Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Some Guy]

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

I suppose you're right. There's very few certainties out there. So it would ultimately come down to opinion.

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.

Where's the starting point though? Apply anarchy to a population acknowledged as immoral and take your chances? Or are you saying that "we've evolved enough under various forms of government authority to now say we no longer find any value whatsoever in government authority?" It's a chicken or the egg thing, and again, a difference in opinion as to what the acceptable morality level is in aggregate so Anarchy won't devolve into tribal warfare.

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

You could be right. I'd just point up again about it coming down to subjective opinion.

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

View attachment 191266

Yep. The point being, not ideal... but humans aren't ideal, not yet anyway, in my opinion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

A baseball team has its own ruling class.

There is the league that makes the rules and enforces the rules.

There is the owner that rules the individual team.

There is the manager and coaches that answer to the owner and who control the players.

Then there are the players that according to you are being exploited because making 100 million dollars to play a game is unfair to them.

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.

Yes, that can all remain and when someone says “fuck that I am not following your rules” then what is the consequence, NOTHING.

If you tell me “this is my land” I can say “nope, it is my land” and shot you in the head and then it is my land and nothing can be done.

Unless of course you have something like a government with a different name to deal with the guy that says “fuck it”.

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.

This is where you go the most wrong and I think this error by you is why you think that anarchy is viable, you do not understand nature.

Morality is a construct of society to help society to survive, it is nothing more than that unless you are appealing to a higher authority than nature, some form of deity from which morals flow.

In nature morality makes no sense. A praying mantis kills its mate because that is the way nature designed it, there can never be a morality assigned to it any more than you could call a hurricane immoral.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com[/quote]

 

[Some Guy]

Morality is a construct of society to help society to survive, it is nothing more than that unless you are appealing to a higher authority than nature, some form of deity from which morals flow.

That's a moral relativism argument employed by leftists to explain away why fundamental Islamists aren't any different than Americans. Surely you'd agree that Western society is more moral than some fundamental Islamist societies that prevent women from showing their faces, or prevent them from having much autonomy at all. In their society, that's viewed as moral by many, while the Westerners with their short shorts and porn is immoral. Which is really "moral?" Both are well beyond the idea of "survival", much moreso about how people should act.

If you think one society's morals are superior to another, which i do, then you've basically disproved your own argument there. Morals don't have to be granted by a higher power. They can be arrived at by critical thought and science. Just look at how Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro both come to largely the same moral endpoints via vastly different methods. It suggests that morality is more absolute than relative.

 

[Oddball]

Where's the starting point though? Apply anarchy to a population acknowledged as immoral and take your chances? Or are you saying that "we've evolved enough under various forms of government authority to now say we no longer find any value whatsoever in government authority?" It's a chicken or the egg thing, and again, a difference in opinion as to what the acceptable morality level is in aggregate so Anarchy won't devolve into tribal warfare.

Where was the starting point when the black slaves were freed?...Did they get weekend passes?....Did they get special "how to deal with freedom" seminars and trainings?....How is anyone a part-time slave?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You tell me, you're the anarchist.

First, no I am not an anarchist, but you fools keep defending statism and force my hand. Secondly, because the state can do nothing but impair and deprive. That is all it does.

I don't believe we can ever get to a state of anarchy because too many people think they are moral because they are beholden to a set of religious rules handed down by other people in the name of a supreme being.

Because too many people rely on others to tell them what is moral, rather than using their brains, we are inevitably stuck with a state. That doesn't mean I have to like it or defend it.

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

 

[Some Guy]

Where was the starting point when the black slaves were freed?...Did they get weekend passes?....Did they get special "how to deal with freedom" seminars and trainings?....How is anyone a part-time slave?

You're not talking about system of government there though. You're talking about overtly different treatment of one people compared to another under the (presumably and purportedly) same rights afforded to all people and protected by the government in place. It's pretty cut and dry. If you acknowledge that black people are indeed humans just like white people, then they should be afforded the same rights under the law (the whole "all men are created equal" part). That's significantly different than talking about government vs. the absence of government within the context of human morality on the whole.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

He couldn't construct a logical syllogism if his life depended on it.

The saddest part - for all of us - is that it actually does.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You choose to stay here when you could leave and go to a place that has the system that you claim to prefer. you are just a fraud that lacks any strength of conviction.

Please stop this, it's demeaning... to you, I mean.

Never mind the fact that combating injustice where you are is more noble than running away (we're not just talking about preference here) but arguments are to be judged on their own merits. So his character - which I do not question - is irrelevant.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Morality is a construct of society to help society to survive, it is nothing more than that unless you are appealing to a higher authority than nature, some form of deity from which morals flow.

That's a moral relativism argument employed by leftists to explain away why fundamental Islamists aren't any different than Americans. Surely you'd agree that Western society is more moral than some fundamental Islamist societies that prevent women from showing their faces, or prevent them from having much autonomy at all. In their society, that's viewed as moral by many, while the Westerners with their short shorts and porn is immoral. Which is really "moral?" Both are well beyond the idea of "survival", much moreso about how people should act.

If you think one society's morals are superior to another, which i do, then you've basically disproved your own argument there. Morals don't have to be granted by a higher power. They can be arrived at by critical thought and science. Just look at how Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro both come to largely the same moral endpoints via vastly different methods. It suggests that morality is more absolute than relative.

You basically said the same thing I did.

I said they were a construct of society, you say they are arrived at by critical thought and science...which are a part of society. If one society is more advanced in their critical thinking and science, then their morals will differ.

Either way morals are not part of nature, they do not apply to a mantis killing its mate or a spider killing a bird.

Also, since critical thought and science are forever in a state of flux, thus too are morals that derive from them. Science and critical thinking are not absolute, so why would something that springs from them be absolute?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You choose to stay here when you could leave and go to a place that has the system that you claim to prefer. you are just a fraud that lacks any strength of conviction.

Please stop this, it's demeaning... to you, I mean.

Never mind the fact that combating injustice where you are is more noble than running away (we're not just talking about preference here) but arguments are to be judged on their own merits. So his character - which I do not question - is irrelevant.

Is this discussion what you consider combating injustice?

Question that no one has answered, why does anarchy not work the way you predict it will in Somalia?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Private property is a meaningless term outside of a governmental system.

Without that property ownership is based on who has the resources to keep it. Once again a might makes right system.

Somalia is a hellscape because of the chaos caused by the anarchy. Somalia is a natural outcome of anarchy


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I'm no expert on Somalia, all I know is that their kids were on my TV twenty years ago with flies buzzing around their face, begging for food. So I'm pretty sure they weren't living an upscale metropolitan lifestyle until anarchy ushered them back to the stone age.

Private property is meaningless without government? So if we're in the jungle and you build a hut only to come home one night to find me sleeping in it, would you feel that you've been wronged? Pay attention to what I'm asking - I'm not asking if you would fight to take it back because it's a thing that you want, I'm asking if you would feel that an injustice has occurred? If so, why?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

He couldn't construct a logical syllogism if his life depended on it.

The saddest part - for all of us - is that it actually does.

Now you are being a drama queen. My life is not in danger. I have roughly 40 to 50 years left on this side of the ground if I am lucky.

The world not transitioning to the anarchist utopia you dream of will have no impact on my life at all. In a decade I will retire and golf and cook to my hearts desire


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Private property is a meaningless term outside of a governmental system.

Without that property ownership is based on who has the resources to keep it. Once again a might makes right system.

Somalia is a hellscape because of the chaos caused by the anarchy. Somalia is a natural outcome of anarchy


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I'm no expert on Somalia, all I know is that their kids were on my TV twenty years ago with flies buzzing around their face, begging for food. So I'm pretty sure they weren't living an upscale metropolitan lifestyle until anarchy ushered them back to the stone age.

Private property is meaningless without government? So if we're in the jungle and you build a hut only to come home one night to find me sleeping in it, would you feel that you've been wronged? Pay attention to what I'm asking - I'm not asking if you would fight to take it back because it's a thing that you want, I'm asking if you would feel that an injustice has occurred? If so, why?

I would feel wronged and if you had the power to keep the hut I would keep feeling wronged till the end of time with no recourse. That is what anarchy is, might makes right.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You tell me, you're the anarchist.

First, no I am not an anarchist, but you fools keep defending statism and force my hand. Secondly, because the state can do nothing but impair and deprive. That is all it does.

I don't believe we can ever get to a state of anarchy because too many people think they are moral because they are beholden to a set of religious rules handed down by other people in the name of a supreme being.

Because too many people rely on others to tell them what is moral, rather than using their brains, we are inevitably stuck with a state. That doesn't mean I have to like it or defend it.

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Some Guy]

You basically said the same thing I did.

I said they were a construct of society, you say they are arrived at by critical thought and science...which are a part of society. If one society is more advanced in their critical thinking and science, then their morals will differ.

Which inherently suggests that morals are more absolute. The more advanced critical thinking and scientific society will arrive at the better/correct morals, or at least have more conviction in practicing them, unless of course you disagree that some society's have better or worse morals.

Either way morals are not part of nature, they do not apply to a mantis killing its mate or a spider killing a bird.

Eating to survive doesn't really get into morality though. You might say that it's not moral for the spider to eat a bird, or by extension, anything else living. Would it be moral to die instead? Nope, not really. But that's beyond the point that spiders and mantis' aren't intelligent enough to really address morals. I think morality clashes with nature but only in so-far. Is it immoral for humans to eat cows? Nope. Is it immoral for humans to raise cows strictly to be slaughtered for food? That's debatable.

Also, since critical thought and science are forever in a state of flux, thus too are morals that derive from them. Science and critical thinking are not absolute, so why would something that springs from them be absolute?

I think critical thought and science is the pursuit of absolute truth (and morals along with that). So, i guess you're right in that morals reflect the current enlightenment of those espousing them but the end-game is to try to get to the absolute truth/morality.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The LParty harbors some anarchists. But we can list a whole lot of other Govt duties and infrastructure that need to provided beside criminal justice. Most ALL of them are mentioned in the Constitution. Anarchists deny any sense in ceding ANY function or power. Good luck with that. Not even a romantic movie about Anarchy that doesn't have Mel Gibson riding in a war converted vehicle pirating other people.

The infrastructure for a Civil and Criminal court system is vital.. Libertarians LOVE to litigate instead of legislate. The administration of borders. Someone has to do that and coordinate with foreign countries to vet arrivals and filter out crime and disease. VOTING systems for fuck sake that the Repubs and Dems are completely inept at. Think how much better off the nation would be if Washington FOCUSED on their original duties.

I have a saying that "I could be a LOT more liberal on most everything, like immigration or entitlements like Soc Sec ---- IF ---- the Federal govt was focused and competent". They aren't That's why the 2 parties are the problem right now. NOT the instruction manual for America.

We deny ceding any function of power (authority) because it is impossible to do so, and to pretend otherwise is immoral. Unalienable rights means they cannot be removed from the being, even by their own consent. This is key.

In addition, we don't even have the power we delegate to representatives ourselves (the right to tax, the right to make law which others must obey under threat of violence), so delegation of such power is impossible; demonstrably invalid.

And "representation" is also impossible on the most fundamental level. No person may accurately represent another without becoming the other, no less represent multiple people at the same time.

And then there's the fact that ALL authority is definitively immoral. A person does not need authority to do what he already has a right to do. Authority is only needed to do what he does not have a right to do, and things we do not have a right to do are called "wrongs".

And finally (for now), it's impossible to ensure that immoral people won't get into positions of power - in fact, psychopaths are exceedingly skilled at hiding their dysfunction, and are known to be drawn to such positions - so power will always only magnify the immorality it's instituted to address. The idea that the "instruction manual" would ever, or could ever, save us is the epitome of naivety.

Freedom levels the playing field as much as possible. And regardless of whether you think it would be better or worse, whether "we need" this or that, you have no basis for asserting your right to support an inherently immoral institution in order to get it. If you understand that it's wrong to deny people a particular liberty (like gun rights) just because there's no guarantee some people won't misuse it, then you have no excuse for not understanding why it's wrong to deny them any and all liberties on the same basis.

 

[bripat9643]

You tell me, you're the anarchist.

First, no I am not an anarchist, but you fools keep defending statism and force my hand. Secondly, because the state can do nothing but impair and deprive. That is all it does.

I don't believe we can ever get to a state of anarchy because too many people think they are moral because they are beholden to a set of religious rules handed down by other people in the name of a supreme being.

Because too many people rely on others to tell them what is moral, rather than using their brains, we are inevitably stuck with a state. That doesn't mean I have to like it or defend it.

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You just keep repeating the same shit we have already exploded over and over again. You're a geyser of talking points that don't mean jack shit. You are immune to facts and logic.

 

[bripat9643]

You tell me, you're the anarchist.

First, no I am not an anarchist, but you fools keep defending statism and force my hand. Secondly, because the state can do nothing but impair and deprive. That is all it does.

I don't believe we can ever get to a state of anarchy because too many people think they are moral because they are beholden to a set of religious rules handed down by other people in the name of a supreme being.

Because too many people rely on others to tell them what is moral, rather than using their brains, we are inevitably stuck with a state. That doesn't mean I have to like it or defend it.

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's no point in composing a substantive response to this refuse. It wouldn't penetrate a micron in your thick skull.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You tell me, you're the anarchist.

First, no I am not an anarchist, but you fools keep defending statism and force my hand. Secondly, because the state can do nothing but impair and deprive. That is all it does.

I don't believe we can ever get to a state of anarchy because too many people think they are moral because they are beholden to a set of religious rules handed down by other people in the name of a supreme being.

Because too many people rely on others to tell them what is moral, rather than using their brains, we are inevitably stuck with a state. That doesn't mean I have to like it or defend it.

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You just keep repeating the same shit we have already exploded over and over again. You're a geyser of talking points that don't mean jack shit. You are immune to facts and logic.

What are you exploding?? Are you finally getting some balls and acting on your convictions


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bripat9643]

You tell me, you're the anarchist.

First, no I am not an anarchist, but you fools keep defending statism and force my hand. Secondly, because the state can do nothing but impair and deprive. That is all it does.

I don't believe we can ever get to a state of anarchy because too many people think they are moral because they are beholden to a set of religious rules handed down by other people in the name of a supreme being.

Because too many people rely on others to tell them what is moral, rather than using their brains, we are inevitably stuck with a state. That doesn't mean I have to like it or defend it.

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You just keep repeating the same shit we have already exploded over and over again. You're a geyser of talking points that don't mean jack shit. You are immune to facts and logic.

What are you exploding?? Are you finally getting some balls and acting on your convictions


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We have exploded your hilarous attempts at logic and your incessant trolling. You don't debate. You post talking points fed to you by your ideological masters.