Anarchy

[Votto]

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.

What if the individuals and groups voluntarily choose to put governments in place at the local state and federal level?

...as we have...

Not a problem, but I would not refer to as government. That word connotes criminality.

Have you ever noticed that many on the left promote anarchy?

Have you ever wondered why?

I think it is because they know that anarchy will led to a police state. Leftists like Bernie Sanders talk of revolution and his gun totting friends who shoot GOP Congressmen listen to his rhetoric. In short, they want chaos that demands a police state to maintain order, then they can take away all of our freedoms in order to maintain a civil society.

Freedom demands a moral people. Prisons are for those who cannot self monitor their behavior. That is why the left constantly attacks our moral fiber as they try to take God out of schools and promote every sexual deviancy as normal. They want people to be so out of control that they need to build a fence around us all and simply appoint a warden who will treat us all equal with free room and board and medical care with every day being gay pride day as it is in every jail around the country.

So the key is morality. Without it, people are incapable of freedom.

 

[dblack]

People voluntarily joining communes doesn't threaten anyone.

Not on a small scale, that is why I stipulated that the threat was from a popular movement.

When you say "cooperative society", there's nothing voluntary about it. The commies take over and force everyone to play along, right?

We have several examples of what happens when democratic popular socialist movements have taken shape in Latin America that show the force applied by the US State at the behest of capitalists.

And do these popular movements tolerate opting-out of their communal aspirations?

You want to pretend capitalism equals freedom knock yourself out. All it really is, is a method of producing commodities. As is socialism. The rest is just politics.

Capitalism isn't equal to freedom, but freedom requires free markets.

 

[Votto]

People voluntarily joining communes doesn't threaten anyone.

Not on a small scale, that is why I stipulated that the threat was from a popular movement.

When you say "cooperative society", there's nothing voluntary about it. The commies take over and force everyone to play along, right?

We have several examples of what happens when democratic popular socialist movements have taken shape in Latin America that show the force applied by the US State at the behest of capitalists.

And do these popular movements tolerate opting-out of their communal aspirations?

You want to pretend capitalism equals freedom knock yourself out. All it really is, is a method of producing commodities. As is socialism. The rest is just politics.

Capitalism isn't equal to freedom, but freedom requires free markets.

Free markets is the # 1 target by leftists.

They want you to be free EXCEPT for how you spend your money and they want you to have little of it.

All the other talk is BS.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This thread is still going?

Anarchists, I do like you jackasses because we share a common repulsion and distrust of the state, but I want to have a reasonable discussion to hopefully come away with a shared understanding of this political philosophy.

Let me use chemistry to explain my rational regarding anarchy. (you chemists correct my ignorant ass if I am wrong, please). The free chlorine molecule is one of the halogen substances that does not exist in nature because it has such high reactivity. A free chlorine molecule will most commonly bind with sodium and become salt (the word "halogen" is Greek [I assume] meaning "produce salt"). So, while it is possible to have a free chlorine molecule under highly controlled conditions, when it interacts with nature, it becomes salt.

Anarchy is like that free chlorine molecule. Anarchy is a political condition that I have concluded is theoretical only. Human nature (see 7 deadly sins) causes conflict between people. Even the smallest of disputes will quickly arise between two or more of the anarchists. In short order, such a minor dispute will be one that the parties to the dispute cannot amicably resolve on their own (because of greed, pride, vanity, lust, whatever). Their options (1) combat, (2) status quo without resolution, or (3) a third party resolves the dispute for them.

Combat is an inherently poor option for many reasons, but mainly because it is unjust. The stronger and better fighters in the community become tyrants, and anarchy ceases to exist. A "State" or government has formed where the best warrior is the dictator holding all authority and power over the community.

Status quo without resolution is also unjust to the party seeking relief. Example, AnarchA: "that basket of apples is mine. Give them back." AnarchB: "Bullshit, they were in MY tree, so their mine." AnarchA: "But, your lazy ass didn't work to get them. I did." So on, etc. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, AnarchA gets no justice without resolution.

The only way justice can be administered is through a system of impartial dispute resolution, and the moment those anarchists place the decision in the hands of that third party....boom. The State is created.

I can restate this concept to self-identifying anarchists eleventybillion different ways, but for some pycho-ludicrous reason, those anarchists will argue the contrary until it hair-lips The Pope, continuing to deny that the stateless society has ceased to exist. I can't decide if this continued denial is a result of incongruity in defining "The State" or defining "anarchy" but we go in circles and get nowhere. I end up calling them commies or hurling some other insult, and they end up calling me something else (to their credit, none of the self-identified anarchists here have ever gone SJW retarded and called me a fascist or nazi, which I appreciate).

Anarchists, can we PLEASE get some congruent definitions of both "anarchy" and "The State" so we can reach a general understanding and resolve at least a portion of this never-ending dispute about whether anarchy is logically possible, theoretically possible, or on the same plain as perpetual motion.

Thank you in advance.

 

[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.

What if the individuals and groups voluntarily choose to put governments in place at the local state and federal level?

...as we have...

Not a problem, but I would not refer to as government. That word connotes criminality.

Have you ever noticed that many on the left promote anarchy?

Have you ever wondered why?

I think it is because they know that anarchy will led to a police state. Leftists like Bernie Sanders talk of revolution and his gun totting friends who shoot GOP Congressmen listen to his rhetoric. In short, they want chaos that demands a police state to maintain order, then they can take away all of our freedoms in order to maintain a civil society.

Freedom demands a moral people. Prisons are for those who cannot self monitor their behavior. That is why the left constantly attacks our moral fiber as they try to take God out of schools and promote every sexual deviancy as normal. They want people to be so out of control that they need to build a fence around us all and simply appoint a warden who will treat us all equal with free room and board and medical care with every day being gay pride day as it is in every jail around the country.

So the key is morality. Without it, people are incapable of freedom.

What I have noticed is many on the right, who profess to be for small limited government, are the most anti anarchy. I find that strange.

Government has no morality. The ruling class is immoral and unethical. They are criminals and have no objections to using the murderous power of government.

 

[gipper]

This thread is still going?

Anarchists, I do like you jackasses because we share a common repulsion and distrust of the state, but I want to have a reasonable discussion to hopefully come away with a shared understanding of this political philosophy.

Let me use chemistry to explain my rational regarding anarchy. (you chemists correct my ignorant ass if I am wrong, please). The free chlorine molecule is one of the halogen substances that does not exist in nature because it has such high reactivity. A free chlorine molecule will most commonly bind with sodium and become salt (the word "halogen" is Greek [I assume] meaning "produce salt"). So, while it is possible to have a free chlorine molecule under highly controlled conditions, when it interacts with nature, it becomes salt.

Anarchy is like that free chlorine molecule. Anarchy is a political condition that I have concluded is theoretical only. Human nature (see 7 deadly sins) causes conflict between people. Even the smallest of disputes will quickly arise between two or more of the anarchists. In short order, such a minor dispute will be one that the parties to the dispute cannot amicably resolve on their own (because of greed, pride, vanity, lust, whatever). Their options (1) combat, (2) status quo without resolution, or (3) a third party resolves the dispute for them.

Combat is an inherently poor option for many reasons, but mainly because it is unjust. The stronger and better fighters in the community become tyrants, and anarchy ceases to exist. A "State" or government has formed where the best warrior is the dictator holding all authority and power over the community.

Status quo without resolution is also unjust to the party seeking relief. Example, AnarchA: "that basket of apples is mine. Give them back." AnarchB: "Bullshit, they were in MY tree, so their mine." AnarchA: "But, your lazy ass didn't work to get them. I did." So on, etc. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, AnarchA gets no justice without resolution.

The only way justice can be administered is through a system of impartial dispute resolution, and the moment those anarchists place the decision in the hands of that third party....boom. The State is created.

I can restate this concept to self-identifying anarchists eleventybillion different ways, but for some pycho-ludicrous reason, those anarchists will argue the contrary until it hair-lips The Pope, continuing to deny that the stateless society has ceased to exist. I can't decide if this continued denial is a result of incongruity in defining "The State" or defining "anarchy" but we go in circles and get nowhere. I end up calling them commies or hurling some other insult, and they end up calling me something else (to their credit, none of the self-identified anarchists here have ever gone SJW retarded and called me a fascist or nazi, which I appreciate).

Anarchists, can we PLEASE get some congruent definitions of both "anarchy" and "The State" so we can reach a general understanding and resolve at least a portion of this never-ending dispute about whether anarchy is logically possible, theoretically possible, or on the same plain as perpetual motion.

Thank you in advance.

Government can be defined as the government we have today. Anarchy is a society without a central government lead by a small elite.

 

[dblack]

People voluntarily joining communes doesn't threaten anyone.

Not on a small scale, that is why I stipulated that the threat was from a popular movement.

When you say "cooperative society", there's nothing voluntary about it. The commies take over and force everyone to play along, right?

We have several examples of what happens when democratic popular socialist movements have taken shape in Latin America that show the force applied by the US State at the behest of capitalists.

And do these popular movements tolerate opting-out of their communal aspirations?

You want to pretend capitalism equals freedom knock yourself out. All it really is, is a method of producing commodities. As is socialism. The rest is just politics.

Capitalism isn't equal to freedom, but freedom requires free markets.

Free markets is the # 1 target by leftists.

They want you to be free EXCEPT for how you spend your money and they want you to have little of it.

All the other talk is BS.

And that can't seem to understand that all other freedoms are moot if the government can take your property in the name of "We the People".

 

[Tehon]

And do these popular movements tolerate opting-out of their communal aspirations?

No,but these popular movements don't know freedom as we know it in the US. Often they have gained their freedom from repressive US sponsored regimes and come under attack immediately having done so. But the thing that they do have is a right to self determination. They should be given the opportunity to determine their own socioeconomic model without interference.

Capitalists don't tolerate popular movements from opting out of the private system either so it seems we may be at an impasse.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government can be defined as the government we have today. Anarchy is a society without a central government lead by a small elite.

In that case, anarchy is free chlorine or as real as perpetual motion. Anarchy is impossible.

 

[Tehon]

People voluntarily joining communes doesn't threaten anyone.

Not on a small scale, that is why I stipulated that the threat was from a popular movement.

When you say "cooperative society", there's nothing voluntary about it. The commies take over and force everyone to play along, right?

We have several examples of what happens when democratic popular socialist movements have taken shape in Latin America that show the force applied by the US State at the behest of capitalists.

And do these popular movements tolerate opting-out of their communal aspirations?

You want to pretend capitalism equals freedom knock yourself out. All it really is, is a method of producing commodities. As is socialism. The rest is just politics.

Capitalism isn't equal to freedom, but freedom requires free markets.

Free markets is the # 1 target by leftists.

They want you to be free EXCEPT for how you spend your money and they want you to have little of it.

All the other talk is BS.

And that can't seem to understand that all other freedoms are moot if the government can take your property in the name of "We the People".

Private property is not a natural right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Capitalists don't tolerate popular movements from opting out of the private system either so it seems we may be at an impasse.

That system, without competition, seems as if it would devolve into a constant struggle over the value of the good/service each labor-owned entity produced/provided. In other words, the car manufacturer would constantly be fighting with the furniture manufacturer on the value of couch A verses the value of Car B.

 

[gipper]

Government can be defined as the government we have today. Anarchy is a society without a central government lead by a small elite.

In that case, anarchy is free chlorine or as real as perpetual motion. Anarchy is impossible.

You might be right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Private property is not a natural right.

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

 

[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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You might be right.

And believe me, I would love the pure state of anarchy to actually be possible. I think the value in accepting anarchy's unattainable state is that we can keep a constant guard on the unholy institution of The State. We can keep it under control. The value is that it provides an ultimate goal that we constantly pursue.

I am an idealist.

 

[gipper]

You might be right.

And believe me, I would love the pure state of anarchy to actually be possible. I think the value in accepting anarchy's unattainable state is that we can keep a constant guard on the unholy institution of The State. We can keep it under control. The value is that it provides an ultimate goal that we constantly pursue.

I am an idealist.

You are an idealist.

There is no way to control the state, as it is comprised today. It is out of control and only a bloody revolution will return to a minimalist state.

The worst among us are of the ruling class. Disgusting elitists like Obama, Romney, McCain, Hillary...are typical of the political class.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It isn't nonsense. The communes will be under constant threat from the capitalists who effectively control the state and see their way of economic existence threatened by popular movement. The threat of force doesn't emanate from the communist camp, it emanates from the capitalist camp. All you need to do is look at the history of US relations (interventions) in Latin America and elsewhere to see this as a truth.

They would be under constant threat from capitalism generally. No commune can ever survive if the people have another choice (like capitalism). Communes must be ANTI-choice to have a chance, and even then, it's doubtful because of human nature (7 deadly sins). Human nature cannot be suppressed. It can only be harnessed and guided through choice.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no way to control the state, as it is comprised today. It is out of control and only a bloody revolution will return to a minimalist state.

I agree. The State must be as a phoenix, constantly burning itself out and being reborn in the ashes. The problem is that most humans do not want to deal with that ugly reality every few years, so they compromise and trade liberty for security to avoid the inevitable conflict. With those numbers against any rebirth, this is all just mental masturbation. We are conquered with no hope of escape.

The worst among us are of the ruling class. Disgusting elitists like Obama, Romney, McCain, Hillary...are typical of the political class.

Throw in the Bush clan and I agree 100%.

 

[gipper]

There is no way to control the state, as it is comprised today. It is out of control and only a bloody revolution will return to a minimalist state.

I agree. The State must be as a phoenix, constantly burning itself out and being reborn in the ashes. The problem is that most humans do not want to deal with that ugly reality every few years, so they compromise and trade liberty for security to avoid the inevitable conflict. With those numbers against any rebirth, this is all just mental masturbation. We are conquered with no hope of escape.

The worst among us are of the ruling class. Disgusting elitists like Obama, Romney, McCain, Hillary...are typical of the political class.

Throw in the Bush clan and I agree 100%.

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.

and...yes...the Bush's are at the top of the list of criminal elites.

 

[Tehon]

Capitalists don't tolerate popular movements from opting out of the private system either so it seems we may be at an impasse.

That system, without competition, seems as if it would devolve into a constant struggle over the value of the good/service each labor-owned entity produced/provided. In other words, the car manufacturer would constantly be fighting with the furniture manufacturer on the value of couch A verses the value of Car B.

Values would be based on the socially necessary labor time required to produce the commodity.