers or nuclear missiles, would they?

No, but you can't occupy a country until you get out of your vehicle.

Every blade of grass, my friend; you should know this better than anyone.

That is why they make missiles and bombers and nukes and cluster bombs and things like that. So they don't have to get out of the vehicle. Things that wouldn't be funded on our side with anarchy.

We don't know what would be funded, so why do you assert this so confidently?

And destroying everything is not the goal of any government. They use violence as a means of control. They want obedience; this is the only goal with any value. A people willing to live free or die cannot be occupied, and once they prove this, the bully will go away. Even if many yield to intimidation, there is no centralized body authorized to submit on behalf of all people in a free society. So they have to take each and every town, one by one.

The largest army in the world, the Chinese PLA, consists of 2.3 million. Even if they send everyone they had, leaving themselves defenseless in their own land, they would be perpetually lost in a wilderness of danger and could never gain control. They would be better off going to one of the many countries that have way less guns, and a governmental system in place that they could usurp, instead of coming halfway around the world to get here, only to find a gun in every hand, and the necessity to establish authoritarian rule from scratch.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You think that those tens of millions of welfare queens living in the big city sucking off the teat of government don't have the mentality and responsibility of children? How about the gang members? The thieves that would take what you have if they could get away with it? Hardly responsible adults, are they?

No, humans are too screwed up to be responsible. History is full of those examples. It ain't gonna change now.

So those are the people who represent humanity? So YOU should be dominated, because THEY have the mentality of children? Better that hundreds of millions of innocents be treated as criminals than to let a handful of criminals be treated as innocents?

Nevermind the fact that the state itself is largely responsible for welfare queens, gang members and thieves. This effect of authority is largely ignored. Dependency is incentivized by the welfare system. Many gang members and thieves are dependent upon the black market in drugs.

 

[Flash]

[
There are more than enough guns in the country to arm every man, woman, and child...Trying to mount a land war here would be an historical military blunder...And let's let other people worry about their own nation's defense.

My 50 or so firearms would not be very effective against Russian or Chinese tanks, ships, bombers or nuclear missiles, would they?

No, but you can't occupy a country until you get out of your vehicle.

Every blade of grass, my friend; you should know this better than anyone.

That is why they make missiles and bombers and nukes and cluster bombs and things like that. So they don't have to get out of the vehicle. Things that wouldn't be funded on our side with anarchy.

We don't know what would be funded, so why do you assert this so confidently?

And destroying everything is not the goal of any government. They use violence as a means of control. They want obedience; this is the only goal with any value. A people willing to live free or die cannot be occupied, and once they prove this, the bully will go away. Even if many yield to intimidation, there is no centralized body authorized to submit on behalf of all people in a free society. So they have to take each and every town, one by one.

The largest army in the world, the Chinese PLA, consists of 2.3 million. Even if they send everyone they had, leaving themselves defenseless in their own land, they would be perpetually lost in a wilderness of danger and could never gain control. They would be better off going to one of the many countries that have way less guns, and a governmental system in place that they could usurp, instead of coming halfway around the world to get here, only to find a gun in every hand, and the necessity to establish authoritarian rule from scratch.

Without a strong national defense we have no idea what dangers lurk in the future. Given the world history of oppression and warfare I personally don't want to bet my children's and grandchildren's future on the the good graces of foreign shitasses.

Anarchy would not fund a modern military capable of defending this country against another modern military.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Anarchy is social evolution at its finest, if you have the power or resources to defend yourself you will survive, those without the resources will be killed off by those with it. The only rule that fits anarchy is "might makes right".

Your worldview is skewed, which is no surprise, as there is a purposeful effort in place to accomplish this. Media has warped your perception, as it has to all of us, but if you understood the primacy of individual experience, you would not feel as you do. When you walk around a grocery store, are you under the impression that if not for law, those people would just be knocking each other over, and shooting each other in the face to be first in line? Who are these people that you think are going to be attacking your home every five minutes? Do you understand how minuscule, percentage-wise, aggressors are in our society?

There's about 2.2 million people in prison right now. Considering that many of them are wrongly imprisoned for non-aggressive, victimless crimes, and that many people have not been caught or imprisoned for their crimes, let's allow those two groups to cancel each other out and stick with the 2.2 million figure. There are 325 million people in the U.S., which gives us a ballpark figure of 0.007% of people being aggressors. Considering the established fact that defense, not a lofty respect for law, is the only real deterrent, and that defense is stronger in a free society, where resides the valid foothold for your concerns about violent chaos in a free society? You have bought into a purposeful con; a lie designed specifically for your enslavement.

You have no concept of:
- Human nature
- What anarchy is
- How infringement on freedom is the only evil
- The effects of cultural indoctrination
- Why external authority is slavery
- How aggression and defense are antithetical
- Why law exists
- What natural law is
- Your inherent self-ownership
- How all mankind's positive progress is derived from the natural order of freedom, in spite of (not because of) external authority.

This is not an insult. I can make a list much longer than this of things I have no concept of, but none of the above are on that list. Since the above represents the topic of discussion here, you are at a distinct disadvantage. No shame in it, but you must admit (at least to yourself) that you're not in a position to opine on this topic with clarity. So why not earnestly seek an understanding, instead of holding firm to an uninformed position?

I do not take it as an insult at all, I read it and I laugh.

You live in a fantasy world where human nature is benevolent and loving and caring. That is not reality, that is some utopia fueled fantasy.

I have been all around this world, I spent 4.5 years of my childhood in Iran, I went to more than a dozen countries as a Marine and helped in multiple humanitarian missions. I have traveled to even more countries as a civilian and seen what human nature is and does.

I have watched as what you would assume are normal well rounded individuals throw unused MRE parts over a fence so they could watch the starving children fight over them like a pack of dogs and take bets on which will win. These are the same people walking your grocery store aisles. These are the same people you will assume will get your back in your anarchist utopia, how utterly clueless you are to human nature.

I understand these things far better than you, as your understanding of them is not rooted in reality but in some fantasy of what “could be” if only...

You do not even really understand anarchy, pure anarchy is chaos not order and goodness.

You preach anarchy lite, moving authority from one source to another instead of true anarchy that is against all authority.

Again, voluntary "authority", like that of an employer, is not what's being challenged here. No anarchist believes that a baseball team should just run wildly around the field because "authority" is invalid. And what you're describing is people in a depraved state. I already granted that as an aspect of human nature, but you are ignoring the incredibly influential factor of conditions. The condition of freedom is essential to the expression of human potential. What you have seen are not human beings as they should or would be under different circumstances.

This should be obvious, as in this country we have enjoyed less debilitating slavery (what many would erroneously call "freedom"), and have thrived in many ways because of it. Our poor would be considered well-off by the standards of many other countries. That is why those people in our grocery stores are not the people you're talking about - because of conditions. I'm not saying they're not capable of it, I'm saying they're not that way because of law, they're that way because their chains are light compared to much of the world. The closer to freedom we move, the more prosperous, and moral we will be.

To deny this is to suggest that more oppression breeds better people, which is not the case. If it was, prisons would represent an exemplary society, and those people are throwing shit on each other as we speak.