Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To an anarchist a conservative only looks like a statist.

Do you support the state imparing the obligation of a marital contract between two men or two women? I already know you support the state not imparing the obligations of a marital contract between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman.


May they all bow their heads and say "yes."

 

[ding]

Let's see:

Subordinate religion. Check.

Eliminate a Republic. Check.

Yep. Collectivist.

Create straw man argument: Check

???

Profit!

Funny how you self identified with my comment.

 

[ding]

To an anarchist a conservative only looks like a statist.

Do you support the state imparing the obligation of a marital contract between two men or two women? I already know you support the state not imparing the obligations of a marital contract between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman.


May they all bow their heads and say "yes."

Free love movement. Check.

Collectivist.

 

[ding]

Socialism has always sought to subordinate:

1. Family
2. Religion
3. Love of country

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Free love movement.

To the statist, a "non-conventional" marriage contract is "free love movement."

 

[ding]

Do you guys know what this is?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Socialism has always sought to subordinate:

1. Family
2. Religion
3. Love of country

Good thing we don't.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

Why do you say anarchy, as an anti-political position, implies no order, when everyone here has told you 1,000 times that voluntary organization, including heirarchy, is fine? This word is so overused, but it’s classic strawman.

As for employment, I merely described the situation. I said that the employee is not compensated for the full value of his work. This is the whole goal of hiring someone. The point of the example was to demonstrate a situation where you gain some benefit from a system that is not designed for your benefit, but specifically designed for your exploitation. Your ability to gain benefit is just a way of keeping you coming back so the exploiter can get HIS benefit. I’m not making a value judgement about this arrangement.

Fair was never mentioned, or implied.
Just is my concern, not fair.

Government is a system that is not designed for your benefit. Gaining some benefit from it does not refute this. The difference between government and employment is that there is no expressed consent. That is why it is inherently immoral - because it is both exploitative and compulsory. To say government is a neutral tool is to ignore much of what’s been said to this point without having adequately refuted it.

You believe natural law does not exist, so what is the source of your morality?

 

[ding]

Free love movement.

To the statist, a "non-conventional" marriage contract is "free love movement."

To a conservative it is Fabian gradualism. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[ding]

Socialism has always sought to subordinate:

1. Family
2. Religion
3. Love of country

Good thing we don't.

Every single one.

 

[Oddball]

Funny how you self identified with my comment.

Funny how you're too dense to recognize when you're being mocked.

 

[ding]

Funny how you self identified with my comment.

Funny how you're too dense to recognize when you're being mocked.

I've been mocked before. It's not so bad. But why would you think I didn't recognize it?

I've already weighed and measured each of you guys and realize who I am dealing with.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Reducto ad Somalia....

Anarchy in Somalia | Robert P. Murphy

When are you moving there? If you are not then you are a fraud


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When are moving to your statist utopia, Venezuela?

That would be an apt comparison if I was on this forum stating that socialism was better than our system, but I have not done that. You and the others claim that anarchy is superior to our system, yet you lack the strength of character to act on your words. You are all frauds, you are like a person claiming to be a Vegan while eating pork ribs.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ding]

I actually find the alt right to be worse than the alt left.

 

[ding]

At least the alt left is honest about their intentions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Althought I do reject collectivism, I find it perfectly ironic that Ding rejects collectivism while simultaniously dedicating himself (time, talents, etc.) to a religious organization that promotes a church-run state of collectivism (law of consecration).

 

[ding]

But then again the alt right and the alt left are the same side of the same coin.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

That’s because criminals are morons. Law is what’s keeping them from getting shot most of the time.

I agree about the time lag between action and consequence being a huge roadblock to understanding moral law. But offering man’s law as a solution only creates another transgression with another deferred consequence. That consequence is loss of liberty, and ultimately chaos (relative to desirable order).

 

[ding]

Althought I do reject collectivism, I find it perfectly ironic that Ding rejects collectivism while simultaniously dedicating himself (time, talents, etc.) to a religious organization that promotes a church-run state of collectivism (law of consecration).

Funny how you see it that way when there is no enforcement.

But even funnier is how you openly admit to your subordination of religion.

 

[ding]

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.

That’s because criminals are morons. Law is what’s keeping them from getting shot most of the time.

I agree about the time lag between action and consequence being a huge roadblock to understanding moral law. But offering man’s law as a solution only creates another transgression with another deferred consequence. That consequence is loss of liberty, and ultimately chaos (relative to desirable order).

Being told that you can't double park is loss of liberty?