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

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy, it does not support anarchy and it does not invalidate our Government type or function. Anarchy does not work on any scale over a few people. Anarchy quickly becomes whom ever is the strongest and most charismatic takes and does what they want against everyone not willing to follow them.

 

[LOki]

You've had every opportunity to demonstrate... Yet you don't.

Why is that?

Perhaps you can present valid reasoning--rather than false equivilancy--to illustrate the fault in Spooner's premise.

Dante doesn't have to demonstrate anything when somebody else makes a claim such as something being self evident. It is up the the person who claims something is self evident to offer how and why.

Which was done for you, Cupcake.

Like religionists with the claim that there exists a higher power watching over humanity and guiding it, you offer up a claim of certain rights being self evident, and insist others must accept it as a fact.

Perhaps you can present valid reasoning--rather than false equivilancy, again--to illustrate the fault in Spooner's premise.

 

[LOki]

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.

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy, it does not support anarchy and it does not invalidate our Government type or function. Anarchy does not work on any scale over a few people.

This appears to be true, but is it necessarily true?

Anarchy quickly becomes whom ever is the strongest and most charismatic takes and does what they want against everyone not willing to follow them.

You seem to be admitting that anarchy falls victim to statism through illegitimate means... does that allow that new state legitimacy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy, it does not support anarchy and it does not invalidate our Government type or function. Anarchy does not work on any scale over a few people.

This appears to be true, but is it necessarily true?

Anarchy quickly becomes whom ever is the strongest and most charismatic takes and does what they want against everyone not willing to follow them.

You seem to be admitting that anarchy falls victim to statism through illegitimate means... does that allow that new state legitimacy?

Lack of Government at any level above a few people leads to a strongman taking over in his area. Anarchy does not work at any level above a couple people. Government is NECESSARY, it may be restrictive but some forms are less so then others. No Government does not lead to Utopia it leads to chaos and the strong doing as they will over the weak.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

I believe we are not merely moral enough to merit a commune of Heaven on Earth where Man may be a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Condolences on our inability to grok eternal truths.

troll somewhere else

 

[LOki]

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.

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy, it does not support anarchy and it does not invalidate our Government type or function. Anarchy does not work on any scale over a few people.

This appears to be true, but is it necessarily true?

Anarchy quickly becomes whom ever is the strongest and most charismatic takes and does what they want against everyone not willing to follow them.

You seem to be admitting that anarchy falls victim to statism through illegitimate means... does that allow that new state legitimacy?

Lack of Government at any level above a few people leads to a strongman taking over in his area.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Anarchy does not work at any level above a couple people.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Government is NECESSARY, ...

Why?

No Government does not lead to Utopia...

No one made this claim or requirement.

... it leads to chaos and the strong doing as they will over the weak.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy, it does not support anarchy and it does not invalidate our Government type or function. Anarchy does not work on any scale over a few people.

This appears to be true, but is it necessarily true?

Anarchy quickly becomes whom ever is the strongest and most charismatic takes and does what they want against everyone not willing to follow them.

You seem to be admitting that anarchy falls victim to statism through illegitimate means... does that allow that new state legitimacy?

Lack of Government at any level above a few people leads to a strongman taking over in his area.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Anarchy does not work at any level above a couple people.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Government is NECESSARY, ...

Why?

No Government does not lead to Utopia...

No one made this claim or requirement.

... it leads to chaos and the strong doing as they will over the weak.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Other then a couple people that all accept each others mores beliefs and societal taboos, no large group of people can operate in a vacuum. Anarchy is a vacuum. HUMAN nature will take over and the strongest meanest bad ass in each area will assert HIS or HER will on those around them, he will take what he wants, he will do what he wants he will force HIS desires on the rest.

Why is Government needed? because no large group of people ever belief the same exact things they do not agree on mores and policies, they do not have the same societal boundaries and goals.Some force is required by HUMAN NATURE to force compliance from the majority and even then a minority will reject even that as is evidenced by crime and such.

 

[chao$]

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

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy

That's not what I said.

Before the U.S. constitution we had the Articles of Confederation which are about as close to anarchy as one can get. Anarchy is an effect not the cause, so it's a segue in the swing of society's pendulum.

 

[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.

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy, it does not support anarchy and it does not invalidate our Government type or function. Anarchy does not work on any scale over a few people.

This appears to be true, but is it necessarily true?

Anarchy quickly becomes whom ever is the strongest and most charismatic takes and does what they want against everyone not willing to follow them.

You seem to be admitting that anarchy falls victim to statism through illegitimate means... does that allow that new state legitimacy?

now you're talking out of your arse as religionists do.

It appears as with conspiracies and religion, any answer you receive only raises more questions

good bye

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Other then a couple people that all accept each others mores beliefs and societal taboos, no large group of people can operate in a vacuum. Anarchy is a vacuum. HUMAN nature will take over and the strongest meanest bad ass in each area will assert HIS or HER will on those around them, he will take what he wants, he will do what he wants he will force HIS desires on the rest.

Why is Government needed? because no large group of people ever belief the same exact things they do not agree on mores and policies, they do not have the same societal boundaries and goals.Some force is required by HUMAN NATURE to force compliance from the majority and even then a minority will reject even that as is evidenced by crime and such.

Dante's experiences with Occupy in his city (he was part of tee initial steering group) was that anarchists would come in and take over. amusing how much of control freaks anarchists are in practice

But Dante predicted such a happening and was looked upon suspiciously and accused of being law enforcement or a plant from some other agency.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Before the U.S. constitution we had the Articles of Confederation which are about as close to anarchy as one can get.

another absurd non truth posing as a fact

 

[LOki]

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

The Bill of rights does not advocate anarchy, it does not support anarchy and it does not invalidate our Government type or function. Anarchy does not work on any scale over a few people.

This appears to be true, but is it necessarily true?

Anarchy quickly becomes whom ever is the strongest and most charismatic takes and does what they want against everyone not willing to follow them.

You seem to be admitting that anarchy falls victim to statism through illegitimate means... does that allow that new state legitimacy?

Lack of Government at any level above a few people leads to a strongman taking over in his area.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Anarchy does not work at any level above a couple people.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Government is NECESSARY, ...

Why?

No Government does not lead to Utopia...

No one made this claim or requirement.

... it leads to chaos and the strong doing as they will over the weak.

Why is this NECESSARILY so?

Other then a couple people that all accept each others mores beliefs and societal taboos, no large group of people can operate in a vacuum.

North Korea is a fine example of the attempt to do so.

Keep that in mind as you read on.

Anarchy is a vacuum.

I'd say it is literally the exact opposite.

HUMAN nature will take over and the strongest meanest bad ass in each area will assert HIS or HER will on those around them, he will take what he wants, he will do what he wants he will force HIS desires on the rest.

So what is it about anarchism that prevents an anarchist society from dealing with such aggression?

Why is Government needed? because no large group of people ever belief the same exact things they do not agree on mores and policies, they do not have the same societal boundaries and goals.

So? I mean really.. so what?

I see no moral justification in there for one group to force their mores, policies, and goals on others.

Reference: religion, gay marriage, drug use, rock and roll, etc...

Some force is required by HUMAN NATURE to force compliance from the majority and even then a minority will reject even that as is evidenced by crime and such.

Being the majority does not legitimize tyranny of the majority.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Being the majority does not legitimize tyranny of the majority.

You're very, very confused and all over the place.

You like the Articles of Confederation which had no protections for the minority, yet you attack the Constitution which has protections

I guess you must have done research in a vacuum. You'd probably do well to engage somebody you respect, somebody you will speak to as opposed to speak at, in conversation about your recent readings and attempts to absorb information into knowledge

 

[LOki]

Being the majority does not legitimize tyranny of the majority.

You're very, very confused and all over the place.

Really? (With no expectation that you will) Please explain.

You like the Articles of Confederation which had no protections for the minority, yet you attack the Constitution which has protections

Assertions made entirely of nothing; baseless products of your imagination. Utterly meaningless.

I guess you must have done research in a vacuum. You'd probably do well to engage somebody you respect, somebody you will speak to as opposed to speak at, in conversation about your recent readings and attempts to absorb information into knowledge

Non-sequitur. Utter gibberish. Meaningful only in your imagination.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All majorities are tyranny on some level. A majority advocating any form of anarchy is a tyrannical majority itself. There is no escaping those facts. But an immature mind will always fall for considering 'all things equal' -- Well there is an old saying Dante grew up hearing 'All things being equal, they are not"

This thread started out with a claim that certain, unnamed rights are are self-evident. But self evident to whom? To those who believe? What of those who do not agree? They become exiles or slaves to a majority or violent and powerful minority that insists it is right, because it is self evident.

The colonial rebels of the American colonies tarred and feathered those who dared disagree. They confiscated guns and property of people who disagreed, all in the name of liberty.

Any and all forms of anarchy are juvenile desires to go back to a time in nature that never existed.

 

[LOki]

This thread started out with a claim that certain, unnamed rights are are self-evident.

Nonsense. Entirely imaginary. Pure fiction. Again. Still.

 

[LOki]

All majorities are tyranny on some level.

Demonstrate.

A majority advocating any form of anarchy is a tyrannical majority itself.

Laughable, but demonstrate anyway.

There is no escaping those facts.

Oh? They're facts then? Because you say so? Hilarious!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All majorities are tyranny on some level.

Demonstrate.

It is self evident

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A majority advocating any form of anarchy is a tyrannical majority itself.

Laughable, but demonstrate anyway.

An obvious reality