Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

There is nothing government does that people can't do for themselves, other than imprison their neighbors. So that pretty much rules out government as a necessity.

Any organization of men necessarily requires a hierarchy. You can't get around this. You see it throughout nature. So to argue that no government is required is ludicrous. It can be solved through inspection that a government is required.

Coupled with the fact that any organization has to have rules and a way to enforce the rules.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ding]

Anarchism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of anarchism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Anarchism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Anarchism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Anarchists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire no government to implement their amoral social policies. Anarchism is a religion. The religious nature of anarchism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

It seems that right now we have an example of a country with no government, Somalia. It is the perfect test case for anarchy, if things turn out well there then maybe they will win me over to their side.

Or you could go through history and find any revolution except the American Revolution and use that as an example.

Our problem isn't the structure of our government it is that our people have become corrupted themselves and our government reflects the people.

But there is still good within us and when we have had enough we will change our ways.

The people running our government have been corrupt right from the very beginning. Sleazy lying douchebags are attracted to government. Honest respectable people stear clear of it.

I don't think that is statistically possible.

 

[ding]

Not according to the founding fathers of liberty and freedom. According to them liberty and freedom rests upon virtue and morality and virtue and morality rests on religion.

Cite some sources. Don't make blanket statements. I will bet you believe the founding fathers were Christians.

But, the founder of your religion was closely related to the founding fathers, in that he hijack the rites of their fraternal order.

So how do you reconcile that your beliefs about religion are closely aligned to the beliefs of the founding fathers of communism and diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty.

And while you are at it how do you reconcile that your support for open borders is aligned with the beliefs of socialists?

Why Socialists Have Always Fought for Open Borders

So, one cannot be moral without religion?

It fits that you believe this.

Just like people cannot coexist without government, you believe people cannot use their minds, gain perspective, and act morally.

You never did answer the question on whether or not you want open borders.

Do you want open borders?

 

[ding]

Anarchism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of anarchism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Anarchism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Anarchism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Anarchists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire no government to implement their amoral social policies. Anarchism is a religion. The religious nature of anarchism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

See? This is why I get mad. This is incredibly dishonest.

You prove every point.

Anarchists are collectivists. Why else would you want to bring down a Republic?

I swear Rod Serling is going to show up any minute. How the hell are we collectivists when we’ve written reams vehemently asserting the primacy of individual rights?

Denies examination and is irrational, even though this whole thread we’ve participated in an examination and given logical reasoning for our position.

There is no dogma because it’s an apophatic position - no rulers - that’s all. No utopia, euphoria, or social order beyond reproach. There can be order - that’s what humans do - but there is no doctrine delineating what that would or should be.

No uniformity or communal ownership. Our extraordinary ability to inspire social movements is beating our heads against a wall while people ignore most of the noises that come out.

Where are the incongruities? The logic has been consistently based on self-ownership. It’s not amoral, as it’s wholly rooted in morality, as we’ve expressed or implied in nearly every post.

Not a religion, there’s no belief system inherent to anarchy other than “slavery is bad”. No hostility toward other religions, in fact, no mention of them at all.

Materialism, atheism - no mention of them. Primitive instincts - directly opposed by citing recognition of moral law and calling for evolution of consciousness. Deification of man - expressly said men are not Gods and therefore cannot make law; condone recognition of natural law.

Distinction between good and evil is our entire point, pleasure as a primary value not mentioned or implied. The exact opposite of moral relativity, expressly condone discrimination of thought, chastised normalization of deviation by implication, as strict adherence to a caregorical moral imperative is being condoned.

Marxism - anarchy implies nothing about economics or communal systems. It implies nothing about science or family. Expressly recognized private property rights, and denied the legitmacy of external control.

Implored others to embrace critical thinking while practicing it relentlessly. Pretty much everything is the exact opposite of what you’ve asserted. I believe you are trolling with this, but I’ve indulged for the sake of lurkers actually interested in this examination.

Because anarchism is the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. You don't even see that the things you promote lead to totalitarianism. Tear down this government and another one will fill the void. One will be based upon collectivism. Do you need for me to explain why that will happen, or could you just extrapolate from what happened in Russia and China? Or every other communist nation?

 

[bripat9643]

The Fed Govt is keeping you from leaving the country? You are lying your ass o

You are not proving jack shit by telling us to leave. Can we just assume that is your response to everything and you can just shut the fuck up unless you have soething else to add?

I am telling people to have strength to their convictions. We have people that talk a mighty game on an internet forum but will not back up that talk. Here we are more than 1000 post in and the anarchist have told us all that time how evil the US government ia, and when they have a chance to live government free, they all of a sudden decided shit is not so bad after all.

Seems things are not really as bad as they pretend

You're just an insulting jackass who believes he can impose his prejudices on others. You can't support your servile attitude with logic or facts, so you resort to this redneck personal attack. Every time you post this infantile horseshit you're admitting you lost the argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are we the people that must conform or get out?

Fuck that.

You bitches leave.

Agreed. What gives the people who signed the Constitution the right to impose anything on me?

I believe that is called the rule of law.

If you don't like it you can leave, right?

I mean it isn't like you don't have a remedy to it.

Is "the rule of law" a euphemism for tyranny? Looks like you and GG are getting yourarguments from the same goose stepping redneck propaganda sources.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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

Under threat of violence, yeah.

And yes, a parking ticket is a threat of violence, not only because of the robbery, but unwillingness to comply at some point along the chain of escalating enforcement will result in your death.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Fed Govt is keeping you from leaving the country? You are lying your ass o

You are not proving jack shit by telling us to leave. Can we just assume that is your response to everything and you can just shut the fuck up unless you have soething else to add?

I am telling people to have strength to their convictions. We have people that talk a mighty game on an internet forum but will not back up that talk. Here we are more than 1000 post in and the anarchist have told us all that time how evil the US government ia, and when they have a chance to live government free, they all of a sudden decided shit is not so bad after all.

Seems things are not really as bad as they pretend

You're just an insulting jackass who believes he can impose his prejudices on others. You can't support your servile attitude with logic or facts, so you resort to this redneck personal attack. Every time you posts this infantile horseshit you're admitting you lost the argument.

Says the Trump ass kissing anarchist!

You are one confused individual


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why are we the people that must conform or get out?

Fuck that.

You bitches leave.

Agreed. What gives the people who signed the Constitution the right to impose anything on me?

I believe that is called the rule of law.

If you don't like it you can leave, right?

I mean it isn't like you don't have a remedy to it.

Is "the rule of law" a euphemism for tyranny? Looks like you and GG are getting yourarguments from the same goose stepping redneck propaganda sources.

If this is tyranny, why do you stay? Why do you continue to submit to it? Why not put actions behind your words?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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?

Cruise missiles on their villa’s. Kill them and their families. Vulgar display of power will crush these animals.

I think your programming is glitching. You're spouting random thoughts that do not address what's been said to you.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Socialism has always sought to subordinate:

1. Family
2. Religion
3. Love of country

Good thing we don't.

Every single one.

So lay out your argument. How is what's been proposed here seeking to subordinate these things? The only grey area for me is what you mean by "country". If you mean a land and its people, then all three do not apply to anarchy. If you mean the intellectual construct of a territory of dominion claimed by a particular ruling class, then yes, this is the one and only thing being subordinated (to the point of dissolution) by anarchy.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Non-US citizens being told they just can't waltz into the country without checking in first is loss of liberty?

Of course. It's a man with a gun inhibiting the free movement of an innocent individual. There is no valid property claim to this land mass on the whole, and what's more, it is violating the right of free association of every individual upon that land mass.

 

[Picaro]

The Fed Govt is keeping you from leaving the country? You are lying your ass off. You freely chose to stay here, that is all on you and nobody else.

You obviously haven't looked into all the requirements the feds lay on you, should you wish to expatriate....I have, and it's a shit ton of bureaucratic bullshit to wade through.

Once again, you have NFI what you're blabbering about.

So you are too lazy to do a little paperwork, you really do not have much strength of conviction at all.

So, you think it's fine to make people file the same paperwork over and over, delay them for years, all for no reason? Yes, you sound like a perfect Democrat.

/-----/ Golfing Gator was outraged when the town said he had to get a permit to run his Kool Aid stand. His Special Ed teacher had to help him fill out the paperwork.

He also doesn't the know the difference between merely living in Mexico or any other foreign country, and immigrating there or anywhere else and becoming an actual citizen and renouncing U.S. citizenship. Few U.S. retirees to Mexico or South America give up their U.S. citizenship. And, we know those billionaires who move anywhere aren't going to get the same runaround some hapless prole is going to get, so their experience doesn't mean squat.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Fed Govt is keeping you from leaving the country? You are lying your ass off. You freely chose to stay here, that is all on you and nobody else.

You obviously haven't looked into all the requirements the feds lay on you, should you wish to expatriate....I have, and it's a shit ton of bureaucratic bullshit to wade through.

Once again, you have NFI what you're blabbering about.

So you are too lazy to do a little paperwork, you really do not have much strength of conviction at all.

So, you think it's fine to make people file the same paperwork over and over, delay them for years, all for no reason? Yes, you sound like a perfect Democrat.

/-----/ Golfing Gator was outraged when the town said he had to get a permit to run his Kool Aid stand. His Special Ed teacher had to help him fill out the paperwork.

He also doens't the know the difference between merely living in Mexico or any other foreign country, and immigrating there or anywhere else and becoming an actual citizen.

That is not what we are talking about, there is no becoming a citizen as that is a function of the government, and the government is evil according to them.

But right now in the world today we have a county that has no government, and yet they choose to stay here and live under this evil tranny.

That displays a lack of conviction in their stated beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Non-US citizens being told they just can't waltz into the country without checking in first is loss of liberty?

Of course. It's a man with a gun inhibiting the free movement of an innocent individual. There is no valid property claim to this land mass on the whole, and what's more, it is violating the right of free association of every individual upon that land mass.

How is that different than a man with a gun inhibiting the movement of an innocent individual on his private property? What makes his property claim valid?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Some Guy]

I think those of you arguing are kinda talking different things. I've seen Bootney acknowledge that Anarchy isn't viable in practice, maybe Brian would as well. So from that standpoint, Golfing Gator is right.

But to inform the practice, you need to form the ideal, which is what's being attempted to do here. If people were totally moral and respected the sovereignty of their fellow man at all times, every time, then yes: no government is needed. Because, people are capable of associating, coordinating and working together in absence of government. We do that every day. We don't need a government to give us permission to sell ice cream cones in a store on the corner, and we don't need a government to tell us that the piece of paper i give you in exchange for the ice cream is worth something valuable. We also don't need government to tell us that it's in our best interest to treat other people fairly and kindly.

Government exists because not all people all the time will act morally. But that doesn't change the fact that government is a force designed to enforce morality via the use of immoral actions. In other words, government is an immoral means to a moral end. It's a necessary evil, one that should be limited to the greatest extent possible (in many people's opinions here).

Consent isn't implied by not leaving. I don't consent to paying the taxes i do, but i pay them because a force much greater than me will take my life away if i don't. I value not being in prison more than not paying taxes. And i don't see a better situation available for me and my family to move to considering all the governments there are in relation to the location, and such. That doesn't mean i consent to a lot of what the government imposes on me, and thus why i'm interested in understanding what the ideal state would be in order to inform how i would/could change things around me.

That's my take anyway.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

The natural conclusion of anarchy is chaos. You are willing to shift authority from the government to something you will give a new name, but eventually anarchist will be back in the same place and they will want to take authority from that and the cycle will not end till there is nothing but chaos. This cannot be disputed.

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.

There is no exploitation, there is mutual benefit. I am getting exactly what I want as is my employer. How can that be exploitation? I am not being treated unfairly or unjustly.

Fair

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

Just or fair, now you are just playing semantic...

Just: guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness:

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.

There is expressed consent when you freely choose to live under a system of government. When you get a job you express your consent for them to take out taxes. There is a country right now that has the system you are looking for, and yet you will not move there. What does that say about you?

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

Morality is a man made construct, it is based upon the society we live in. There is no morality in nature.

If I kill you for my gain, we humans see that as immoral. If a lion kills a gazelle for its gain, is that immoral?

Is it immoral for a praying mantis to kill its mate during sex? Of course not, but if you did it to your mate, that would be immoral. Our morals come from the society we are a part of.

Of course your speculation about the "natural consequence" of anarchy is disputable - you're provided no reasoning to support the assertion. A baseball team is an entirely voluntary arrangement - why can't this exist in a society with no ruling class?

You still fail to understand what makes government government. It is the claim to an authority over you that supersedes your own. It is the fallacious right to rule you. That is a claim to ownership over you. Everything you do that is not imposed upon by law is something they "let" you do, and they reserve the right to change their mind about that at any time. This is the only thing removed by anarchy. All the organizational elements can remain on a voluntary basis.

The context in which we discussed "fair vs. just" was how the employee is devalued. It is unfair because he is not getting full value for his labor. It is not unjust, however, because he agreed to it. There are other interpretations of these words, but this is the distinction I was trying to make.

Of course employment is an exploitation, whether you've reduced your "want" to meet the level of benefit you receive from that arrangement or not. You are being treated unfairly (receiving less compensation for your labor than what it produces) to the benefit of the employer. If you weren't being exploited, there'd be no reason for him to have you there - you wouldn't be worth the price of the chair you're sitting in.

Taking a job that imposes tax withholding is not necessarily consenting to that withholding. You're consenting to the job, and getting taxed whether you consent or not. A job is like a relationship. Being in a relationship with someone does not mean you consent to everything they do to you. You may consent to them hugging you, but not hitting you. And even if you do consent, that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Denial of consent always makes an action immoral, but consent does not always make an action moral. Unalienable rights means those rights cannot be removed from a person, even by their own consent.

Contrary to your assertion, morality is discovered, not devised. Moral relativism merely indicates subjective preference. It is a denial of morality, not a version of it. My understanding of morality, as well as mankind's, is not currently sufficient to answer all questions. This includes questions about beings who do not have the capacity to understand morality, like animals.

 

[Oddball]

Because anarchism is the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. You don't even see that the things you promote lead to totalitarianism. Tear down this government and another one will fill the void. One will be based upon collectivism. Do you need for me to explain why that will happen, or could you just extrapolate from what happened in Russia and China? Or every other communist nation?

Just because you believe that another band of thugs will replace the ones you just cast off, as an inevitability, doesn't make it so....You also continue to overlook the fact that your statist structure not only attracts these brutes on an ongoing basis, it also strives to criminalize the behavior of its otherwise peaceful and innocent subjects, in order to strengthen is position and enrich itself.

In a world without such "rulers", the lives of antisocial and violent miscreants would be brutal and short.

 

[Some Guy]

Of course employment is an exploitation, whether you've reduced your "want" to meet the level of benefit you receive from that arrangement or not. You are being treated unfairly (receiving less compensation for your labor than what it produces) to the benefit of the employer. If you weren't being exploited, there'd be no reason for him to have you there - you wouldn't be worth the price of the chair you're sitting in.

Conversely, the chair wouldn't necessarily exist if not for the employer. If someone is making and selling kick-ass sponges out their garage, and eventually the demand exceeds the capacity, that's when someone is hired to help meet the demand. It would depend on what he's getting paid, but should the employer not make more than the employee? The employer is taking the risk. The employer is the one who created the need for the employee and the one who is directly charged with informing the employee what he/she needs to do in order to meet the demand. From there, the employee can decide to start his own sponge-making operation if he'd like, or he can prove to the employer that he's worth more than what he's being paid via innovating the manufacturing process or coming up with a new product offering and thus earn more.

 

[Oddball]

I think those of you arguing are kinda talking different things. I've seen Bootney acknowledge that Anarchy isn't viable in practice, maybe Brian would as well. So from that standpoint, Golfing Gator is right.

We don't know that...People once thought heavier-than-air travel, supersonic flight, and wireless communication were impossible at one point.

But to inform the practice, you need to form the ideal, which is what's being attempted to do here. If people were totally moral and respected the sovereignty of their fellow man at all times, every time, then yes: no government is needed. Because, people are capable of associating, coordinating and working together in absence of government. We do that every day. We don't need a government to give us permission to sell ice cream cones in a store on the corner, and we don't need a government to tell us that the piece of paper i give you in exchange for the ice cream is worth something valuable. We also don't need government to tell us that it's in our best interest to treat other people fairly and kindly.

And with proper upbringing and a social order of voluntary cooperative action, this attitude of respect, kindness, and an eye to that which is beneficial and beautiful would become ubiquitous, while the brutish and destructive would wither on the vine...Y'know, evolution and all that.

Government exists because not all people all the time will act morally. But that doesn't change the fact that government is a force designed to enforce morality via the use of immoral actions. In other words, government is an immoral means to a moral end. It's a necessary evil, one that should be limited to the greatest extent possible (in many people's opinions here).

Well, that's the story the statists tell us, anyways...But just suppose for a moment that all of that is fake news, meant to con us all into accepting the despotism of the rulers?

Consent isn't implied by not leaving. I don't consent to paying the taxes i do, but i pay them because a force much greater than me will take my life away if i don't. I value not being in prison more than not paying taxes. And i don't see a better situation available for me and my family to move to considering all the governments there are in relation to the location, and such. That doesn't mean i consent to a lot of what the government imposes on me, and thus why i'm interested in understanding what the ideal state would be in order to inform how i would/could change things around me.

That's my take anyway.

An nation of aggression, by aggressors, for the aggressive....But hey, that's the way we've always done it!

I'll hand it to you, at least your putting in a decent effort to understand all this.