Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[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?

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

If you would feel wronged, then private property is not meaningless without government. You have an innate sense of it, a natural sense, so why are you breaking my ballls?

Your recourse is the same, with or without law. Why can’t you get those same cops (now private security agents) to help you get it back? The only difference is that they are not authority, just agents acting in defense of your rights.

 

[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'.

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

Most people dont feel that way, but those that do can do that, sure. And it doesnt mean we cant trade if its mutually agreeable, but why cant the white power types all move to the same neighborhood and choose not to sell their homes to non-whites? Like a racist Free State Project. Hahaha

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

F.A. Hayek devoted a chapter to this in his magnum opus "The Road to Serfdom"...Such authority attracts to it the immoral, who look upon that power as an end unto itself, like trash dumps draw rats.

As a recovering minarchist, I now recognize that the mindset of the authoritarian will not allow even the most minimal of state structures to stay minimal...They will always seek to expand the scope and reach of their mythical authority.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

There will always be authoritarians among humans, it is part of human nature, the best possible outcome is to limit them as much as possible.

No matter what system of order a society has some always want more, some will always break the rules, some will always be happy doing nothing.

Something will replace the vacuum left by government being removed. Controlling what it is that fills that void would be the key


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That’s why it’s gotta be done the right way. A society of people who understand their self-ownership and dissolve government on that basis will not succumb to the lie again. Imagine someone suggesting African American slavery again. People would laugh them down, and eventually, shoot them down. We’ve moved past it in the cultural consciousness.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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 are insinuating that an American anarchy will unequivocally look like a desert shit hole full of tribal dumbasses literally trying to kill each other, as they have been for thousands of years. Liberia is supposed to be set up just like the U.S. Yet, there's no way in hell you would go there to practice your perfect form of government.

Why?

Because Liberia is a shit hole full of tribal idiots warring with each other, a general lack of education or innovation, and little to no commerce. Liberia has had all the advantages of the U.S. form of government, yet it is a steaming pile of shit.

So, from here on out, you can take your ass to Liberia if you demand that we go to Somalia.

Deal?

Deal!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There will always be authoritarians among humans, it is part of human nature, the best possible outcome is to limit them as much as possible.

I agree with this.

Common ground...always a good thing!

And those who want more can pay for it.

Those who want to break the rules can be shot or exiled.

Those who do nothing can starve.

Simple solutions.

Who enforces these simple solutions?

I agree with this also. Those committed to anarchy must be armed and ready to kill to protect the society they set up. Again, I think anarchy is a temporary state at best, and is not an inert condition. In other words, it will quickly revolved back to statism. The only hope for anarchists is to keep throwing off government. That does what I think needs to be done, as a libertarian. Constant distrust and revocation of government.

So basically there is a perpetual state of war/conflict. Not to be dramatic but you are basically describing Mad Max.

The problem with this is that it retards progress. A society in such a state will never achieve the things that the US has achieved in the last 200 years.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Most people dont feel that way, but those that do can do that, sure. And it doesnt mean we cant trade if its mutually agreeable, but why cant the white power types all move to the same neighborhood and choose not to sell their homes to non-whites? Like a racist Free State Project. Hahaha

I disagree that most people do not feel this way, I think just looking around you shows that most do.

While I do not think that anarchy can ever lead to anything but chaos, I know that it can never work for large groups of people. Essentially all of humankind would have to be divided in to tiny subgroups. The problem with this of course is that eventually one or two of the groups will get bigger and better armed than the rest and decided to impose their will on the others close to them.

Human nature cannot be denied.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That’s why it’s gotta be done the right way. A society of people who understand their self-ownership and dissolve government on that basis will not succumb to the lie again.

This is where I think you live in a dream world with no tether to reality.

Imagine someone suggesting African American slavery again. People would laugh them down, and eventually, shoot them down. We’ve moved past it in the cultural consciousness.

But it is going on right now in parts of the world and nobody is laughing and nobody is stopping it. I think there is a pretty good portion of the population in this country that would be just fine with a return to the Old South.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You have to remember that as critical thought and science progress there will be less and less room for emotion in the discussion of morals.

What's changing about people's minds? Nothing really, other than small developments as a result of evolution. What's changing is that we're getting smarter, more experienced, and thus able to understand more about the world around us and what's happening. It helps us get closer to the absolute truths that are out there to be discovered. We'll never get there about everything but we're trying.[/quote]

Pretty much again.

Take physics as an example. People once thought that the sun revolved around the earth. People thought the earth was flat. This was indisputable. Some really smart people came around and made a strong case for why that wasn't the case, and it became accepted thought even though it wasn't definitely provable. We kept getting smarter and more experienced to the point where we could shoot a rocket into space with a person in it who could definitively prove that yes, the earth is round.

The earth was always round, no matter what people ever said about it not being round while they were living on it.

Not sure the science analogy is a good one. Morals are not science, they will always be subjectiveness to them. They will always be based upon the society the is setting them. And are the morals of the past really "wrong", or were they right for the time given the knowledge and situation?

There's an interplay, but primarily because people (not necessarily society) have progressed. We've built up a wealth of knowledge, looking at what works and what doesn't, whats provable and what's not, and we've grown closer to observing those absolute morals even when we think it might be beneficial not to. Killing, again, is an easy one to look at. Past societies have looked at killing someone in your way as the moral, strong (or whatever positive descriptor you want to use here) thing to do, and they've been proven wrong.

Do you really think they have been proven wrong or that even very many people disagree? This country has been in a state of war for 16 years, with lots of killing going on. Not long ago we invaded a country that was no threat to us at all killing thousands of people and bringing about the death of hundreds of thousands of people. I would say the majority of our society would say it was no immoral to do so.

It is not inconceivable that in the future "critical thought and science" might bring us to a Logan's run situation where people past a certain age are killed off as logically they are no longer as productive as they were. This is the downside of critical thought and science, there is no emotion involved. Morals based purely on critical thought and science will be a hard mistress.

Good example for why Anarchy won't work in practice, not yet anyway. There's still a whole lot of immoral people out there who would espouse the morality of being a single mother, even when it's not the most moral thing you could do for the future of your child (on a macro level anyway). You can't prove that single motherhood leads to a bad outcome for the child all the time, but you can prove that it's not as advantageous as growing up in a two-parent household, in aggregate anyway.

And here is the rub, those people do not think they are immoral for espousing such a view, so who is to say who is right? You seem to think that your view is more moral than theirs, but can you prove it is via science? I do not think so...morals can never be proven...that is why they can never be absolute.

Yep, i agree, but it's not a reason to not get as close as you can. I think the ultimate show of intelligence is in acknowledging that you can't and never will know everything. That you can always learn something new even from people who you might not think you could on the surface. Socrates said that "True wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Much to agree on here!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I understand why you put a supernatural connotation on natural law, but I’ve proposed no such thing. Think of natural law as consequentialism. Our behaviors have certain consequences. Much of these consequences have to do with how others respond. Man is inherently free. Any attempt to plug up his freedom will express in other, less desirable, ways. Animals do not have the same level of thought, so their cause and effect would likely be different. Our moral concerns do not apply to them, to the best of my knowledge.

I do not put a supernatural connotation on natural law, that is you when you say things like there is absolute morality. Morality is just the current human view of how things should be and it changes over time.

Morality and nature has no connection, they are two separate realms.

I do have a question for you. A long time ago before there were government or even societies man was totally free, it was what you say we need to get to now. If that was the most natural state for man to be in, which you seem to claim, why did mankind move away from that? Why would we move from the perfect to the evil? That makes no sense.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Maybe you will, maybe you won’t. This thing is going to break eventually, and probably not in the way I hope. Monarchy fell and was replaced with a more cunning system. This will fall too. You simply cannot deny nature and get away with it. You may not live to see the shit hit the fan, but your life is not at full expression, whether you realize it or not, because you are not free.

If it breaks, I can garutenenet you will not be the way you hope. I have seen too much of mankind all around this world to think that it will suddenly turn into the utopia you dream of. If anarchy is the rule of the day mankind's most base instincts will again come to the forefront and people will say "damn, this is just like Mad Max"

Society and government is the governor that keeps mankind from becoming more like the rest of nature. We are in the end just animals like all of nature, created in the same way as the lion and the matis.

 

[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

If you would feel wronged, then private property is not meaningless without government. You have an innate sense of it, a natural sense, so why are you breaking my ballls?

Your recourse is the same, with or without law. Why can’t you get those same cops (now private security agents) to help you get it back? The only difference is that they are not authority, just agents acting in defense of your rights.

And if you have more security agents on your side then I am screwed. Under the current system it does not matter how many security agents I have, as you will always have less than the government.

Under the current system I have to worry about the government and not much else. Under your system I have to worry about everyone and if I have less resources than you then I am fucked and can do nothing about it. So, once again the only rule that will exist under anarchy is "might makes right", you basically just said so yourself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So basically there is a perpetual state of war/conflict. Not to be dramatic but you are basically describing Mad Max.

The problem with this is that it retards progress. A society in such a state will never achieve the things that the US has achieved in the last 200 years.

But, that illustrates the problem. Government will never behave appropriately, so it must constantly be under attack, which produces Mad Max. To tolerate government, it must be much more limited, with citizens maintaining the means to remove it at all times. Otherwise, many of us will take our chances with Mad Max.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Your claims are totally unsubstaniated. I don't know why Brian Blackwell put's up with your crap.

In case lurkers have the same questions but are actually willing to hear the answers.

 

[bripat9643]

So basically there is a perpetual state of war/conflict. Not to be dramatic but you are basically describing Mad Max.

The problem with this is that it retards progress. A society in such a state will never achieve the things that the US has achieved in the last 200 years.

But, that illustrates the problem. Government will never behave appropriately, so it must constantly be under attack, which produces Mad Max. To tolerate government, it must be much more limited, with citizens maintaining the means to remove it at all times. Otherwise, many of us will take our chances with Mad Max.

Government will never allow itself to be contained. That's why the Civil War happened.

 

[bripat9643]

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

If you would feel wronged, then private property is not meaningless without government. You have an innate sense of it, a natural sense, so why are you breaking my ballls?

Your recourse is the same, with or without law. Why can’t you get those same cops (now private security agents) to help you get it back? The only difference is that they are not authority, just agents acting in defense of your rights.

And if you have more security agents on your side then I am screwed. Under the current system it does not matter how many security agents I have, as you will always have less than the government.

Under the current system I have to worry about the government and not much else. Under your system I have to worry about everyone and if I have less resources than you then I am fucked and can do nothing about it. So, once again the only rule that will exist under anarchy is "might makes right", you basically just said so yourself.

Security agencies are not going to go to war with another security agency over one petulant client. The cost would be astronomical, and that agency would automatically become the enemy of every other agency. You've already ben told this, but you continue to post the same moronic talking point even though it as been debunked.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Security agencies are not going to go to war with another security agency over one petulant client. The cost would be astronomical, and that agency would automatically become the enemy of every other agency. You've already ben told this, but you continue to post the same moronic talking point even though it as been debunked.

Yes, you have given me your version of how this fantasy will work out. I am not sure how you debunk two people talking about a fantasy land that does not even exist.

What is to keep 10 security agencies from banding together and telling their clients to fuck off and taking it all for themselves.

So far every single example that the anarchist have given comes to do "might makes right" and relies on human nature to do the right thing...and there is no example of that happening in the history of mankind.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So basically there is a perpetual state of war/conflict. Not to be dramatic but you are basically describing Mad Max.

The problem with this is that it retards progress. A society in such a state will never achieve the things that the US has achieved in the last 200 years.

But, that illustrates the problem. Government will never behave appropriately, so it must constantly be under attack, which produces Mad Max. To tolerate government, it must be much more limited, with citizens maintaining the means to remove it at all times. Otherwise, many of us will take our chances with Mad Max.

Government will never allow itself to be contained. That's why the Civil War happened.

Our government is contained more than any other government out there.

In this thread there are two schools of thought...

one is to work to limit the government as much as possible and the other is to get rid of it all together.

Which of those has the better chance of happening.

 

[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?

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

If you would feel wronged, then private property is not meaningless without government. You have an innate sense of it, a natural sense, so why are you breaking my ballls?

Your recourse is the same, with or without law. Why can’t you get those same cops (now private security agents) to help you get it back? The only difference is that they are not authority, just agents acting in defense of your rights.

And if you have more security agents on your side then I am screwed. Under the current system it does not matter how many security agents I have, as you will always have less than the government.

Under the current system I have to worry about the government and not much else. Under your system I have to worry about everyone and if I have less resources than you then I am fucked and can do nothing about it. So, once again the only rule that will exist under anarchy is "might makes right", you basically just said so yourself.

Alright, first of all, I’m trying to oblige you by addressing your speculative concerns, but let us not forget the main point here: The authority you support is demonstrably invalid and immoral, immensely dangerous, and invariably in the hands of psychopaths. To unleash it upon the world just so you can abdicate your natural self-responsibility and feel safe within a hallucination of security, is selfish, cowardly, and just downright slimy.

That being said, most people are normal and not trying to build an army to steal your house. Your irrational fears don’t justify giving the next Stalin a throne to sit upon. Plus the Fed already owns your house - whether you understand that or not - so you’ve got nothing to lose.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Alright, first of all, I’m trying to oblige you by addressing your speculative concerns,

This whole discussion is a exercise in speculation, nothing more. The only example in this world we have of an area with no government has not turned out the way you say things will here.

So, there are no examples you can point to and use to support your views, they are all just speculation at best in just wishful thinking in my opinion.

but let us not forget the main point here: The authority you support is demonstrably invalid and immoral, immensely dangerous, and invariably in the hands of psychopaths.

Yep, that is what mankind is. The authority I support reigns that in better than any system tried so far. Humans were once as you say we should be again, without governmental authority. I do not find any evidence it was the utopia you claim it will be and if it were, why did they change.

To unleash it upon the world just so you can abdicate your natural self-responsibility and feel safe within a hallucination of security, is selfish, cowardly, and just downright slimy.

It is already there, it is not being unleashed, it is already done and we know the result. There is no evidence that what you support is superior, in fact all of recorded history would suggest you are misguided.

That being said, most people are normal and not trying to build an army to steal your house. Your irrational fears don’t justify giving the next Stalin a throne to sit upon.

It does not take most people, it only take a few. It did not take most people ,it took one human to convince more than 900 people to leave their homes and live in a government free society with him. And it only took one man to persuade them to drink poisoned kool aide.

You call my fears irrational, which means you ignore what you see going on around you. You ignore the riots and the looting and the con artist cheating elderly out of their life savings and the flooded out of everything they own. You ignore the world around you and tell yourself if only they had the mythical "freedom" they would instantly turn good and would all stand in a circle singing kumbaya. It is a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that.

Humans at their core are not good or benevolent like you claim, we are selfish, cruel and greedy for the most part. That will not change when you change the system of authority over them.

Plus the Fed already owns your house - whether you understand that or not - so you’ve got nothing to lose.

Sure I do, at least they let me live in it, there is no promise of that in your anarchist utopia.

 

[kaz]

So you think refusing to read what is posted means your position is correct?

No, and I never said that or anything similar to it. I've not once said I've proven you wrong. Don't lie, stupid bitch. I've never said anything remotely like this.

Playing stupid isn't a winning debate tactic. You only make people believe that you're a jackass.

Never said that either. Your dishonesty is becoming more and more evident.