Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gotcha. Good reasoning, and thanks! But like i just mentioned to the big government representation here, i think that approach to justice runs into obstacles from a real-world, practical application.

I understand your concern. Apply it to a real-world situation with the goal of maximizing liberty and see what you come up with. There is no one answer, but the principle is pure.

 

[Some Guy]

Ah, so the ends justify the means?

Absolutey, in some cases.

It really doesn't though, because it assumes you have the right answer. No one can really say they have the right answer absolutely, much less so when the use of force is deemed necessary to enforce/realize it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You consider the “right” to act immorally to be a redeeming quality?

No, I consider the action of deferring the use of force to maintain law to our government (as opposed to chaos and vigilantism) a redeeming quality of human society. And I don't really appreciate the attempt to misrepresent me.

I can play too, you know. Why do you think it is a redeeming quality to let people rape babies without punishment? See, two can play. Let's keep it on the level, okay?

I'm truly sorry, I did not mean to misrepresent you. When I said you consider the right to act immorally to be a redeeming quality, I was referring to this exchange:

This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them

And yet this is also one of its most important and redeeming qualities. Our justice system may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else anyone has thought of, in its fundamental ideas.

I am using "acting immorally" synonymously with doing things "that would be wrong if any individual did them", which you said was a redeeming quality. After all, this is what we call doing things that are wrong - immoral - no?

If it's wrong for you to do something, how can it be right for government to do it? This supposes that government is something other than human, or "super-human", which of course, it is not; it is only people. This is the lie, or unfounded belief, required for government to exert power.

Moreover, how can you validly delegate the right to government to do "wrong" things that you have no right to do yourself? A person can only delegate authority from a position of authority. If I have the right to drive my car, I can delegate you to be my driver. But I cannot delegate to you the right to drive someone else's car, because I do not have that right to begin with. So how do you validly delegate to government the right to do things that would be wrong if you did them?

In addition, "no law" does not equate to "no punishment". Every individual has the right of defense, and thus may delegate that right to an institution. That institution does not then become "authority", however, it is merely an extension of individual rights, like a bodyguard.

 

[flacaltenn]

You didn't even respond in context with the rest of the post, and all you do is this bullshit.

Because I don't have time to respond to every fucking sentence you type, you whiner. My response to your statement would not have been altered by your context" (since when is a series of statements that don't affect each other, 'context'?). You are not the first person to vomit that embarrassingly stupid talking point about social security, nor am i the first person to say it is stupid. So cry me a river.

yes, what you said about social security was stupid. that would literally be my response. You asked what my response would be, and I gave it. Now you want to whine like a little bitch about it. Go ahead, then.

Why is it stupid, penis breath? 'Slain yourself, asswipe. Or, are you too fucking stupid to do so?

If I don't pay into social security, what happens to me?

If I don't give my wallet to the criminal holding a gun on me, what happens to me?

How could this be resolved without BUTTFUCKING individual liberty?

Now, go ahead and be your usual shitty, smug, bullshitting self. You have no answer of your own because you are full of shit. Your only answer is the Authoritarian answer. You are an ignorant statist cocksucker. You are the enemy of liberty. For ease, I group all you and all fucktards like you into one single pejorative group-- fucking commies.

It's not a mystery, crybaby. If you honestly want to know why we have social security, pick up a history book and educate yourself, you ignorant slut.
It's one thing to be able to relate the argument for social security, then explain why it does not compel you. It's quite another to sit there like an ignorant slut and scratch your head, demanding someone spoonfeeds you a reason. I am not your mommy.

Here's that practicing HYPOCRISY I mentioned that folks without a principled spine engage in. THe topic is NOT soc sec, but the principle is --- the Leftist solution is to RAISE the age and the contribution caps. That literally MAKES IT "a welfare program".. NOT a Universal anything. So they are redesigning it to BE a welfare support and screwing with its origins and foundations. But wont ever mention it..

I'm saying (and most Libertarians agree) --- MAKE it a welfare system. Allow folks to opt out of a PART of it in return for reduced benefits later. TOTALLY consistent and NOT hypocritical with libertarian principles. How BIG that "opt out" gets depends on what the system NEEDS and what INDIVIDUALs need.

That was a libertarian solution that the Repubs adopted under GW when SS was running SURPLUSES that were being stolen from the working poor. Those surpluses would have have real impacts NOW that SS is running deficits and borrowing from a Treasury that borrows from China.

But Dems killed it. It's no longer Universal as it is. As is the fate of MOST large govt entitlements as they grow large and have their Trust Funds robbed.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Self-defense and defense of others is a natural law right. Of course you can, and should, kill him. To permit him to murder would be pro-violence (this is why pacifism is actually a pro-violence position). Defensive force (as distinguished from violence) is moral, and inherently required to protect freedom.

It does not violate the killer’s freedom, either, as individual freedom’s natural limitation is where it imposes upon another’s freedom. His mudering is not within his right to freedom.

If you think of freedom in the aggregate - as one thing being expressed by many individuals (like life, for example) - you see that freedom cannot impose upon itself (effectually becoming anti-freedom) and still be freedom (just as life cannot be death and still be life). Think of it as “A” cannot be “not A”.

Gotcha. Good reasoning, and thanks! But like i just mentioned to the big government representation here, i think that approach to justice runs into obstacles from a real-world, practical application.

Thank you kindly. There are certainly new challenges once old solutions are set aside. But just as bird cannot fly until out of the nest, we cannot possibly know the ingenious solutions that man will devise once free to act from a position of self-responsibility. At the very least, we can equate non-governmental protection with private security, like bodyguards, etc. They exclusively protect, but do not act as authority over the protected.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Self-defense and defense of others is a natural law right. Of course you can, and should, kill him. To permit him to murder would be pro-violence (this is why pacifism is actually a pro-violence position). Defensive force (as distinguished from violence) is moral, and inherently required to protect freedom.

It does not violate the killer’s freedom, either, as individual freedom’s natural limitation is where it imposes upon another’s freedom. His mudering is not within his right to freedom.

If you think of freedom in the aggregate - as one thing being expressed by many individuals (like life, for example) - you see that freedom cannot impose upon itself (effectually becoming anti-freedom) and still be freedom (just as life cannot be death and still be life). Think of it as “A” cannot be “not A”.

This is the overall point of how applying the principle of maximizing liberty works.

If certain asswipes on here were honest, they would at least acknowledge that forcing some to support others cannot be maximizing liberty. The supported becomes beholden to the supporter, who is forced to provide the support.

A certain asswipe implied that robbing one's freedom actually provides freedom to the other.

Well, considering the massive weight of incessant mind control that's suppressed our critical thought process since the time we were born, perhaps we may forgive misunderstandings. What is not so easily forgiven, however, is the lack of earnest effort in the pursuit of truth and reason.

 

[Some Guy]

I am using "acting immorally" synonymously with doing things "that would be wrong if any individual did them", which you said was a redeeming quality. After all, this is what we call doing things that are wrong - immoral - no?

If it's wrong for you to do something, how can it be right for government to do it? This supposes that government is something other than human, or "super-human", which of course, it is not; it is only people. This is the lie, or unfounded belief, required for government to exert power.

Moreover, how can you validly delegate the right to government to do "wrong" things that you have no right to do yourself? A person can only delegate authority from a position of authority. If I have the right to drive my car, I can delegate you to be my driver. But I cannot delegate to you the right to drive someone else's car, because I do not have that right to begin with. So how do you validly delegate to government the right to do things that would be wrong if you did them?

In addition, "no law" does not equate to "no punishment". Every individual has the right of defense, and thus may delegate that right to an institution. That institution does not then become "authority", however, it is merely an extension of individual rights, like a bodyguard.

This, and at least my interpretation of the post of mine you responded to earlier aren't exactly matching up. That's probably me though. I like that comparison though: how ideally, it's the people delegating their protection to the government to act as their bodyguard and nothing more. Simple concept yet we're here where we are. It's just proof that humans seem to be pretty virtuous in isolation, but pretty depraved and misguided when in groups.

 

[Some Guy]

Well, considering the massive weight of incessant mind control that's suppressed our critical thought process since the time we were born, perhaps we may forgive misunderstandings. What is not so easily forgiven, however, is the lack of earnest effort in the pursuit of truth and reason.

It's funny. If anyone in my real life asks me about my opinion of politics and culture and why things are so crazy, i basically point to that as reason #1: distinct lack of critical thinking.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I am using "acting immorally" synonymously with doing things "that would be wrong if any individual did them", which you said was a redeeming quality. After all, this is what we call doing things that are wrong - immoral - no?

If it's wrong for you to do something, how can it be right for government to do it? This supposes that government is something other than human, or "super-human", which of course, it is not; it is only people. This is the lie, or unfounded belief, required for government to exert power.

Moreover, how can you validly delegate the right to government to do "wrong" things that you have no right to do yourself? A person can only delegate authority from a position of authority. If I have the right to drive my car, I can delegate you to be my driver. But I cannot delegate to you the right to drive someone else's car, because I do not have that right to begin with. So how do you validly delegate to government the right to do things that would be wrong if you did them?

In addition, "no law" does not equate to "no punishment". Every individual has the right of defense, and thus may delegate that right to an institution. That institution does not then become "authority", however, it is merely an extension of individual rights, like a bodyguard.

This, and at least my interpretation of the post of mine you responded to earlier aren't exactly matching up. That's probably me though. I like that comparison though: how ideally, it's the people delegating their protection to the government to act as their bodyguard and nothing more. Simple concept yet we're here where we are. It's just proof that humans seem to be pretty virtuous in isolation, but pretty depraved and misguided when in groups.

The biggest problem is that there is always a short-sighted benefit to immorality, and so it tempts us eternally. People want to be moral, but they perceive that they leave something on the table by doing so. Government swoops in and offers a solution - political rituals whereby immorality is laundered and comes out the other side clean as a whistle. You get to claim the status of a moral individual - indeed, an upstanding citizen of a civilized society - and get all the benefits of immorality too.

You do not have the right to threaten your neighbors with violence in order to get them to pay for services you deem important, but by way of an ancient parchment, you may pull a lever, and a man will take an oath, and by his righteous decree this action may be done without any consequence to your immortal soul. You don't even have to enforce it yourself, we've got men with magic amulets that grant them super-human rights for that dirty business. The idea practically sells itself!

"Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up!"
-George Carlin

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I am a libertarian, I do not use the big L as I don't agree with all of what they stand for.

I have been described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, though I do not like either of those terms.

Fiscally I am for smaller government, less spending and less debt. Less intrusion by the Govt into our everyday lives. I do not believe that anti-discrimination laws enforced on private companies are constitutional. I do not even agree with the laws forcing doctors or hospitals/clinics with treating someone that cannot pay. Nobody should be forced to provide a service/commodity without proper compensations.

The two areas I differ from most libertarians is in the area of abortion (I am against it) and the Fed Govt dealing with pollution (I am for it as pollution crosses state lines).

Socially I am against smoking bans, seat belt laws (except for children), helmet laws, and things of that sort. I think that marijuana should be as legal and readily available as beer or Jack Daniels. I think that taxes should not be used for social engineering, either to reward "good" behavior (i.e. owning a house) or "bad" behavior (i.e. smoking).

I think the government should not be in the marriage business at all, but if they are then all consenting adults should qualify.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I am a libertarian, I do not use the big L as I don't agree with all of what they stand for.

I have been described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, though I do not like either of those terms.

Fiscally I am for smaller government, less spending and less debt. Less intrusion by the Govt into our everyday lives. I do not believe that anti-discrimination laws enforced on private companies are constitutional. I do not even agree with the laws forcing doctors or hospitals/clinics with treating someone that cannot pay. Nobody should be forced to provide a service/commodity without proper compensations.

The two areas I differ from most libertarians is in the area of abortion (I am against it) and the Fed Govt dealing with pollution (I am for it as pollution crosses state lines).

Socially I am against smoking bans, seat belt laws (except for children), helmet laws, and things of that sort. I think that marijuana should be as legal and readily available as beer or Jack Daniels. I think that taxes should not be used for social engineering, either to reward "good" behavior (i.e. owning a house) or "bad" behavior (i.e. smoking).

I think the government should not be in the marriage business at all, but if they are then all consenting adults should qualify.

Thank you. This is well thought-out, within the context of law, and I agree on all the things you want government not to do. Would you describe this as a principle-based position? If so, what is/are the core principle/s?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I am a libertarian, I do not use the big L as I don't agree with all of what they stand for.

I have been described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, though I do not like either of those terms.

Fiscally I am for smaller government, less spending and less debt. Less intrusion by the Govt into our everyday lives. I do not believe that anti-discrimination laws enforced on private companies are constitutional. I do not even agree with the laws forcing doctors or hospitals/clinics with treating someone that cannot pay. Nobody should be forced to provide a service/commodity without proper compensations.

The two areas I differ from most libertarians is in the area of abortion (I am against it) and the Fed Govt dealing with pollution (I am for it as pollution crosses state lines).

Socially I am against smoking bans, seat belt laws (except for children), helmet laws, and things of that sort. I think that marijuana should be as legal and readily available as beer or Jack Daniels. I think that taxes should not be used for social engineering, either to reward "good" behavior (i.e. owning a house) or "bad" behavior (i.e. smoking).

I think the government should not be in the marriage business at all, but if they are then all consenting adults should qualify.

Thank you. This is well thought-out, within the context of law, and I agree on all the things you want government not to do. Would you describe this as a principle-based position? If so, what is/are the core principle/s?

It is all based on liberty. The less the Govt does, the more liberty we have. Do not let your liberty interfere with me and I will not interfere with yours.

I have zero desire to smoke pot (not a good thing for a guy with COPD to do) but will fight all day for your right to do so if you want to as long as I have the right to crack open a nice cold IPA in the evening.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I have zero desire to smoke pot (not a good thing for a guy with COPD to do) but will fight all day for your right to do so if you want to as long as I have the right to crack open a nice cold IPA in the evening.

Well, lucky for you, we live in a universe where you DO have that right! Any planet, any time, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. Enjoy!

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

/----/ Then why don't you include Conservative Party of Tea Party? Both are truly freedom-minded.

 

[bripat9643]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

He's a lying snowflake. He believes in big government, not freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

I once thought I was libertarian. Then I went to a few meetings of the libertarians and thought they all sounded like goddamn morons. So, I figured it wasn't really rational to think that I was doing it correctly, and all of them were doing it wrong... so I decided I was not a libertarian, and that libertarianism is fucking dumb.

I tried, at least.

You are a dumbfuck, not a libertarian.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[bripat9643]

~S~

Progressivism is Stalinism for lying douchebags.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

/----/ Then why don't you include Conservative Party of Tea Party? Both are truly freedom-minded.

That's a good question. I guess I had to draw the line somewhere and I tried to draw it right on the edge of the political spectrum. I find that people who classify themselves as libertarian tend to want the most minimal government of anyone along that spectrum.

But I'm not very well-versed in political positions, because I see only one relevant distinction - those who fully understand and respect natural law rights, and those who don't. I'm sympathetic to libertarians, but despite them seemingly having more in common with anarchists than staunch republicans or democrats, in reality they're closer to the latter camps because of this all-important distinction. Their commonality with anarchists is quantitative (agreeing on more particular issues), whereas their commonality with pubs and dems is qualitative (agreeing on the critical issue of government's rightful claim to authority).

Either government authority is valid or it is not. If it is, then any limit on that authority is rather arbitrary; a matter of preference or subjective opinion. It is not rooted in principle, as one has little rational basis for citing freedom as a basis for minimal government, when he already gave away the store by recognizing governmental authority in the first place.

The key point concerning this validity is inequality of rights (people in Congress, etc., have rights that I don't have). This is an impossibility. There is no valid basis for it, as all men are created equal (in terms of rights). The cited justifications - the delegation of powers and the consent of the governed - are invalid premises, since logically, a person cannot delegate a power (or right) they don't have themselves, and man's rights are unalienable, which means one cannot forsake their right to full freedom and autonomy, even if he gives his consent.

But, as you see by the voting, had I only sought out anarchists, I'd be here alone, so it behooves the anarchist and libertarian to walk the path together as far as it will take them. By the time they have to sort out their differences, the world will be a very different place; and considering their commonality on many political issues, the conflict is likely to look more like pillow-fight than a revolution.

To paraphrase the Buddha:
“There are only two mistakes one can make on the path to truth: not starting, and not going all the way.”

 

[Brian Blackwell]

~S~

I’d hate to put it that way, but it does highlight the fear-based reluctance to take their ideas to their logical conclusion. I can tell you from experience that the fear resides in that final step; up to that point you’re not really putting anything on the line.

On the other side you’ve got to grow into full self-responsibility, and it’s a big deal for some people. Especially considering how infantilized government dependency has made us, and how skewed toward danger our worldview has become because of mass media mind control. But when you realize that the sense of security was a lie, it softens the blow. Government wants you to believe they’re holding the whole thing together, but they’re not, and sheer statistics can tell you that.

There are 1 million cops policing 325 million people. People aren’t civilized because of government, and they won’t turn into savage animals in its absence. And you get over the fear in a couple of weeks, so come on libertarians - get on the right side of history and take the leap into true freedom!