Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Fear --> Ignorance --> Confusion --> Control --> Chaos.

This was not understood, so we fell victim to it. The discovery has been made. As it permeates the consciousness of the species, the error will be rectified; just as we realized that the Earth moves around the Sun, and adjusted to account for that new information.

Morality does not change over time; our understanding of it does.

What is the source of this morality that you claim exist? Morality doesn't come from nature, so where does it come from?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

Might never makes right, which is why I take exception to the phrase (we should take more care about the words we use because they have an effect on our consciousness, even when we don't mean them literally). But the problem you're citing is certainly an extant phenomenon, though not in any way mitigated by government. The only thing that can mitigate it is wisdom - recognition and application of natural law principles (i.e. morality).

There's no short-cutting this, and any attempt to do so results in more of the very thing that we're trying to avoid (injustice). A court ruling in your favor is precisely the thing you're saying it circumvents; namely "if you have more security agents on your side then I am screwed." Courts are no more capable of establishing justice than anyone else; all they do is choose one side and enforce their claim with the violence of the state. It is the very "might makes right" that you're trying to avoid, but on a much greater scale.

To deny this would be to say that courts always get it right, which of course is not true, as evidenced by a pile of unjust historical rulings from here to the moon and back. This is true even if they're trying to get it right, never mind the inevitable corruption which leverages the "justice system" for the personal gain of those with more resources. So how does this solve the problem?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Fear --> Ignorance --> Confusion --> Control --> Chaos.

This was not understood, so we fell victim to it. The discovery has been made. As it permeates the consciousness of the species, the error will be rectified; just as we realized that the Earth moves around the Sun, and adjusted to account for that new information.

Morality does not change over time; our understanding of it does.

What is the source of this morality that you claim exist? Morality doesn't come from nature, so where does it come from?

Well, I don't accept your assertion that it doesn't come from nature, so we're at a stalemate. I would only ask that you give some thought to the chain of cause-and-effect I cited above to see if it corresponds with your own reason and observations of reality.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is the source of this morality that you claim exist? Morality doesn't come from nature, so where does it come from?

"Morality" comes from the human ability to reason and empathize with others, and have compassion. All ethics come from that NATURAL human ability.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Fear --> Ignorance --> Confusion --> Control --> Chaos.

This was not understood, so we fell victim to it. The discovery has been made. As it permeates the consciousness of the species, the error will be rectified; just as we realized that the Earth moves around the Sun, and adjusted to account for that new information.

Morality does not change over time; our understanding of it does.

What is the source of this morality that you claim exist? Morality doesn't come from nature, so where does it come from?

Well, I don't accept your assertion that it doesn't come from nature, so we're at a stalemate. I would only ask that you give some thought to the chain of cause-and-effect I cited above to see if it corresponds with your own reason and observations of reality.

If morality comes from nature, then all of nature is under the same rules of morality. Thus it is no immoral for the matis to kill its mate during sex, because it is immoral for you to do so. It is now immoral for a bear to move to a new territory and drive out the bear that was there before, because it would be immoral for me to do that to you.

It would be immoral for me to kill you and eat you, thus it now has to be immoral for you to kill (or have killed for you) a cow and eat it.

Either all of nature falls under the same rules of morality, or morality does not come from nature.

I will be honest, and not trying to be a jerk, but I do not see many of your observations as having much connection to reality. You have an incredible pollyanna view of everything, except of course government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If morality comes from nature, then all of nature is under the same rules of morality.

You failed logic 101.

Morals come from human nature. See posts #1323-24

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Either all of nature falls under the same rules of morality, or morality does not come from nature.

Again, logic fail.

 

[Some Guy]

So, no most people will not be building an army to invade New Jersey, but all it takes is one person to choose to raise an army while the rest sit back and care about nothing.

This is almost simultaneously the strongest argument for and against government.

At least right now, yes, we can assume that there will always be at least one dickhead who will want to raise an army and use it to get what he wants, which in your assertion justifies a government to keep an army in order to prevent or eventually combat that army. That's indeed where we are. If not for the U.S. army, then a very bad man in Adolf Hitler may have taken over the world.

By the same token, as Brian said earlier, authority attracts authority. Government is inherently designed to get bigger and more intrusive. The authority it grants is attractive to those who want authority (think about a cop who just seems to get off on bossing people around). And in their minds, if some is good, more is better. That explains how our government here in the U.S. is where it is now compared to where it started. Those of us who want liberty and freedom are naturally repelled by the idea of it, so you're not going to see many people who go there to fight the good fight. It's why republicans (in practice) are just about as statist as democrats. The conclusion would be that if you don't like an overreaching government, then the only possible way to avoid it is to not have government at all.

People do not want to do those things, they don't even want to worry about those things. They want to do their jobs, come home and watch Real Housewives on the TV and then go to bed.

You're acting like government (in this instance) is some magical entity that isn't administrated and administered by people (supposedly) at the behest of the people it serves. The need for roads doesn't go away because government doesn't exist. People would build roads if they need them and they'd find a way to monetize them (look at Tollways for example). The reason why government handles the roads is that a decision was made at some point that some network of privately held roads isn't as palatable as a communal system, thus it's a function that the government in place should handle. That's arguable of course, but the fact remains that if people need roads, they'll find a way to build roads and they wouldn't need government to do it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

This conversation has been nothing but speculation?! Only in your own mind, because the speculation is all you care about. You want a guarantee that things will be better under anarchy. You want answers to all your questions about how things will work. You want your fears abated. Your acceptance of the information being offered hinges on that emotional need.

A free society has never come about via the widespread evolution in consciousness being suggested here, and so I offer this quote (from a very unusual source):

"When one is asked to speculate on the unknown, one should not anticipate pragmatic answers." - Dr. Demitrius, Blood Beach (1981)

But this thread has not been mere speculation, there has been logical presented to you time and time again as to why governmental authority is invalid, immoral, and ineffective (or better said, counter-productive), but you do not answer for these arguments. Let's try to focus on that now. If you would, please address the following points directly and succinctly:

1. Authority exists for no other purpose than to grant license for immoral action. A person does not need authority to do what he already has a right to do. He only needs authority to do what he does not have a right to do, i.e. things that are wrong.

2. If a person does not have a right to do something, he cannot validly delegate that right to someone else. Individuals do not have the right to lay claim to the labor of others under threat of violence (taxation), or to make law which others must obey. Therefore, they cannot validly delegate these rights to government.

3. If humanity is deemed to be immoral, such that government is required to keep them in line, how can clothing some from among that immoral throng in immense power do anything but magnify the problem? Where is more morality injected into the system via this method?

Let's deal with those before moving on.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. Authority exists for no other purpose than to grant license for immoral action. A person does not need authority to do what he already has a right to do. He only needs authority to do what he does not have a right to do, i.e. things that are wrong.

Or, he needs an agreement to do things he does not have a right to do. But, that agreement would give him the right to do those things. So, I have come full circle while typing this nonsense.

Carry on.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Either all of nature falls under the same rules of morality, or morality does not come from nature.

Again, logic fail.

care to elaborate?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What is the source of this morality that you claim exist? Morality doesn't come from nature, so where does it come from?

"Morality" comes from the human ability to reason and empathize with others, and have compassion. All ethics come from that NATURAL human ability.

I can live with this, but if this is the case then there are no absolute morals, they will always be changing as our ability to reason changes.

With this view it would be wrong to say that slave owners were immoral as their reasoning, empathy and compassion told them it was ok to own another human.

 

[Some Guy]

[care to elaborate?

It's really what we've been saying with regard to morals. My strongest argument goes back to comparing societies' morals. If you think that one society's morals are superior to another's, then morals are absolute and it all comes down to our understanding of them. The only way you can deny that morals aren't absolute is if you agree that society's morals aren't better or worse than others. It's as simple as that.

Edit to add: i think you could frame it within "ethics" as well. I think the word morals and ethics are being used interchangeably here though.

 

[Some Guy]

To follow up on that, referencing Merriam Webster:

Definition of moral
1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical

• moral judgments

b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

• a moral poem

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior

• took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment

• a moral obligation

e : capable of right and wrong action

• a moral agent

2: probable though not proved : virtual

• a moral certainty

3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect

• a moralvictory

• moral support

Definition of ethic
: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

• the present-day materialistic ethic

• an old-fashioned work ethic

—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction

• an elaborate ethics

• Christian ethics

b ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group

• professional ethics

: a guiding philosophy
d : a consciousness of moral importance

• forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)

• debated the ethics of human cloning

You'll notice that both definitions really lean heavily on the definition of the other.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Who are these people that you're talking about??? I live in NYC - there are tons of people here of all varieties, and pretty much all of them are just running around trying to get money to buy stuff. You think most of these people feel strongly enough about one particular idea to uproot their lives and join a commune over it? You think in a free society, they'd be building armies to attack New Jersey? The irony of you saying "Human nature cannot be denied" in the midst of doing that very thing is bewildering.

No, I do not think these people feel strongly enough about one particular idea to do anything unless they are forced. In your utopian fantasy these are the people are you counting on to come to your aide when someone does not follow the rules. That will never happen until someone does something to them directly.

It never takes "most" people to make things happen as most people are too self absorbed to care about you or anyone but themselves. Do you think that most people in Germany thought it was a good idea to gas the Jews? Yet they let it happen because it did not affect them personally.

So, no most people will not be building an army to invade New Jersey, but all it takes is one person to choose to raise an army while the rest sit back and care about nothing.

What you're missing is that they're not thinking about government most of the day. They're not including that in their daily motivations. What they're doing now is what they'll be doing in a free society. Despite the lie that government is the glue that holds everything together, almost everything happening within human society is just freedom operating in spite of governmental authority, not because of it, like a river's water running between the stones.

I am not missing that at all. I agree 100% they do not include it in their daily motivations, which is why your utopian fantasy can never come true. They go about their daily lives because they know that the government will put bad people in jail, will pave their roads and keep food in the grocery store. They do not want to do those things for themselves, and in your utopian fantasy they would have to as there would be no central authority to do such things. People do not want to do those things, they don't even want to worry about those things. They want to do their jobs, come home and watch Real Housewives on the TV and then go to bed.

That is why your fantasy will never come true.

You're citing the lack of self-responsibility in our culture, but mistaking its source as human nature, rather than the infantilization of the people that results from (and is purposefully encouraged) by authority. Conditions matter. They effect the expression of human nature.

We see in disasters how people rise up to meet the challenges facing themselves and their neighbors. We see billions in charity dollars every year, despite government (and all the money it leeches out of the system). Human nature shines through the cracks.

People will always be primarily focused on taking care of themselves and their family, but this does not obviate their participation in the challenges of the larger society. Right now they support government because they believe that is all that's required. But go tell the ancient Native Americans that they have no need for weapons, or to defend themselves and their community. That their needs are someone else's responsibility. It's laughable outside of this artificial environment.

This is an indoctrinated idea. In the absence of this mind control, people will return to being actual human beings. I have seen the effect this understanding has had on me personally, and I am hardly the most courageous and energetic among us; but I am absolutely prepared to do what is required to protect freedom and help my community in a free environment. Freedom enlivens the spirit, and it has a way of drawing people together in cooperation; as is seen anytime people wind up in situations where they realize that no helps is coming, and it's up to them to git 'er done.

Not that we'd likely have to do much, since private industry is still there, and the basic functions of our society are unlikely to change. People pay taxes now, and they'll voluntarily fund the things they want, with way more bang for their buck. For God's sake, there are millions upon millions of dollars garnered by completely unnecessary Kickstarter projects, after people have been raped by taxes - you think they're not going to pay to have roads and water and garbage collection?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Fear --> Ignorance --> Confusion --> Control --> Chaos.

This was not understood, so we fell victim to it. The discovery has been made. As it permeates the consciousness of the species, the error will be rectified; just as we realized that the Earth moves around the Sun, and adjusted to account for that new information.

Morality does not change over time; our understanding of it does.

What is the source of this morality that you claim exist? Morality doesn't come from nature, so where does it come from?

Well, I don't accept your assertion that it doesn't come from nature, so we're at a stalemate. I would only ask that you give some thought to the chain of cause-and-effect I cited above to see if it corresponds with your own reason and observations of reality.

If morality comes from nature, then all of nature is under the same rules of morality. Thus it is no immoral for the matis to kill its mate during sex, because it is immoral for you to do so. It is now immoral for a bear to move to a new territory and drive out the bear that was there before, because it would be immoral for me to do that to you.

It would be immoral for me to kill you and eat you, thus it now has to be immoral for you to kill (or have killed for you) a cow and eat it.

Either all of nature falls under the same rules of morality, or morality does not come from nature.

I will be honest, and not trying to be a jerk, but I do not see many of your observations as having much connection to reality. You have an incredible pollyanna view of everything, except of course government.

I already explained why the cause-and-effect of human morality is not applicable to animals. The cause is the consciousness of the individual. Mind is the realm of cause. Why would you expect different causes to yield the same effects? Morality concerns human behavior, which results from human thinking, which is a product of humanity's unique consciousness. Please stop telling me about praying mantises (as fascinating as they are).

 

[Some Guy]

For God's sake, there are millions upon millions of dollars garnered by completely unnecessary Kickstarter projects, after people have been raped by taxes - you think they're not going to pay to have roads and water and garbage collection?

My garbage collection is done by a privately owned company.

But, U.S. Mail or FedEx/UPS? FedEx and UPS are just a bunch of people joining together under one umbrella to perform a service that people want. They don't need the government to get involved in delivering a package from here to there.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Oddball]

 

[Some Guy]

View attachment 191520

Sweet. I've said before that "people deserve the candidates they have to vote for" (or that people have the government they demand). I've said it mostly as another way of saying "stop complaining about bad candidates when we're a bad society" (in essence). The content in this thread really gets to the why and the how that's true, which i myself didn't and still don't completely but am closer to fully understanding. Good stuff.