Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Foxfyre]

Because any progressives or others who say that it does are woefully ignorant and have absolutely no understanding of what social contract is. That does not mean, however, that there can be no means of enforcing the social contract, once the people mutually agree on it, i.e. a private fire department can fight whatever fires it chooses via whatever private contracts it has with people. A volunteer fire department formed under social contract is far less likely to be so choosy about what fires it will fight. In both cases however, concern for fellow human beings can play a part.

No...It's because the mythical social contract has absolutely no specifically delineated terms in conditions, to the extent that's entirely impossible for you to dig up a copy of it for all to see...They take the completely arbitrary notions of what constitutes this "social contract", form and flake it in to meet their criteria and rules for everyone else (except for themselves of course), and are no more wrong about its contents than you are....That's what happens when you try to define an idea that's entirely up to the subjective judgment of those describing it.

I couldn't disagree more. Because democracy is unworkable because of selfish and bad people doesn't mean that the concept itself is not a good concept.

A benevolent monarchy with the wisdom to do what is best for the people at all times would be the most perfect government, but it will never happen because absolute power invariably corrupts as has happened in our own government once it discarded the ideal of social contract and assumed absolute authority. The blame for that is on those who did it and we the people who allowed it to happen.

Social contract isn't perfect because there will always be those who don't get all or anything they want, but it is the most perfect, least intrusive, least corruptible form of government devised by human kind. It is the only form of government in which the people govern themselves and set their own rules for society and what boundaries all agree to live by and who will have authority and how much.

Now you can see the beauty and advantage in that or continue to maintain that social contract doesn't exist and/or that a society without rules or discipline or laws or any means other than being stronger or better with weapons or just being able to stay awake longer in order to defend oneself is the only proper society.

I prefer social contract.

 

[ding]

Which is why we live in a Republic with checks and balances.

"Why Toby, if I's 'idn't know better, I say you's thinkin' you's been wronged! Don't you know we's gots chicks and balances? Massa Trump, Massa Schumer, and Massa Roberts be's keepin' each other proppa, an' no mistake! Now no mo' foolin' wit' all dis bidness - that crop ain't gwine pick itself!"

I've done pretty well for myself as a "slave."

Are you sure YOU aren't the one "thinkin' you's been wronged?"

 

[ding]

"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.

Except 99% of the population never agreed to it.

It's conditional upon you living here. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

Because short of a Constitutional convention the only thing that is likely to change the way things are would be WWIII.

 

[ding]

Then at least one of us would have had the balls to follow his convictions.

You mean you're an imbecile. You have no convictions other than that you're entitled to take money from others to use for your purposes.

Given that I probably pay more in taxes than you earn it isn't very likely I am taking anything from anyone I did not earn myself.

If you vote for tax increases or the politicians who support them, you are taking money from other people.

Your logic is as flawed as you are emotional.

Nope. You use government to steal from other people.

How exactly am I doing that?

Because I am thinking that using your own standard as a measure, you must not vote ever.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

Lysander Spooner described this idea of defensive participation in government, and how it's not indicative of approval or consent to the overall system. I think bripat mentioned supporting Trump because Hillary was a murderous satanic pedophile on furlough from the 7th level of hell (paraphrasing here). He's an anarchist, but saw supporting (perhaps even voting for?) Trump as an act of defense against those who would vote for someone worse.

I see the logic in this, though I don't subscribe to this notion myself. It's practical, yes, but I cannot push a button that says, "I condone this person making laws which others must obey under threat of aggressive violence". I also think that the peaceful path to a free society is turning our backs on the illusion of governmental authority in all its forms (where possible, without martyring ourselves - we're too rare and valuable hahaha). I can't help feeling that voting is an acknowledgement of their fallacious claim, whether we actually believe in it or not. I fear it sends the wrong message. However, I'm not so certain about these nuances to feel justified trying to persuade others to this approach.

 

[ding]

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.

Police as individuals can because there are laws in place. Laws established by government.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I've done pretty well for myself as a "slave."

Are you sure YOU aren't the one "thinkin' you's been wronged?"

Well, as long as you've done well for yourself, that's all that matters.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Do you understand what we're trying to do here? We're trying to help people understand why government is wrong, not just that government is wrong.

I do understand what you are trying to do, the problem is that your entire argument is built upon a utopian wet dream fantasy and not reality. Your view of human nature has no bearing in reality or in history, it is just wishful thinking. Mankind is not naturally good, kind and benevolent. Mankind is just what we have seen from them over their history. Some are good, some are evil and most fall in the middle. Your anarchist dream will fail like every other system of government because of basic human nature.

Once you understand that the belief in external non-consensual authority is invalid, immoral, and essentially anti-human, you will never abide it again. So no, a voluntary organization will not become government if anarchy comes about naturally via this critical understanding.

Yes, it will. Mankind's nature will evneturall take over and someone will want more than they have and they will devise a way to get it. And in the end you will be once again fighting against some form of authority, it will just have a new name so you can feel better about yourself.

And to think that you're choosing your government is like thinking casino games are fair. You are presented only with the options that serve those in control of the political farce. You are at a carnival, my friend, and you are the mark.

I have chosen which government I wish to live under. I have the financial resources to move anywhere in the world that I wish to move and choose any government that I desire.

 

[ding]

I've done pretty well for myself as a "slave."

Are you sure YOU aren't the one "thinkin' you's been wronged?"

Well, as long as you've done well for yourself, that's all that matters.

Think concentric circles, Brian.

But putting that aside, it belies your belief that I am a slave.

And it is your displeasure that shows that you think you are a slave.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But nutmeg is not evil! There is no "proper balance" of good and evil. Like darkness to light, evil is merely the absence of good, it contributes no quality of its own. Where the analogy ends is that In the context of light, we may have "too much" for our purposes, whereas with good, more is always better. We don't want a balance of good and "not good", we want as much good as we can get. This is why I say that you fundamentally misunderstand what government IS if you think it can provide any good at all. Government is an exploitation. It is an evil (the lack of freedom). There is no part of it designed to benefit you. Let's think of this in another setting...

Government is not evil, government is a tool used to bring about social order. It is not more evil than a hammer or a AR-15. All three can be used for evil, but none are evil in and of themselves. If you remove government you will have to replace it with another tool to bring about social order or you will just have chaos. Personally I say that is what anarchy is, but you seem to disagree. Whatever tool you replace government with will have the same propensity to be evil.

Consider employment. The employer pays an employee a salary of 50k per year. This employee's labor must create more than 50k per year in value, in order to justify his presence in the company. The employee, by definition, is receiving compensation for his labor below that which it is worth - he is being devalued, to the expressed benefit of the employer. The employer, in effect, would be stealing that portion of the labor, if not for the consent of the employee, which makes it a gift (whether he realizes this or not). No part of this system is designed for the employee's benefit. When he ceases to produce benefit for the employer, his presence is no longer justified, despite any benefit he is creating for himself.

This works just like slavery, but on a voluntary basis, which is why it is not a matter of concern for the anarchist; at least not at this time. The level of consciousness required to fully embrace this understanding of employment as devaluation is beyond that which is required to embrace the moral necessity of consent (which almost everyone already does in matters of rape, etc., but they have an indoctrinated blind spot as it relates to government). So, first things first. Learn to crawl toward freedom (the accurate valuation of the self), then learn to walk.

I do not say this as an insult, but you have such a simple minded view of the world. It seems in your world "fair" is all that matters. In the real world fair is a joke, there is no such thing and never will be.

The relationship between an employers and an employee should be one of mutual benefit, not one of equal benefit as such is not possible and because we do not share equal risk. I hope and hold pride in the fact that I provide more value for my employer than he pays me as it allows him to keep his business operating and keep giving me a very, very nice salary and a 12 grand raise like happened this year. I have no desire to employ myself, my job has one purpose, to provide me with the funds to live my life in the way that I choose. I do not work where I do because I love the company or even because the work is all that amazing (being a statistician is not the most exciting job in the world). But when I leave work I get to worry about nothing but what I am going to make my wife and I for dinner and when my next tee time is. That to me is worth more than money, so I say I am getting the better end of the bargin in my arrangement with my employer.

Government is a master. Its purpose is to enslave you. A democratic republic is a con. Its purpose is to make slavery seem like freedom. Evil is nothing if not deceptive. It creates nothing, only perverts. The perversion of freedom is what you are heralding as freedom itself. All power-grabs require an enemy, the protection against which is cited as the necessity for control. That enemy can be a foreign power, poverty, or "anarchy" as chaos.

Government is a tool, not unlike the computer I am sitting at right now. I do though agree with you about power grabs and the need for an enemy...almost like you make government to be the enemy. Hmmm....maybe there is something to that....

Anarchy is not really a substantive position; it is an apophatic proposition - it is defined by what it is not.

I actually agree with this, and what it is not is order. Anarchy is the absence of order.

 

[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.

Except 99% of the population never agreed to it.

It's conditional upon you living here. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

Because short of a Constitutional convention the only thing that is likely to change the way things are would be WWIII.

Bullshit. The social contract is a myth. You don't impress anyone by repeating this nonsense.

 

[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.

Police as individuals can because there are laws in place. Laws established by government.

Are you serious right now? You did not just read that post and respond like this. I demand you remove the words "critical thinking" from your signature this instant!!!

Aw fuck, he's not gonna do it...

Now I'm just captivated by the mystery of the situation - could it be reading comprehension? That doesn't seem likely, as this was pretty clear. Mental block due to lifelong indoctrination? Likely enough, but still...

Any chance you'd like to, ya know, address the undeniable impossibility of moral government or anything?

Maybe we should just play "I Spy"... I'll go first... I see something... unfathomably resistant to logic.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I've done pretty well for myself as a "slave."

Are you sure YOU aren't the one "thinkin' you's been wronged?"

Well, as long as you've done well for yourself, that's all that matters.

Think concentric circles, Brian.

But putting that aside, it belies your belief that I am a slave.

And it is your displeasure that shows that you think you are a slave.

It's the words of a house slave. How well you're doing has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're a slave or not. Citing how well you're doing is only to say "Well, if I'm a slave, I'm a rich slave, so"

For God's sake, man, I thought you actually gave a damn about logic and reason. You were at least trying in our previous conversations.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Police as individuals can because there are laws in place. Laws established by government.

Are you serious right now? You did not just read that post and respond like this. I demand you remove the words "critical thinking" from your signature this instant!!!

Aw fuck, he's not gonna do it...

Now I'm just captivated by the mystery of the situation - could it be reading comprehension? That doesn't seem likely, as this was pretty clear. Mental block due to lifelong indoctrination? Likely enough, but still...

Any chance you'd like to, ya know, address the undeniable impossibility of moral government or anything?

Maybe we should just play "I Spy"... I'll go first... I see something... unfathomably resistant to logic.

There are no such thing as "natural law rights". This is just more utopian mumbo jumbo.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I've done pretty well for myself as a "slave."

Are you sure YOU aren't the one "thinkin' you's been wronged?"

Well, as long as you've done well for yourself, that's all that matters.

Think concentric circles, Brian.

But putting that aside, it belies your belief that I am a slave.

And it is your displeasure that shows that you think you are a slave.

It's the words of a house slave. How well you're doing has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're a slave or not. Citing how well you're doing is only to say "Well, if I'm a slave, I'm a rich slave, so"

For God's sake, man, I thought you actually gave a damn about logic and reason. You were at least trying in our previous conversations.

When you get pissed and start on personal attacks it would indicate you are losing an argument.

 

[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.

Police as individuals can because there are laws in place. Laws established by government.

Are you serious right now? You did not just read that post and respond like this. I demand you remove the words "critical thinking" from your signature this instant!!!

Aw fuck, he's not gonna do it...

Now I'm just captivated by the mystery of the situation - could it be reading comprehension? That doesn't seem likely, as this was pretty clear. Mental block due to lifelong indoctrination? Likely enough, but still...

Any chance you'd like to, ya know, address the undeniable impossibility of moral government or anything?

Maybe we should just play "I Spy"... I'll go first... I see something... unfathomably resistant to logic.

There are no such thing as "natural law rights". This is just more utopian mumbo jumbo.

Right, because all the universe is guided by law, with mankind’s behavior being the sole exception.

No chance you’d like to spend some time quietly considering that chart I posted, and seeing if it conforms with historical reality, and then making an informed... hello?

Aw fuck, he fell asleep.

 

[ding]

"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.

Except 99% of the population never agreed to it.

It's conditional upon you living here. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

Because short of a Constitutional convention the only thing that is likely to change the way things are would be WWIII.

Bullshit. The social contract is a myth. You don't impress anyone by repeating this nonsense.

I don't think you understand what I am writing. You don't have a choice.

You living here means that you accept it as a condition of you staying here.

How do I know? Because you toe the line. You bitch about it, but you have accepted it through your actions. You can cry that you are being coerced. That is just you rationalizing that you haven't accepted it when your actions say otherwise.

In fact, I bet you vote in the elections too. amirite?

 

[ding]

I've done pretty well for myself as a "slave."

Are you sure YOU aren't the one "thinkin' you's been wronged?"

Well, as long as you've done well for yourself, that's all that matters.

Think concentric circles, Brian.

But putting that aside, it belies your belief that I am a slave.

And it is your displeasure that shows that you think you are a slave.

It's the words of a house slave. How well you're doing has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're a slave or not. Citing how well you're doing is only to say "Well, if I'm a slave, I'm a rich slave, so"

For God's sake, man, I thought you actually gave a damn about logic and reason. You were at least trying in our previous conversations.

lol, the old uncle tom argument. First you tried the I act like I was wronged argument and when that didn't work you tried the house nigga argument. And now you are making a plea to logic.

This is really pretty simple. I believe the role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves and not to do for the people what they can and should do for themselves. You believe government is evil and you want to have no laws and think that people will just behave themselves.

And you question my logic? Too funny.

 

[ding]

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.

Police as individuals can because there are laws in place. Laws established by government.

Are you serious right now? You did not just read that post and respond like this. I demand you remove the words "critical thinking" from your signature this instant!!!

Aw fuck, he's not gonna do it...

Now I'm just captivated by the mystery of the situation - could it be reading comprehension? That doesn't seem likely, as this was pretty clear. Mental block due to lifelong indoctrination? Likely enough, but still...

Any chance you'd like to, ya know, address the undeniable impossibility of moral government or anything?

Maybe we should just play "I Spy"... I'll go first... I see something... unfathomably resistant to logic.

There are no such thing as "natural law rights". This is just more utopian mumbo jumbo.

Right, because all the universe is guided by law, with mankind’s behavior being the sole exception.

No chance you’d like to spend some time quietly considering that chart I posted, and seeing if it conforms with historical reality, and then making an informed... hello?

Aw fuck, he fell asleep.

Wrong. There are moral laws which are standards of conduct and when man normalizes his deviance to those standards he will eventually suffer predictable surprises.

Only a moron would believe there are no consequences to failed behaviors. But that process is not a fast acting one, which is why we need laws and enforcement of laws which you oppose.

You know who makes an argument for no laws? Criminals.

 

[ding]

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.

Police as individuals can because there are laws in place. Laws established by government.

Are you serious right now? You did not just read that post and respond like this. I demand you remove the words "critical thinking" from your signature this instant!!!

Aw fuck, he's not gonna do it...

Now I'm just captivated by the mystery of the situation - could it be reading comprehension? That doesn't seem likely, as this was pretty clear. Mental block due to lifelong indoctrination? Likely enough, but still...

Any chance you'd like to, ya know, address the undeniable impossibility of moral government or anything?

Maybe we should just play "I Spy"... I'll go first... I see something... unfathomably resistant to logic.

You are accusing me of what you are doing, comrade.