Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Some Guy]

The wingers on this board literally couldn't spend their time any better than reading through this entire thread, start to finish. That is, if they had any interest in genuinely learning something.

Bravo Brian Blackwell

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We rely on the government to protect our natural rights.

This is so critical... government cannot, ever, under any circumstances protect natural law rights. Police, as individual humans, can. But not in their capacity as "authority". Governmental authority is a direct, irrefutable violation of natural law rights. It is an inequality of rights whereby one party claims rights that others don't have; and those "rights" claimed are exclusively immoral acts.

If you really stop to think about it, you do not need authority to do anything that individuals have a right to do - you already have those rights. You only need authority to do what individuals do not have a right to do; which, by definition, means immoral acts.

 

[Oddball]

I agree. There is no contract. I was only offering a "maybe" and the terms and conditions of such an agreement would be mutual non-violence ONLY. Nothing more.

Thx...Sometimes I get confused in all this mess.

 

[bripat9643]

And we put rules and authority in place to enforce the idea. Anarchy would remove those and rely on the individual to do the right thing.

If we both own a farm and I want more, under anarchy there is no good reason for me to to kill you if I can and take your farm.

Likewise, there is no good reason for me to not kill you and take your farm.

Let the violence begin.

Do you see the mutual need to reach and keep agreements?

Do you think if authority got removed, "agreements" like that would still exist?

They can easily exist without government. However, I have no idea in this case what you mean by the word "authority."

 

[TNHarley]

And we put rules and authority in place to enforce the idea. Anarchy would remove those and rely on the individual to do the right thing.

If we both own a farm and I want more, under anarchy there is no good reason for me to to kill you if I can and take your farm.

Likewise, there is no good reason for me to not kill you and take your farm.

Let the violence begin.

Do you see the mutual need to reach and keep agreements?

Do you think if authority got removed, "agreements" like that would still exist?

They can easily exist without government. However, I have no idea in this case what you mean by the word "authority."

Yea, i think bootney pretty much destroyed that argument lol

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is so critical... government cannot, ever, under any circumstances protect natural law rights.

In fact, government has always and will always do exactly the opposite of protecting natural rights. Government is FORCE. Force is coercion.

Some are willing (or like me, find it inevitable) to be coerced to a certain degree in order to assure the coercion of others to maintain liberty. ANY coercion must be as limited as possible. Otherwise, fuck your government bullshit. I want anarchy.

 

[bripat9643]

I do see such a need, that is why I do not support anarchy. Anarchy has one end, disorder.

If I agree to not try and kill you if you don't fuck with my land, and you agree to do the same, do we need government? The threat of violence resuming should be good enough, right?

Until such time as I look over and see that you have two hired guns and I have ten so I say “fuck it, why not” and I take you out and now my farm is twice as big so it is a win for me. And you are dead so I have nothing to fear.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I would have hired a security agency that would prevent you from carrying out your crime. If you attempted such a thing you would instantly become a pariah and the target of any security agency that offered services in the area.

 

[bripat9643]

And we put rules and authority in place to enforce the idea. Anarchy would remove those and rely on the individual to do the right thing.

If we both own a farm and I want more, under anarchy there is no good reason for me to to kill you if I can and take your farm.

Likewise, there is no good reason for me to not kill you and take your farm.

Let the violence begin.

Do you see the mutual need to reach and keep agreements?

Do you think if authority got removed, "agreements" like that would still exist?

They can easily exist without government. However, I have no idea in this case what you mean by the word "authority."

Yea, i think bootney pretty much destroyed that argument lol

Wrong.

 

[Oddball]

This is so critical... government cannot, ever, under any circumstances protect natural law rights. Police, as individual humans, can. But not in their capacity as "authority". Governmental authority is a direct, irrefutable violation of natural law rights. It is an inequality of rights whereby one party claims rights that others don't have; and those "rights" claimed are exclusively immoral acts.

If you really stop to think about it, you do not need authority to do anything that individuals have a right to do - you already have those rights. You only need authority to do what individuals do not have a right to do; which, by definition, means immoral acts.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The wingers on this board literally couldn't spend their time any better than reading through this entire thread, start to finish. That is, if they had any interest in genuinely learning something.

Bravo Brian Blackwell

I'm much obliged, to be sure. Thanks for taking the time to say that. One begins to feel like a stranger in a strange land after a while, and I'm encouraged by having met others here who are invested in spreading this knowledge.

 

[Some Guy]

Some are willing (or like me, find it inevitable) to be coerced to a certain degree in order to assure the coercion of others to maintain liberty. ANY coercion must be as limited as possible.

That's the nuance, and why it'll always be flawed, since humans are flawed, and humans tend to justify a lot of bad things in the name of good intentions or for the "greater good." It's frustrating.

 

[TNHarley]

And we put rules and authority in place to enforce the idea. Anarchy would remove those and rely on the individual to do the right thing.

If we both own a farm and I want more, under anarchy there is no good reason for me to to kill you if I can and take your farm.

Likewise, there is no good reason for me to not kill you and take your farm.

Let the violence begin.

Do you see the mutual need to reach and keep agreements?

Do you think if authority got removed, "agreements" like that would still exist?

They can easily exist without government. However, I have no idea in this case what you mean by the word "authority."

Yea, i think bootney pretty much destroyed that argument lol

Wrong.

He destroyed MY argument.

 

[bripat9643]

"Social Contract" is a truce. It is an agreement to not kill each other and let each other pursue food and sex without violent interference.

Anything above and beyond that understood agreement is not contractual. It is compulsory from birth.

It is also agreement to share certain services--infrastructure, fire protection, law enforcement, education, water/sewer/electric supply, etc. etc. etc.--rather than each person having to provide that for himself/herself. Every rural electric coop, homeowner's association, or village that incorporates for mutual benefit is exercising social contract. As were the Founders who drafted, signed, and ratified the U.S. Constitution without which there would be no USA as we know it.

The social contract is a myth. We've already established that, so why do you keep pretending it's reality?

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe these words are just cliches to the idiots who grew up in front of the boob tube and violent video games but you have to define the terms. As far as I'm concerned an anarchist supports the violent overthrow of the government and a libertarian supports strict adherence to the Constitution.

Of course, your definition has already been proven wrong.

 

[Some Guy]

This is so critical... government cannot, ever, under any circumstances protect natural law rights. Police, as individual humans, can. But not in their capacity as "authority". Governmental authority is a direct, irrefutable violation of natural law rights. It is an inequality of rights whereby one party claims rights that others don't have; and those "rights" claimed are exclusively immoral acts.

If you really stop to think about it, you do not need authority to do anything that individuals have a right to do - you already have those rights. You only need authority to do what individuals do not have a right to do; which, by definition, means immoral acts.

Can i be your pupil for a moment? Hehe.

Taking a relevant example: if a private citizen vs. a police office uses a gun to shoot and kill an active mass shooter. There's no difference in the policeman and the private citizen from taking that life since they both have a moral obligation (or permission perhaps) to protect the ones who are having their natural rights infringed upon by the active shooter. In such a case, the badge doesn't afford the policeman any rights over the private citizen in this instance.

Conversely, if the policeman pulls over the private citizen on the road and issues a ticket for speeding, punishable by a fine, to be executed/enforced/collected by the state. That's an example of government acting as an authority, effectively punishing the person who was speeding despite that person not (yet) having infringed on someone else's natural law rights (i.e. haven't damaged their car/property in a crash and possibly have injured/killed them).

I think i've got that right...? Wanted to present it in layman's terms.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It's easy for a group of people to convince themselves that (using the example above) eliminating that one guy and taking his farm over there is a good thing, cause more people would benefit than would suffer cause we'd spread the wealth of that farm around, and that guy is a dick anyway. So yea, there's no good reason not to do it. Meanwhile, you've completely ignored the fact that maybe he's not so bad, you just let your greed get in the way of objectively evaluating him. And the reason you want his farm is because he's smart enough to figure out a way to get a better yield. So sure, kill him, but no one is left that understands how he got that higher yield, and now that you've killed one guy, it's not big leap to kill another, and another and another, again, all in the name of good intentions. That's authority for you.

You've described the utilitarian perspective of morality quite well in your example - and the problems it creates. The reason it has such problems is because it's a man-made intellectual construct. It's an attempt to apply a mathematical model to morality amidst a sea of indeterminable variables. Contrary to the apparent belief of many, man has not not achieved God-like status, such that he may devise systems which are superior to that of nature. Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed.

Natural law is the cause-and-effect of human behavior (or intelligent, sentient beings in general). It is discovered, not devised, just like the physical laws of nature. The following chart (courtesy of Mark Passio's natural law seminar) indicates that the confusion of utilitarianism noted in your example is derived from fear and the resulting ignorance. As you described, it leads to an attempt to gain control, and ultimately chaos. The top of each column is the causal factor, and the series of effects proceed downward from there (by necessity, and in that order). The right column is the categories, and the next two columns are the positive and negative aspects of those categories:

The "LOVE" described in the "Positive" column is vivid awareness, focused attention, elevated mindfulness. It reflects the essence of the life force itself. The "Negative" column, you'll note, is a perversion, or the absence of the items in the "Positive" column, as evil contributes no actual content of its own. The chart explains a lot about how we get the results we get, and what's required to get something different.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Taking a relevant example: if a private citizen vs. a police office uses a gun to shoot and kill an active mass shooter. There's no difference in the policeman and the private citizen from taking that life since they both have a moral obligation (or permission perhaps) to protect the ones who are having their natural rights infringed upon by the active shooter. In such a case, the badge doesn't afford the policeman any rights over the private citizen in this instance.

Conversely, if the policeman pulls over the private citizen on the road and issues a ticket for speeding, punishable by a fine, to be executed/enforced/collected by the state. That's an example of government acting as an authority, effectively punishing the person who was speeding despite that person not (yet) having infringed on someone else's natural law rights (i.e. haven't damaged their car/property in a crash and possibly have injured/killed them).

I think i've got that right...? Wanted to present it in layman's terms.

Yes, that's about the gist of it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Taking a relevant example: if a private citizen vs. a police office uses a gun to shoot and kill an active mass shooter. There's no difference in the policeman and the private citizen from taking that life since they both have a moral obligation (or permission perhaps) to protect the ones who are having their natural rights infringed upon by the active shooter. In such a case, the badge doesn't afford the policeman any rights over the private citizen in this instance.

Conversely, if the policeman pulls over the private citizen on the road and issues a ticket for speeding, punishable by a fine, to be executed/enforced/collected by the state. That's an example of government acting as an authority, effectively punishing the person who was speeding despite that person not (yet) having infringed on someone else's natural law rights (i.e. haven't damaged their car/property in a crash and possibly have injured/killed them).

I think i've got that right...? Wanted to present it in layman's terms.

That's not a bad example.

Think malum in se verses malum prohibitum.

One is conduct that is illegal because it is wrong by its very nature. The other is illegal because government exercises authority over the individual and deems it illegal for the duel purpose of controlling the individual's behavior and collecting revenue (robbing) the individual.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...and, by the way, the Internal Revenue Code is one big fat malum prohibitum codex.

 

[ding]

It is one and the same. We rely on the government to protect our natural rights.

But, as you are well aware, Government is the only entity NOT protecting our natural rights. In fact, government is the nemesis of natural rights.

They certainly can be, especially when they forget they are public servants and try to become masters. Isn't that why they added a Bill of Rights?

But just because they can be doesn't mean that they have. Many of our problems stem from them behaving like we are a Democracy instead of a Republic. Where they pander to voters to buy their votes. Or use the system to reward their friend and punish their enemies. We could end a lot of that by just passing a flat tax.

There may be more danger in throwing the baby out with the bathwater than there is from just draining the dirty bathwater.