Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Brian Blackwell]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I would like to add one more thing if I do not mind. It is this game of semantics that you are forced to play that will keep your views from every being widespread.

As soon as you tell a parent they have no authority over their child, chances are you have lost them for good no matter how you spin it around.

I’m only trying to establish clarity. Authority must be understood as the (mis)perceived or asserted right to supersede the will of another, not merely acting as a steward in the absence of their ability to think clearly for themselves.

The former is rooted in the violation of rights, the latter is rooted in defense of them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I would like to add one more thing if I do not mind. It is this game of semantics that you are forced to play that will keep your views from every being widespread.

As soon as you tell a parent they have no authority over their child, chances are you have lost them for good no matter how you spin it around.

I’m only trying to establish clarity. Authority must be understood as the (mis)perceived or asserted right to supersede the will of another, not merely acting as a steward in the absence of their ability to think clearly for themselves.

The former is rooted in the violation of rights, the latter is rooted in defense of them.

And that is just it...I have the RIGHT to supersede on the will of my children until such time as they are adults. And every parent I know thinks so also.

Nothing you say will change that.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Contumacious]

I'm libertarian.

I'm not sure why anyone would believe that anarchists are liberty-minded. Anarchy is more restrictive than even the most heavy-handed dictatorship. You'd have to always stay home just to defend your property.

Who Are the Real Anarchists?

"Few political ideologies are as misunderstood as anarchism. Confusion is so widespread, in fact, that those ignorant of this intellectual tradition often use the word “anarchism” as a synonym for “chaos.” Some of the confusion may arise from the fact that anarchism is today often solely associated with the anti-private-property anarchists of the nineteenth century, such as the followers of Mikhail Bakunin.

In the libertarian tradition, however, the anarchist society is merely the society in which individuals are not governed by a state built on monopolized violence and coercion, but instead govern themselves through organizations into which they have entered voluntarily. Among such institutions can certainly be found churches, schools, families, professional associations, markets, and tribes."


.

The term "ANARCHOCAPITALISTS" better identify those of us who are pro markets and individual freedom versus the Bakunin-Anarchists"


.

 

[LaDexter]

Democrats stand for stealing, lying, hating, and discriminating
Republicans stand for Israel, just Israel, and nothing except Israel


So you must be "crazy" to consider a third party like the Libertarians.... or so the Zionist owned "US" media says... as our national debt has gone from $5 trillion to $21 since 2000....

 

[Brian Blackwell]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I would like to add one more thing if I do not mind. It is this game of semantics that you are forced to play that will keep your views from every being widespread.

As soon as you tell a parent they have no authority over their child, chances are you have lost them for good no matter how you spin it around.

I’m only trying to establish clarity. Authority must be understood as the (mis)perceived or asserted right to supersede the will of another, not merely acting as a steward in the absence of their ability to think clearly for themselves.

The former is rooted in the violation of rights, the latter is rooted in defense of them.

And that is just it...I have the RIGHT to supersede on the will of my children until such time as they are adults. And every parent I know thinks so also.

Nothing you say will change that.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Bah! You're still misunderstanding the subtle difference. The action of setting guidelines for your kids doesn't change, it's the "why". This is relevant because if that "why" is perceived authority, it has different implications. With kids, it becomes "because I said so" instead of elucidating the reasons, and releasing the hold as soon as they're old enough to understand. Combine this with school, where the teacher is a perceived authority, and during the whole of their formative years they never learn self-ownership, or self-responsibility.

Then they grow up and fall right into the waiting claws of government. They believe that the legitimacy of government makes them subject to its dictates, and that "responsibility" equates to swaying that authority in the direction of their own desires. No different then getting Mom and Dad to side with you against your brother.

I've got 2 young kids myself. My son is 3, I tell him "No you can't have any more cookies". My daughter is 7, I tell her "You could have as many cookies as you want, it's your body, but you've already had 2 and I think if you have more you won't be hungry enough to eat the dinner Mommy's making", or "It's not really good to eat too many cookies because they're not healthy, and if you want to be a great dancer one day, you've got to take care of your body". Huge difference from "No more! Now put them away or you're going to your room!" By the way, she never chooses to eat too many cookies.

You do not have the right to supersede their will, where their will is in alignment with their own rights and self-ownership. If you did, you could beat them and cage them for any disobedience, no matter how unreasonable. It would be within your rights as a valid authority. This is the slave master's erroneous mentality.

You have the right to defend their rights and well-being, against their current will, on the presumption that their own well-being represents their true will. They do not want to eat 100 cookies knowing it will hurt them, they want to eat 100 cookies because they believe it will not hurt them, and they're wrong. That's why you have a right to step in. No different than dealing with a mentally ill person. The difference is whether your action serves your authority, or their rights and well-being.

And this is only appropriate because they are not of sound mind, being too young to make informed decisions. This does not translate to those who have the ability to think clearly (whether they exercise that ability or not). You have no right to physically stop someone from smoking, for example, because they are capable of understanding all the factors involved and making an informed decision.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I would like to add one more thing if I do not mind. It is this game of semantics that you are forced to play that will keep your views from every being widespread.

As soon as you tell a parent they have no authority over their child, chances are you have lost them for good no matter how you spin it around.

I’m only trying to establish clarity. Authority must be understood as the (mis)perceived or asserted right to supersede the will of another, not merely acting as a steward in the absence of their ability to think clearly for themselves.

The former is rooted in the violation of rights, the latter is rooted in defense of them.

And that is just it...I have the RIGHT to supersede on the will of my children until such time as they are adults. And every parent I know thinks so also.

Nothing you say will change that.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Bah! You're still misunderstanding the subtle difference. The action of setting guidelines for your kids doesn't change, it's the "why". This is relevant because if that "why" is perceived authority, it has different implications. With kids, it becomes "because I said so" instead of elucidating the reasons, and releasing the hold as soon as they're old enough to understand. Combine this with school, where the teacher is a perceived authority, and during the whole of their formative years they never learn self-ownership, or self-responsibility.

Then they grow up and fall right into the waiting claws of government. They believe that the legitimacy of government makes them subject to its dictates, and that "responsibility" equates to swaying that authority in the direction of their own desires. No different then getting Mom and Dad to side with you against your brother.

I've got 2 young kids myself. My son is 3, I tell him "No you can't have any more cookies". My daughter is 7, I tell her "You could have as many cookies as you want, it's your body, but you've already had 2 and I think if you have more you won't be hungry enough to eat the dinner Mommy's making", or "It's not really good to eat too many cookies because they're not healthy, and if you want to be a great dancer one day, you've got to take care of your body". Huge difference from "No more! Now put them away or you're going to your room!" By the way, she never chooses to eat too many cookies.

You do not have the right to supersede their will, where their will is in alignment with their own rights and self-ownership. If you did, you could beat them and cage them for any disobedience, no matter how unreasonable. It would be within your rights as a valid authority. This is the slave master's erroneous mentality.

You have the right to defend their rights and well-being, against their current will, on the presumption that their own well-being represents their true will. They do not want to eat 100 cookies knowing it will hurt them, they want to eat 100 cookies because they believe it will not hurt them, and they're wrong. That's why you have a right to step in. No different than dealing with a mentally ill person. The difference is whether your action serves your authority, or their rights and well-being.

And this is only appropriate because they are not of sound mind, being too young to make informed decisions. This does not translate to those who have the ability to think clearly (whether they exercise that ability or not). You have no right to physically stop someone from smoking, for example, because they are capable of understanding all the factors involved and making an informed decision.

Here is what I am reading...

Yes you have the right to tell your children what to do and to enforce those rules, but you do not have any authority over them. Even those that is the exact definition of authority, we are not going to call it that, we are going to call it something different, because if we call it authority, then the entire anarchist argument is down the shitter.

Damn, I need a beer!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I would like to add one more thing if I do not mind. It is this game of semantics that you are forced to play that will keep your views from every being widespread.

As soon as you tell a parent they have no authority over their child, chances are you have lost them for good no matter how you spin it around.

I’m only trying to establish clarity. Authority must be understood as the (mis)perceived or asserted right to supersede the will of another, not merely acting as a steward in the absence of their ability to think clearly for themselves.

The former is rooted in the violation of rights, the latter is rooted in defense of them.

And that is just it...I have the RIGHT to supersede on the will of my children until such time as they are adults. And every parent I know thinks so also.

Nothing you say will change that.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Bah! You're still misunderstanding the subtle difference. The action of setting guidelines for your kids doesn't change, it's the "why". This is relevant because if that "why" is perceived authority, it has different implications. With kids, it becomes "because I said so" instead of elucidating the reasons, and releasing the hold as soon as they're old enough to understand. Combine this with school, where the teacher is a perceived authority, and during the whole of their formative years they never learn self-ownership, or self-responsibility.

Then they grow up and fall right into the waiting claws of government. They believe that the legitimacy of government makes them subject to its dictates, and that "responsibility" equates to swaying that authority in the direction of their own desires. No different then getting Mom and Dad to side with you against your brother.

I've got 2 young kids myself. My son is 3, I tell him "No you can't have any more cookies". My daughter is 7, I tell her "You could have as many cookies as you want, it's your body, but you've already had 2 and I think if you have more you won't be hungry enough to eat the dinner Mommy's making", or "It's not really good to eat too many cookies because they're not healthy, and if you want to be a great dancer one day, you've got to take care of your body". Huge difference from "No more! Now put them away or you're going to your room!" By the way, she never chooses to eat too many cookies.

You do not have the right to supersede their will, where their will is in alignment with their own rights and self-ownership. If you did, you could beat them and cage them for any disobedience, no matter how unreasonable. It would be within your rights as a valid authority. This is the slave master's erroneous mentality.

You have the right to defend their rights and well-being, against their current will, on the presumption that their own well-being represents their true will. They do not want to eat 100 cookies knowing it will hurt them, they want to eat 100 cookies because they believe it will not hurt them, and they're wrong. That's why you have a right to step in. No different than dealing with a mentally ill person. The difference is whether your action serves your authority, or their rights and well-being.

And this is only appropriate because they are not of sound mind, being too young to make informed decisions. This does not translate to those who have the ability to think clearly (whether they exercise that ability or not). You have no right to physically stop someone from smoking, for example, because they are capable of understanding all the factors involved and making an informed decision.

Here is what I am reading...

Yes you have the right to tell your children what to do and to enforce those rules, but you do not have any authority over them. Even those that is the exact definition of authority, we are not going to call it that, we are going to call it something different, because if we call it authority, then the entire anarchist argument is down the shitter.

Damn, I need a beer!

Abortion: When does life begin? At conception? It’s just cells. At birth? That’s ridiculous - it’s the same baby it was a minute ago. So if you can’t precisely explain this grey area, then all your abortion arguments are down the shitter. Kill them whenever you want, or don’t, whatever.

I have explained the parent thing as best I can, but it is a grey area; there’s some judgement calls to be made. When does a child become self-responsible enough to have the full spectrum of natural law rights respected with no intervention? I don’t have an answer to this question, but it’s not at birth, and it’s not never. Does this mean slavery is valid and moral? Not exactly the next logical step from there.

 

[Godboy]

Democrats stand for stealing, lying, hating, and discriminating
Republicans stand for Israel, just Israel, and nothing except Israel


So you must be "crazy" to consider a third party like the Libertarians.... or so the Zionist owned "US" media says... as our national debt has gone from $5 trillion to $21 since 2000....

Imagine how much worse our debt would be if Bernie Sanders had won.