Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[bripat9643]

Really? So Christians don't all agree that Christ was the son of God?

Nope, they sure do not, you moron. But thanks for showing your ignorance once again.

Yeah, they do. That's what it means to be Christian.

The Non agression principle is the fundamental tenant of the libertarian philosophy. If you don't endorse it, then you are not a libertarian. You don't even know what it means, and then you have the gall to tell me what libertarians believe.

Dude, you are a guy that is a cheerleader for Trump and then joins a thread and calls himself an anarchist. The two cannot go together, yet here you are trying to tell other people what they know and what the mean.

Your duplicity of kissing the ass of the leader of the government while at the same time claiming to be against all government renders anything you have to say on this topic null and void.

You keep blubbering the same personal attacks over and over. That's your substitute for logic.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, they do. That's what it means to be Christian.

You do not get to define what it means to be a Christian. I have known Christian atheist. Your ignorance is shining through even more.

You keep blubbering the same personal attacks over and over. That's your substitute for logic.

You whining about personal attacks is as funny as you claiming to be an anarchist. You have made personal attacks against everyone in this thread that has not bowed down to your fucked up logic.

you are a joke, just accept it and move on. You are the only one in the thread that is not capable of having a discussion, the rest of us are doing just fine.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, they do. That's what it means to be Christian.

You do not get to define what it means to be a Christian. I have known Christian atheist. Your ignorance is shining through even more.

The term "Christian atheist" is an oxymoron, and you are a dumbass.

You keep blubbering the same personal attacks over and over. That's your substitute for logic.

You whining about personal attacks is as funny as you claiming to be an anarchist. You have made personal attacks against everyone in this thread that has not bowed down to your fucked up logic.

you are a joke, just accept it and move on. You are the only one in the thread that is not capable of having a discussion, the rest of us are doing just fine.

I call dumbasses like you exactly what you are, but I always prove that they dumbasses. I generally don't attack people who debate honestly, but terminal douchebags deserve what I dish out.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The term "Christian atheist" is an oxymoron, and you are a dumbass.

No, it really is not. There are more Christian atheist than one might think. In a nutshell they derive their ethics and values from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they just reject the supernatural aspect that some attribute to Jesus.

It is a damn shame you are too fundamentally stupid to get the irony of a Trump zealot anarchist calling something else an oxymoron!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I would like to take a change of pace here and ask a few questions, I hope the anarchist will indulge me.

Let's say that tomorrow you all convinced the county that government was indeed evil and we got rid of it...

First and foremost, what will be different for me and the average Joe like me?

Taxes will be gone so that is a plus, but then I will have to pay for fire protection, security forces to replace the police, for the roads I drive on and many more things. So I am not sure I will have any more money in the end, I will just have to be paying it to a dozen different places instead of just one.

Will there be any authority and if so what will it look like? Will there be rules and if so how will they be chosen and enforced?

It was said that government is the biggest intrusion on freedom, so I started to think about the things that impede my freedom the most.

Two things are tied for first as far as I can tell, my job and my children, though the latter is getting better as one is out of the house and the other is getting closer.

In exchange for money being put in my bank every other week, I give up the freedom to choose where to be for at least 8 hours a day, what to wear and what to spend my time doing. I do this at least 5 days out of 7. It is hard to impede my freedom much more than that.

But kids, now those little buggers are even worse. When they are young they suck away your freedom 24/7, well except for the time you are at work giving your freedom to something else. I do not have freedom of what to spend my money on as they have needs that much be met, from a moral standpoint at a bare minimum. I have a son who is a Type-1 diabetic, this is a crappy disease, but it is also an expensive one. From insulin (the 3rd most expensive liquid in the world) to test strips, meters, insulin pumps, CGMs and more.

Now, do not get me wrong, I like my job and I love my children and give them more than is required by mere morality, but both are huge sucks on one freedom.

Can one of you explain how the government in this country is worse for my freedom that those two things?

This is a very fair posting with honest questions. I understand where you're coming from here.

There's a fundamental difference between the "lack of freedom" of work and children, and that of external authority. Your bonds in this regard are self-imposed. Your values constrain you, particularly as it regards the children. This is wholly appropriate.

Remember we drew a distinction between internal/external, anarchy/monarchy? We need internal monarchy to be a good person. We want there to be rules - strict rules - we just don't want those rules coming from outside ourselves. Your absolute and sovereign authority over yourself is what binds you to your children. The job is a more of a grey area. Part of it is likely the internal responsibility you feel toward your family, but another part of it is the external cultural construct that seeks to enslave you to the dollar. But that is a matter for another discussion.

As for the speculations about how things will be in a free society, we've already addressed that. I offered the quote:

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

There is no reason why the anarchist should be made responsible for satisfying these concerns. We may oblige as a kindness, but we're not selling something here. We're pointing out that governmental authority is immoral, invalid, non-existent. That's it. The historical results of ignoring this fact have been a body count in the billions, and theft on a scale impossible to fathom. If that's not sufficient motivation to change, I'm not sure there's any hope in answering questions about roads and firehouses.

There will be no centralized solutions. You are equally capable of answering your own questions if you're willing to consider the matter in earnest. How would you handle these things? That's the whole problem here - people have not cleared the table of all immoral options before considering solutions. They accept the immoral shortcut, but which shuts down the thought process that could yield moral solutions.

Imagine you had a magic wand that allowed you do anything and get away with it. Imagine that you also had no regard for morality. When you needed money, what would you do? You have no need to ponder ways to make money, you just use your wand to swipe whatever you want. The wand stifles creativity; it cuts off progress toward better, more moral solutions. This is what government is. A falsely justified wand of immorality that becomes the solution to everything, cutting off man's potential to achieve a moral society. It's one of its most debilitating evils on the species scale.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The term "Christian atheist" is an oxymoron, and you are a dumbass.

No, it really is not. There are more Christian atheist than one might think. In a nutshell they derive their ethics and values from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they just reject the supernatural aspect that some attribute to Jesus.

It is a damn shame you are too fundamentally stupid to get the irony of a Trump zealot anarchist calling something else an oxymoron!

Yeah, I get it... I suppose that could pass on a technicality, but if you took a poll, almost everyone except Christian atheists would say that Christian atheists are not Christians proper. So it just comes down to who gets to define words.

And I can’t speak for bripat, but I mentioned the idea of defensive participation in government. An anarchist could feel that voting for Trump is an act of self-defense against Hillary, and if so, there would be nothing oxymoronic about expounding upon why he made that choice, i.e. why Trump is better.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, I get it... I suppose that could pass on a technicality, but if you took a poll, almost everyone except Christian atheists would say that Christian atheists are not Christians proper. So it just comes down to who gets to define words.

It often does.

And I can’t speak for bripat, but I mentioned the idea of defensive participation in government. An anarchist could feel that voting for Trump is an act of self-defense against Hillary, and if so, there would be nothing oxymoronic about expounding upon why he made that choice, i.e. why Trump is better.

I understand the idea of a defensive vote, but people making defensive votes do not normally have more than 300 post on a fourm cheerleading for that vote, they just plug their nose and move on.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As for the speculations about how things will be in a free society, we've already addressed that. I offered the quote:

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

There is no reason why the anarchist should be made responsible for satisfying these concerns. We may oblige as a kindness, but we're not selling something here. We're pointing out that governmental authority is immoral, invalid, non-existent. That's it. The historical results of ignoring this fact have been a body count in the billions, and theft on a scale impossible to fathom. If that's not sufficient motivation to change, I'm not sure there's any hope in answering questions about roads and firehouses.
.

Actually I would say that it is the responsibility of the one making the change to satisfy the concerns, or the change will never happen.

While in the Marines I had the opportunity to go through the Six Sigma training before anyone really knew what it was going to become. One thing you learn about bringing about change is that there are two required steps, first you have to identify the problem, but even more vital you have to have a solution that can be sold to the ones you are wanting to make a change. There is an old saying, if you do not have a solution you are part of the problem.

You claim you are not selling anything, and that is true only if you do not wish to see a change, if you wish to eventually see a change you will have to sell a solution.

While in the Corps I had my orders changed and was sent to a different duty station for the sole purpose of fixing a broken shop. Once there I IDed the problem, devised a solution and then sold it to my OIC and his boss.

You can point out the body count of government till you are blue in the face, but until people are given a reason to change, they will not do so. People will not change for a theory or a logical argument, change needs a driving force and theoretical arguments will never be a driving force.

I would say that the vast majority of what we do in daily lives is done out of nothing other than convenience.

I could grow my own food and hunt my own game, but other than my herb garden, but instead i get my food from the grocery store...because it is easier.

I have an older car that just had the AC compressor go out and has a few other problem. I could replace it and try and fix the other problems, but instead we are trading it in and getting a different car. It is an easier solution and one that make more long sense in the long run to my wife and I.

Government is no different, it is simple and easy. It is the ultimate convenience. If you wish to replace that, you will have to have a solution that people perceive as being a better way of life for them.

Till you can do that, this is all nothing but a thought exercise.

 

[bripat9643]

The term "Christian atheist" is an oxymoron, and you are a dumbass.

No, it really is not. There are more Christian atheist than one might think. In a nutshell they derive their ethics and values from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they just reject the supernatural aspect that some attribute to Jesus.

It is a damn shame you are too fundamentally stupid to get the irony of a Trump zealot anarchist calling something else an oxymoron!

They aren't Christians, dumbass.

The shit you try to put over us is astounding.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

As for the speculations about how things will be in a free society, we've already addressed that. I offered the quote:

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

There is no reason why the anarchist should be made responsible for satisfying these concerns. We may oblige as a kindness, but we're not selling something here. We're pointing out that governmental authority is immoral, invalid, non-existent. That's it. The historical results of ignoring this fact have been a body count in the billions, and theft on a scale impossible to fathom. If that's not sufficient motivation to change, I'm not sure there's any hope in answering questions about roads and firehouses.
.

Actually I would say that it is the responsibility of the one making the change to satisfy the concerns, or the change will never happen.

While in the Marines I had the opportunity to go through the Six Sigma training before anyone really knew what it was going to become. One thing you learn about bringing about change is that there are two required steps, first you have to identify the problem, but even more vital you have to have a solution that can be sold to the ones you are wanting to make a change. There is an old saying, if you do not have a solution you are part of the problem.

You claim you are not selling anything, and that is true only if you do not wish to see a change, if you wish to eventually see a change you will have to sell a solution.

While in the Corps I had my orders changed and was sent to a different duty station for the sole purpose of fixing a broken shop. Once there I IDed the problem, devised a solution and then sold it to my OIC and his boss.

You can point out the body count of government till you are blue in the face, but until people are given a reason to change, they will not do so. People will not change for a theory or a logical argument, change needs a driving force and theoretical arguments will never be a driving force.

I would say that the vast majority of what we do in daily lives is done out of nothing other than convenience.

I could grow my own food and hunt my own game, but other than my herb garden, but instead i get my food from the grocery store...because it is easier.

I have an older car that just had the AC compressor go out and has a few other problem. I could replace it and try and fix the other problems, but instead we are trading it in and getting a different car. It is an easier solution and one that make more long sense in the long run to my wife and I.

Government is no different, it is simple and easy. It is the ultimate convenience. If you wish to replace that, you will have to have a solution that people perceive as being a better way of life for them.

Till you can do that, this is all nothing but a thought exercise.

I agree with your description of the problem, though I don't agree with your solution. The difference is in the perceived goal. You think our goal is dissolution of government. But our goal is actually the evolution of cultural consciousness; it just so happens that meeting this goal will have the effect of dissolution of government.

If I can get you to believe that a free society would be better, all it will take to bring you back to tyranny is a convincing argument. But if I can get you to understand why external authority is invalid and immoral, you will never be swayed by the lie again.

Proponents of government (permit the use of the word "statist" for convenience) can sometimes be made to see how organization is possible without government, but will always proclaim that immorality is the reason why we need government. Even minarchists can't overcome this intellectual hurdle. The statist suggests the "necessary evil" of government, and therefore suggests fighting fire with fire - immorality to combat immorality. The (wrongly perceived) lesser of two evils.

So you see the contradiction here. If an immoral person will wait until everyone else is acting immorally before they're willing to change their ways, and others are looking at him and doing the same, there is no way out. We are doomed to eternal immorality. It is entirely invalid to cite the immorality of others to justify your own, because the argument is circular. You ARE the immorality you're citing as the problem. One must clean up their own house first. There is simply no other way.

So the statist and anarchist have the same goal, however unattainable you perceive that goal to be. We are not in disagreement. We all say that immorality is the problem to be combated. If I could assure you that everyone would be moral, you'd likely give up government in a heartbeat. But everyone can't be moral until YOU will be moral. So the modern anarchist argument is a call to morality on the individual level.

And the origin of the morality does not matter, per se. If we can agree it's wrong to commit theft, then everything else is fine. Theft of physical property, theft of inherent autonomy, theft of life. This is the only agreement between you and I that is required, but we must be willing to investigate the nature of theft honestly, and realize how our support of coercive law is an act of theft. People cannot forsake theft if they don't understand what it is. That's where the philosophy comes in.

To say that moral and philosophical arguments cannot be effective is to doom mankind. Simply being tempted to freedom by the shiny bauble of personal benefit will yield nothing in the long term. The desired change MUST come of true understanding, because true understanding IS the goal. So perhaps you think it is hopeless because you believe others will not be swayed by these arguments; but until YOU will be swayed by them, then YOU are the very problem you're citing, and YOU are the one making it hopeless. And although you cannot act on behalf of others, you can act on behalf of yourself. This is all that is required - to use the power of authority over self to move the world toward the shared goal of a moral society.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

As for the speculations about how things will be in a free society, we've already addressed that. I offered the quote:

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

There is no reason why the anarchist should be made responsible for satisfying these concerns. We may oblige as a kindness, but we're not selling something here. We're pointing out that governmental authority is immoral, invalid, non-existent. That's it. The historical results of ignoring this fact have been a body count in the billions, and theft on a scale impossible to fathom. If that's not sufficient motivation to change, I'm not sure there's any hope in answering questions about roads and firehouses.
.

Actually I would say that it is the responsibility of the one making the change to satisfy the concerns, or the change will never happen.

While in the Marines I had the opportunity to go through the Six Sigma training before anyone really knew what it was going to become. One thing you learn about bringing about change is that there are two required steps, first you have to identify the problem, but even more vital you have to have a solution that can be sold to the ones you are wanting to make a change. There is an old saying, if you do not have a solution you are part of the problem.

You claim you are not selling anything, and that is true only if you do not wish to see a change, if you wish to eventually see a change you will have to sell a solution.

While in the Corps I had my orders changed and was sent to a different duty station for the sole purpose of fixing a broken shop. Once there I IDed the problem, devised a solution and then sold it to my OIC and his boss.

You can point out the body count of government till you are blue in the face, but until people are given a reason to change, they will not do so. People will not change for a theory or a logical argument, change needs a driving force and theoretical arguments will never be a driving force.

I would say that the vast majority of what we do in daily lives is done out of nothing other than convenience.

I could grow my own food and hunt my own game, but other than my herb garden, but instead i get my food from the grocery store...because it is easier.

I have an older car that just had the AC compressor go out and has a few other problem. I could replace it and try and fix the other problems, but instead we are trading it in and getting a different car. It is an easier solution and one that make more long sense in the long run to my wife and I.

Government is no different, it is simple and easy. It is the ultimate convenience. If you wish to replace that, you will have to have a solution that people perceive as being a better way of life for them.

Till you can do that, this is all nothing but a thought exercise.

I forgot to mention how it is that we're not selling anything. To sell something to you would be to give you something you don't already have (presumably with some compensation). If you have ANY sense of morality, you already have what we would be selling. To point at your house is not to sell you that house. In addition, we ask for no compensation.

If one has no moral standard at all, they are free to go. They are not subject to these arguments. Given that these people represent a negligible portion of the world population, they are a matter for little concern.

But if you have a moral standard of any kind, the notion of obligation to governmental authority is in direct opposition to YOUR morality, as it claims the right to supersede it as a standard for your personal behavior. End of story.

The argument is only intended to bring you into alignment with your own beliefs; to address an error. It's telling you your fly is open, not selling you a zipper.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They aren't Christians, dumbass.

The shit you try to put over us is astounding.

They are more Christian than you are anarchist

 

[bripat9643]

They aren't Christians, dumbass.

The shit you try to put over us is astounding.

They are more Christian than you are anarchist

Personal attacks are the only thing you got, douchebag.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They aren't Christians, dumbass.

The shit you try to put over us is astounding.

They are more Christian than you are anarchist

Personal attacks are the only thing you got, douchebag.

Damn it, I wish you were smart enough to see the irony in your post. But irony is always lost on the stupid

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I forgot to mention how it is that we're not selling anything. To sell something to you would be to give you something you don't already have (presumably with some compensation). If you have ANY sense of morality, you already have what we would be selling. To point at your house is not to sell you that house. In addition, we ask for no compensation.

If one has no moral standard at all, they are free to go. They are not subject to these arguments. Given that these people represent a negligible portion of the world population, they are a matter for little concern.

But if you have a moral standard of any kind, the notion of obligation to governmental authority is in direct opposition to YOUR morality, as it claims the right to supersede it as a standard for your personal behavior. End of story.

The argument is only intended to bring you into alignment with your own beliefs; to address an error. It's telling you your fly is open, not selling you a zipper.

But of course you are selling something, you are selling the idea that government is immoral and those that support it are equally immoral. Most people do not agree with this view, so you are at a minimum selling your view of reality.

You are not unlike the JWs and Mormons that come to my house and tell me about their view of morality and how my soul is bound for hell if I do not come around to their way of thinking.

You make a statement like "one has no moral standard at all, they are free to go", but where do you derive the authority to judge who does and does not have a moral standard? Is the line those that think like you and agree with you have morals and nobody else does?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You are not unlike the JWs and Mormons that come to my house and tell me about their view of morality and how my soul is bound for hell if I do not come around to their way of thinking.

You make a statement like "one has no moral standard at all, they are free to go", but where do you derive the authority to judge who does and does not have a moral standard? Is the line those that think like you and agree with you have morals and nobody else does?

No, not at all. The individual decides if they have a moral standard or not, and what that standard is. If you decide you have one, then the following statement applies, does it not?:

"...if you have a moral standard of any kind, the notion of obligation to governmental authority is in direct opposition to YOUR morality, as it claims the right to supersede [your morality] as a standard for your personal behavior. End of story."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are not unlike the JWs and Mormons that come to my house and tell me about their view of morality and how my soul is bound for hell if I do not come around to their way of thinking.

You make a statement like "one has no moral standard at all, they are free to go", but where do you derive the authority to judge who does and does not have a moral standard? Is the line those that think like you and agree with you have morals and nobody else does?

No, not at all. The individual decides if they have a moral standard or not, and what that standard is. If you decide you have one, then the following statement applies, does it not?:

"...if you have a moral standard of any kind, the notion of obligation to governmental authority is in direct opposition to YOUR morality, as it claims the right to supersede [your morality] as a standard for your personal behavior. End of story."

The government does not claim the right to supersede my morality anymore than my boss does. The government is not the source for my personal behavior, that is not the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The government does not claim the right to supersede my morality anymore than my boss does. The government is not the source for my personal behavior, that is not the role of the government

What?! I didn't say you have to agree with them - I certainly don't - and I didn't say they are the source of your personal moral standard, but of course the government claims the right to supersede your morality with their law. There's no provision for you citing moral reasons for breaking the law and getting let off the hook.

If you're going to say that you can just leave the country, then let me qualify my original statement by noting that obviously I'm talking about within the realm of their claimed jurisdiction. Any conversation about law implies this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What?! I didn't say you have to agree with them - I certainly don't - and I didn't say they are the source of your personal moral standard, but of course the government claims the right to supersede your morality with their law. There's no provision for you citing moral reasons for breaking the law and getting let off the hook.

If you're going to say that you can just leave the country, then let me qualify my original statement by noting that obviously I'm talking about within the realm of their claimed jurisdiction. Any conversation about law implies this.

You are correct there is no provision for me citing moral reasons for breaking the law and getting let off the hook. Thus with each law I, like you must make a choice. We can agree or choose not to and face the consequences. Freedom has never been free of consequence.

The same goes at our work, which you will agree is a freely entered into situation. An example, when I was a young E3 in the Corps I was given what I felt was an unlawful order, so I refused to do it knowing that it could get me into trouble. The same holds true for the government, if there was a law that forced me to do something that went against my moral views I would then have to make a choice. So far I have no ran across that, but that is not to say it could not happen.

 

[g5000]

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.

Nailed it!