Anarchy

[Sun Devil 92]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

This makes some large assumptions.

We do need the protection of property. That is what we depend upon the state for.

 

[gipper]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

This makes some large assumptions.

We do need the protection of property. That is what we depend upon the state for.

No. The state is dangerous, criminal, and ineffective.

You do not need a several trillion dollar state with enormous powers for evil, to protect your property.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

This makes some large assumptions.

We do need the protection of property. That is what we depend upon the state for.

No. The state is dangerous, criminal, and ineffective.

You do not need a several trillion dollar state with enormous powers for evil, to protect your property.

It was Jay, in the Federalist Papers who said that we give up a few rights to protect the rest.

Sorry...but we need something.

Do we need our bloated stupid inefficient big business loving federal government.....not by a long shot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Agreed. This is yet another reason among many, why the state needs to be terminated. The people can never control it or are too lazy to do what is necessary. The State ALWAYS gets out of control, because immoral unethical criminals ultimately take charge of it.

The problem with that, from my perspective, is that you can never NOT have a state. It cannot be suppressed. If anarchy is free chlorine, the state is sodium chloride (salt). It will always reemerge after a revolution. It will never go away. It's like a bad case of jock itch

Accepting that reality can be really depressing. Makes me want to drink.

 

[gipper]

Agreed. This is yet another reason among many, why the state needs to be terminated. The people can never control it or are too lazy to do what is necessary. The State ALWAYS gets out of control, because immoral unethical criminals ultimately take charge of it.

The problem with that, from my perspective, is that you can never NOT have a state. It cannot be suppressed. If anarchy is free chlorine, the state is sodium chloride (salt). It will always reemerge after a revolution. It will never go away. It's like a bad case of jock itch

Accepting that reality can be really depressing. Makes me want to drink.

It is matter of recognition. We all need to recognize the danger of the state. That should not be difficult to accomplish, if we study the history of the state for five minutes. Nothing is more murderous, destructive, or unjust. If we all come to know this, why would we ever want it?

 

[francoHFW]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

This makes some large assumptions.

We do need the protection of property. That is what we depend upon the state for.

No. The state is dangerous, criminal, and ineffective.

You do not need a several trillion dollar state with enormous powers for evil, to protect your property.

It was Jay, in the Federalist Papers who said that we give up a few rights to protect the rest.

Sorry...but we need something.

Do we need our bloated stupid inefficient big business loving federal government.....not by a long shot.

So stop voting for big biz giveaway, pander to the greedy rich, bought off New BS GOP. Duhhhh....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It was Jay, in the Federalist Papers who said that we give up a few rights to protect the rest.

Jay had a brilliant mind, but so did Ben Franklin, and he said "they who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." These two very smart people with completely opposing views on the surrender of liberty. So, there is no appeal to founding-father authority on this either.

Either way, you know that it will never be enough. The state's natural hunger for power will always overreach, we will always need revolution to get it back under control, and cycle will repeat. If that doesn't make you want to drink, nothing will.

 

[gipper]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

This makes some large assumptions.

We do need the protection of property. That is what we depend upon the state for.

No. The state is dangerous, criminal, and ineffective.

You do not need a several trillion dollar state with enormous powers for evil, to protect your property.

It was Jay, in the Federalist Papers who said that we give up a few rights to protect the rest.

Sorry...but we need something.

Do we need our bloated stupid inefficient big business loving federal government.....not by a long shot.

So stop voting for big biz giveaway, pander to the greedy rich, bought off New BS GOP. Duhhhh....

Those who want Trump removed and are causing so much trouble in the country today, are the ones pandering to big business, the Oligarchy, and the ruling class.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You do not need a several trillion dollar state with enormous powers for evil, to protect your property.

But the elites need such an instrument to use for their personal agenda in trying to dominate the world at our expense. World Police.

 

[Tehon]

Private property is not a natural right.

Life, liberty, and property? Have you read John Locke?

He was a philosopher, not god.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He was a philosopher, not god.

...and you are neither.




I'm just fucking with you. You kinda walked right into that one.

 

[francoHFW]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

This makes some large assumptions.

We do need the protection of property. That is what we depend upon the state for.

No. The state is dangerous, criminal, and ineffective.

You do not need a several trillion dollar state with enormous powers for evil, to protect your property.

It was Jay, in the Federalist Papers who said that we give up a few rights to protect the rest.

Sorry...but we need something.

Do we need our bloated stupid inefficient big business loving federal government.....not by a long shot.

So stop voting for big biz giveaway, pander to the greedy rich, bought off New BS GOP. Duhhhh....

Those who want Trump removed and are causing so much trouble in the country today, are the ones pandering to big business, the Oligarchy, and the ruling class.

The Dems want to raise taxes on the richest and cut loopholes on giant corps, cut taxes on the nonrich, invest in infrastructure jobs and cheap college and training. You live on another planet, dupe.

 

[Tehon]

...and you are neither.

Really? But I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

 

[Tehon]

Private property is not a natural right.

Life, liberty, and property? Have you read John Locke?

He may have, but he much prefers Karl Marx.

Marx understood that elites co-opted governments long before modern day anarcho-capitalists co-opted the term libertarian from the left.

Communal property — always distinct from the State property just dealt with — was an old Teutonic institution which lived on under cover of feudalism. We have seen how the forcible usurpation of this, generally accompanied by the turning of arable into pasture land, begins at the end of the 15th and extends into the 16th century. But, at that time, the process was carried on by means of individual acts of violence against which legislation, for a hundred and fifty years, fought in vain. The advance made by the 18th century shows itself in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land, although the large farmers make use of their little independent methods as well. [15] The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people. Sir F. M. Eden refutes his own crafty special pleading, in which he tries to represent communal property as the private property of the great landlords who have taken the place of the feudal lords, when he, himself, demands a “general Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Commons” (admitting thereby that a parliamentary coup d’état is necessary for its transformation into private property), and moreover calls on the legislature for the indemnification for the expropriated poor.
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-Seven

 

[gipper]

Private property is not a natural right.

Life, liberty, and property? Have you read John Locke?

He may have, but he much prefers Karl Marx.

Marx understood that elites co-opted governments long before modern day anarcho-capitalists co-opted the term libertarian from the left.

Communal property — always distinct from the State property just dealt with — was an old Teutonic institution which lived on under cover of feudalism. We have seen how the forcible usurpation of this, generally accompanied by the turning of arable into pasture land, begins at the end of the 15th and extends into the 16th century. But, at that time, the process was carried on by means of individual acts of violence against which legislation, for a hundred and fifty years, fought in vain. The advance made by the 18th century shows itself in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land, although the large farmers make use of their little independent methods as well. [15] The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people. Sir F. M. Eden refutes his own crafty special pleading, in which he tries to represent communal property as the private property of the great landlords who have taken the place of the feudal lords, when he, himself, demands a “general Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Commons” (admitting thereby that a parliamentary coup d’état is necessary for its transformation into private property), and moreover calls on the legislature for the indemnification for the expropriated poor.
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-Seven

I have a hard time getting past the 100 million people murdered by government's that followed Marx's ideology.

 

[hazlnut]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Most anarchists are nihilists, which means nothing they think or say is real.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Philosophy is to reality as masturbation is to sex. ~Karl Marx


That dude didn't even believe his own bullshit communist theory.

 

[gipper]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Most anarchists are nihilists, which means nothing they think or say is real.

I don't know any nihilists.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't know any nihilists.

Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club) is in denial, but is, in fact, a nihilist.

 

[Tehon]

Private property is not a natural right.

Life, liberty, and property? Have you read John Locke?

He may have, but he much prefers Karl Marx.

Marx understood that elites co-opted governments long before modern day anarcho-capitalists co-opted the term libertarian from the left.

Communal property — always distinct from the State property just dealt with — was an old Teutonic institution which lived on under cover of feudalism. We have seen how the forcible usurpation of this, generally accompanied by the turning of arable into pasture land, begins at the end of the 15th and extends into the 16th century. But, at that time, the process was carried on by means of individual acts of violence against which legislation, for a hundred and fifty years, fought in vain. The advance made by the 18th century shows itself in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land, although the large farmers make use of their little independent methods as well. [15] The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people. Sir F. M. Eden refutes his own crafty special pleading, in which he tries to represent communal property as the private property of the great landlords who have taken the place of the feudal lords, when he, himself, demands a “general Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Commons” (admitting thereby that a parliamentary coup d’état is necessary for its transformation into private property), and moreover calls on the legislature for the indemnification for the expropriated poor.
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-Seven

I have a hard time getting past the 100 million people murdered by government's that followed Marx's ideology.

I think you have a hard time tying your shoes in the morning. You have no basis of understanding Marx's ideology. You're just repeating lines of indoctrination.