Debate Now Anarchy: What is it, what is it not?

[Arianrhod]

Based on a discussion toward the end of this thread: Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum some of us got to talking about anarchy, based on a quote by self-identified anarchist (as well as abolitionist, among other things) Lysander Spooner:

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

I was asked what I thought this meant, and I answered it in that thread, but I'll save my answer for now, as I'd like to hear others' thoughts first.

I understand three additional rules are allowed, but I don't want to inhibit anyone. I would, however, like to point out that there is no poster on USMB named "Princess."

Have at it!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine

*****SMILE*****

 

[chao$]

To answer your question the quote means no god no master. There is no hierarchy in anarchism, everyone is equal. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Sound familiar? In American anarchism the individual owns his or her own products, so it's a lot different than the state owned production of Europe.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In American anarchism the individual owns his or her own products, so it's a lot different than the state owned production of Europe.

Really? Hmm...


calling you out on talking out of your ass, otherwise known as...
Bullshit

 

[chao$]

In American anarchism the individual owns his or her own products, so it's a lot different than the state owned production of Europe.

Really? Hmm...


calling you out on talking out of your ass, otherwise known as...
Bullshit

Make your case.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lysander Spooner:

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In American anarchism the individual owns his or her own products, so it's a lot different than the state owned production of Europe.

Really? Hmm...


calling you out on talking out of your ass, otherwise known as...
Bullshit

Make your case.

Not Dante's case to make. Dante thinks the whole concept of Anarachy as a political, ideological, or societal movement is ridiculously immature, naive, and nonsensical.

Anarchists themselves are all over the place. In response to your claim...I ask have you ever watched the Video on Slab City where the anarchist kids show up and start taking anything that IS NOT nailed down for their own use? They respected absolutely NO personal or private rights. This I propose from observation, is American Anarchism in PRACTICE

 

[chao$]

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

Huh?

The Bill of Rights do not claim to be self evident

 

[chao$]

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

Huh?

The Bill of Rights do not claim to be self evident

The Bill of Rights protects the people from government doing what Lysander Spooner said.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

Huh?

The Bill of Rights do not claim to be self evident

The Bill of Rights protects the people from government doing what Lysander Spooner said.

ok. you are trolling. as usual you have nothing to say

Uhm...

ok

 

[chao$]

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

Huh?

The Bill of Rights do not claim to be self evident

The Bill of Rights protects the people from government doing what Lysander Spooner said.

ok. you are trolling. as usual you have nothing to say

Uhm...

ok

Calling someone a troll is a cop out for those who have no argument to make.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

Huh?

The Bill of Rights do not claim to be self evident

The Bill of Rights protects the people from government doing what Lysander Spooner said.

ok. you are trolling. as usual you have nothing to say

Uhm...

ok

Calling someone a troll is a cop out for those who have no argument to make.

Oh?
So now drive-by posts are arguments worthy of what exactly?

 

[chao$]

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

Huh?

The Bill of Rights do not claim to be self evident

The Bill of Rights protects the people from government doing what Lysander Spooner said.

ok. you are trolling. as usual you have nothing to say

Uhm...

ok

Calling someone a troll is a cop out for those who have no argument to make.

Oh?
So now drive-by posts are arguments worthy of what exactly?

I answered the OP and you showed up with an ad hom. You have yet to give me anything worth responding to.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

The Bill of Rights pretty much says the same thing as Lysander Spooner.

Huh?

The Bill of Rights do not claim to be self evident

No they don't...

They were made to protect people from the evil that government can become.

This is why the 1st and 2nd Amendments exist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[waltky]

Is kinda like that scene in Apocalypse Now...

... where Martin Sheen asks, "Who's in charge?"...

... and the black guy says, "I thought you was in charge."

(If you're not of the Vietnam era, you might find it a tedious movie...

... but if you're a Dennis Hopper or Robert Duvall fan...

... you might enjoy their performances...

... can't say as much for Marlon Brandon.)

 

[LOki]

Lysander Spooner:

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

There is no such thing here that is self evident. This is a premise, no a matter of fact.
Rights here being abstract things

It seems the point asserted is a mathematical truth: 0+0+0+0+....=0.

Abstract or not, if these men had no right to something as individuals, that right doesn't exist when they gather as a group.

Self-evident.

 

[LOki]

In American anarchism the individual owns his or her own products, so it's a lot different than the state owned production of Europe.

Really? Hmm...


calling you out on talking out of your ass, otherwise known as...
Bullshit

Make your case.

Not Dante's case to make. Dante thinks the whole concept of Anarachy as a political, ideological, or societal movement is ridiculously immature, naive, and nonsensical.

Anarchists themselves are all over the place. In response to your claim...I ask have you ever watched the Video on Slab City where the anarchist kids show up and start taking anything that IS NOT nailed down for their own use? They respected absolutely NO personal or private rights. This I propose from observation, is American Anarchism in PRACTICE

You're describing assholes.

You're describing nihilists.

Lack of respect for personal and private rights is not a principal quality of anarchism, but it certainly is a principal quality of stastism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It seems the point asserted is a mathematical truth: 0+0+0+0+....=0.

Abstract or not, if these men had no right to something as individuals, that right doesn't exist when they gather as a group.

Self-evident.

Math has nothing to do with anything here.

"Abstract or not" -- your words. You insist something is true whether it is abstract or not?

No one claims an individual right to another's individual properties or anything else before hand, so you are insisting your premise has to be accepted in any argument. You have done what theists do when they say prove there is no god

see?

now get out into the real world

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lack of respect for personal and private rights is not a principal quality of anarchism, but it certainly is a principal quality of stastism.

says who?

is there an official anarchist handbook?