Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is and always was spent as it came in. It's a pure tax and redistribute scheme like any other welfare program

And an excellent one at that! It's underrated and under-funded... of course it's hard to give a shit, when you don't need it. But boy oh boy do we need it. Oh, we'll learn the hard way. Our kids more so than us.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Comparing Anarchists and Libertarians is like comparing apples and oranges! One is for chaos, the other order, and despite the labels, anarchy brings a total LOSS of freedom, while libertarians make few absolute distinctions between constructive and destructive liberty.

I will add that anarchy is an impossible state of modern human existence. A state is created almost immediately after the prior state is dissolved. Most modern humans instinctively seek the non-violent resolution of disputes, which almost always involves the appeal to the judgment of a third party....boom...the State is thereby created.

Resisting the state is futile. The more effective approach is to allow the state to exist but with the constant threat of revocation to make the state serve the interest of the individuals therein,rather than itself, which is the libertarian philosophy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The more effective approach is to allow the state to exist but with the constant threat of revocation to make the state serve the interest of the individuals therein,

So, do ya THINK we might be doing it wrong? Congressional approval rates flirt with single digits... yet incumbents pretty much sail. Most districts can be predicted years ahead.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The more effective approach is to allow the state to exist but with the constant threat of revocation to make the state serve the interest of the individuals therein,

So, do ya THINK we might be doing it wrong? Congressional approval rates flirt with single digits... yet incumbents pretty much sail. Most districts can be predicted years ahead.

I think the necessarily global, one-size-fits-all approach of the federal government is grossly ineffective on a huge number of issues.

The original intent of forming a union was not to replace state and local governments, but was to consolidate a few powers for the mutual benefit of the several states. The primary objectives were a common defense, commom currency, and to promote fair trade between the states or to prevent citizens of one state from fuck over citizens of another (interstate commerce). When the limited intent was ignored, power became concentrated in DC, which fails to efficiently address local need.

You end up with locals voting for their representative who looks out for them, but they despise all representatives from other states who attempt to impose theirl local will on citizens 1,200 miles away.

So, yes. I do think we're doing it wrong. We have been doing it wrong for at least 80 years. The benefit of membership in the Union is still better than the burden, but given the single digit approval numbers you mentioned, I am not confident that the benefit will continue to outweighthe burder for much longer.

The solution is to restore local control on as many issues as possible.

 

[TNHarley]

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)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

The founding fathers were classic liberals, which means libertarian in today's terminology. What in your mind is the difference between a small government libertarian and the Constitution as written? I don't see one

Im not much on collectives, really. And i certainly dont agree with some of their views. I am probably closer to them than other parties but...
Like when gary johnson said his dream is for semi trucks to pass each other on the border at 55mph and wave. Or something like that.
As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

 

[iceberg]

lord i thought that said anarchists and librarians.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

...anarchy brings a total LOSS of freedom, while libertarians make few absolute distinctions between constructive and destructive liberty.

Please stop promulgating this blatant lie. Think and speak carefully, as words have tremendous power. Freedom-minded people such as ourselves see this plainly, given the deplorable state of things due to pervasive mind control through words.

Anarchy is freedom, by definition. Immorality brings a total LOSS of freedom.

By saying anarchy brings a total loss of freedom, what is the implication? That authoritarian control brings freedom. This is the classic "Freedom is slavery" - coming from a freedom advocate! Regardless of your qualifications (government should only do XYZ), this is still the principle at play, and the overall message you're sending. I would never concede that government is a necessary evil, but at least that terminology acknowledges authoritarianism as fundamentally immoral.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I think concept of "morality" in human interaction is a simply a reflection of the human ability to empathize, reason, and compromise to avert risk. Somewhere along the line, that concept merged with the human need to explain or understand his/her own existence, which resulted in religion.

I have reached the conclusion that the organization of "society" is a constructive truce and agreement to competitavely cooperate within a set of non-violent rules, rather than continue in the more risky state of literally trying to beat the shit out of each other for resources and the prospect of a little nookie.

My theory is that we agree to this truce with the option to revert back to violence if the arrangement is no longer mutually beneficial, akin to the concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

There's many models for thought, and I read yours as an on-the-ground, pragmatic description of a moral society. I prefer to make note of the "karmic" influence of immorality (which again, may be described as natural law cause-and-effect for those who balk at a metaphysical connotation).

Morality is certainly a pragmatic choice, since wisdom is nothing if not pragmatic, but I think it's important to recognize that there's something larger at play than the direct, obvious consequence of immorality. Let's take aggressive violence, for instance: More than the fact that we don't prefer blood and bruises, there is an unavoidable large-scale result of such immorality being prevalent within a society, namely the condition of slavery.

Immorality has the inescapable effect of slavery. This means that immoral behavior inevitably stifles mankind's expression of its full potential - there is no chance that we may eventually (or even accidentally) achieve a peaceful, prosperous society in spite of it. There is an ironclad law in place that prevents this. Governmental authority, cited as a check against violence and loss of freedom, inherently IS violence and loss of freedom. Note that I'm speaking of authority, not just organization or a collective expression of the individual right of defense.

The "option to revert back to violence" is the option to move contrary to the goal. My statement here is making a distinction between violence and defensive force, and I understood your statement to mean the latter. I believe you were referring to the option to overthrow a tyrannical government, which would be a defensive act, so my objection here likely does not apply to the intent of your statement, only the language. And I only trouble you with this fine distinction to make clear to onlookers that aggressive violence is never an option for moving forward, but that defensive force is a necessary component of a moral society.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It is and always was spent as it came in. It's a pure tax and redistribute scheme like any other welfare program

And an excellent one at that! It's underrated and under-funded... of course it's hard to give a shit, when you don't need it. But boy oh boy do we need it. Oh, we'll learn the hard way. Our kids more so than us.

We "need" forced redistribution of wealth? Then how the hell did the species survive for hundreds of thousands of years before it was implemented? We must be careful about our language.

Regardless of what you think we "need", you do not have a right to violently impose your opinion upon others, which is precisely what you do when you vote for someone who will maintain a system such as social security. Just because a person abdicated self-responsibility their whole life, taking vacations and buying TV's instead of providing for their old age, does not give you the right to rob the rest of us under threat of violence in order to compensate for that indiscretion.

I'm all for taking care of people on a voluntary basis, but you are an anti-human aggressor if you support forced redistribution of wealth, despite your good intentions.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

In other words, "as long as the world is immoral, I will strongly support immorality".

So your support of immorality feeds back into the loop and creates the justification for itself. Circular and counter-productive, no? if you're not willing to break the chain, why on earth would you expect anyone else to? You're condemning humanity to eternal immorality. You're looking to the immorality of others to justify your own, and they are looking to yours to justify theirs.

A "nation" is a body of people under the authoritarian domination of a particular ruling class. A "border" is an area where men with guns violently prevent the free movement of people without consideration for the nature of their character, their guilt or innocence. These are clearly immoral concepts, and you support them because you're afraid you can't combat immorality otherwise, and so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing, I will not be the one others can point to and say, "Look, people are immoral, so why should I be any different?"

 

[toobfreak]

...anarchy brings a total LOSS of freedom, while libertarians make few absolute distinctions between constructive and destructive liberty.

Please stop promulgating this blatant lie. Think and speak carefully, as words have tremendous power. Freedom-minded people such as ourselves see this plainly, given the deplorable state of things due to pervasive mind control through words.

Anarchy is freedom, by definition. Immorality brings a total LOSS of freedom.

By saying anarchy brings a total loss of freedom, what is the implication? That authoritarian control brings freedom. This is the classic "Freedom is slavery" - coming from a freedom advocate! Regardless of your qualifications (government should only do XYZ), this is still the principle at play, and the overall message you're sending. I would never concede that government is a necessary evil, but at least that terminology acknowledges authoritarianism as fundamentally immoral.

I just love when an ignorant, half-baked, non-educated pseudo-intellectual puts his own foot in his mouth using black & white reasoning while telling others to watch their words! So we go from pure anarchy to authoritarianism? I guess then you refute the Romans who realized that without law, you cannot have freedom. You CAN HAVE LAW, without it being authoritarian! The entire point of a republic is that in order to be free, you must have some order to society, and you cannot have order without some law.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and learn something by watching the first several minutes of this video; at around 2:40 in, they begin explaining the problem of anarchy. Then you can petition your liberal professors that you want a full refund, because, YOU GOT RIPPED OFF.

 

[TNHarley]

As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

In other words, "as long as the world is immoral, I will strongly support immorality".

So your support of immorality feeds back into the loop and creates the justification for itself. Circular and counter-productive, no? if you're not willing to break the chain, why on earth would you expect anyone else to? You're condemning humanity to eternal immorality. You're looking to the immorality of others to justify your own, and they are looking to yours to justify theirs.

A "nation" is a body of people under the authoritarian domination of a particular ruling class. A "border" is an area where men with guns violently prevent the free movement of people without consideration for the nature of their character, their guilt or innocence. These are clearly immoral concepts, and you support them because you're afraid you can't combat immorality otherwise, and so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing, I will not be the one others can point to and say, "Look, people are immoral, so why should I be any different?"

Calling a Nation immoral is completely subjective.
I cant, in any way, agree with your post.
Are stupid decisions moral?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The "option to revert back to violence" is the option to move contrary to the goal. My statement here is making a distinction between violence and defensive force, and I understood your statement to mean the latter. I believe you were referring to the option to overthrow a tyrannical government, which would be a defensive act, so my objection here likely does not apply to the intent of your statement, only the language. And I only trouble you with this fine distinction to make clear to onlookers that aggressive violence is never an option for moving forward, but that defensive force is a necessary component of a moral society.

Correct, in part. Let me clarify.

"Morality" is a fluid term. It inherently assumes an agreed set of rules within a society. A better way to examine my position is to look at other species.

Take for example a male lion. Is a male lion subject to morality or even understand the concept of morality? What is right and wrong to a lion?

Violence and breeding are the only rules by which or principles a male lion lives. He wants to eat. He kill prey or exerts force on others to allow him to eat. His only guiding principle is to satisfy his hunger, without regard for the hunger, will, safety, or survival of anyone else. He wants to fuck. Same guiding principle. Nothing else matters to him but getting some ass.

Set religion/metaphysics/philosophy aside and just view humans biologically.

What distinguishes humans from lions?

From purely a biological perspective, humans have the mental capacity to think beyond the base desires of food and sex. Humans have the ability to imagine themselves in the place of others who are suffering. Humans have the ability to weigh options and find a solution that all can live with in order to satisfy their individual desires to eat and fuck, while allowing others to do the same, without beating the shit out of each other.

Society or civilization is created from humans' ability to yield a base desire now or uninterrupted satisfaction of that base desire later without needing to engage in violence (offensive or defensive).

In SOCIETY, only defensive force is justified because justice is a product of society.

Once the government a society has establish no longer meets the needs of society, then yes, defensive force to remove it is justified. Governments can be removed without the complete erasure of society. See the American Revolution.

When I say the "truce" is ended, I am talking about the complete breakdown of society as a whole, which is a completely different level of reset.

In my opinion, it is important for all individuals to understand and keep in mind that right or wrong means jack shit when humans decide that society itself no longer serves the interests of the individual. Humans have the power to revert to that wild state, so ALL should respect the interests of the individual as much as possible before subjugating the individual's interest to that of the collective.

That is my point.

Statists/Communists/Collectivists take for granted the societal truce, and give much less regard for the interests of the individual, to a dangerous degree. They either don't understand or care that laws or rules only apply to individuals when the primal needs of individuals are being met to a satisfactory degree, or the individual subjectively believes he/she has the liberty to pursue those primal needs and to pursue all the tools or devices he/she believes are necessary in that pursuit (material possessions, etc.).

When solving problems as a society, the approach should first consider the primary purpose of society is the needs of the individual. Every decision must pursue, and keep as the primary goal, the least intrusive means. Otherwise, the individual loses the incentive to keep the truce and moves to a "fuck society" state of mind, where the complex notions of "right and wrong" (morals) are irrelevant.

My purpose in describing my "theory of human intercourse" (pun intended) is to explain the basis for reaching the conclusion that the principled approach of "maximizing liberty" when organizing and maintaining society and the form of government it chooses, is not perfect, but is the approach best suited for success.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I just love when an ignorant, half-baked, non-educated pseudo-intellectual puts his own foot in his mouth using black & white reasoning while telling others to watch their words! So we go from pure anarchy to authoritarianism? I guess then you refute the Romans who realized that without law, you cannot have freedom. You CAN HAVE LAW, without it being authoritarian! The entire point of a republic is that in order to be free, you must have some order to society, and you cannot have order without some law.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and learn something by watching the first several minutes of this video; at around 2:40 in, they begin explaining the problem of anarchy. Then you can petition your liberal professors that you want a full refund, because, YOU GOT RIPPED OFF.

Holy...

Alright, I'll try to remain calm. In this video, please note the blatant use of ominous music and violent, destructive images that appear in perfect alignment with the "explanation" of anarchy. Then note how the moment they bring up law, the peaceful, loving sights and sounds begin. This is a government propaganda piece, plain and simple. Surely, you must realize that.

First of all, it misrepresents anarchy (as nearly everyone does) as meaning chaos, i.e. lack of cooperation and organization. It then equates law with cooperation and organization. Both are false equations.

In what universe would people isolate themselves such that they could not leave their property because it requires constant defense? This is beyond ludicrous, it's downright childish and insulting to anyone watching. Of course people will cooperate, likely establishing a full-time protection force funded voluntarily by those protected. But this protection agency need not be an authority.

Law is authoritarian, according to the following standard definition:

"favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

No, you cannot have non-authoritarian law, or it ceases to be law, having no authority. You do not have the "right" to choose when you will obey the law. It is authority. You must strictly obey, always, or be punished. If you have the right to choose, or it is not backed up by punishment, it is merely a kindly suggestion.

Of course I refute the Romans, they were an imperial band of murderous heathens. "The expense of personal freedom" means slavery. Authority of law is slavery - though slavery has degrees. Freedom does not have degrees. So you are either free, or you are under another's authority to some degree, and therefore a slave. You may be part-time slave, a free-range slave, a slave who's free to leave but must obey while remaining, a slave who is permitted to choose his master, but none of this is freedom. Contrary to Ingsoc's assertion, freedom is not slavery.

But freedom must be defended against immoral impositions upon it. Just because you are free doesn't mean others won't try to infringe upon your freedom. This is what you're really getting at when you say anarchy is the loss of freedom. You are noting the need for defense, but equating that defense exclusively with law is incorrect. Law is authority, which may or may not include defense. Defense itself does not imply authority, and that's where your statement goes off the rails.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In other words, "as long as the world is immoral, I will strongly support immorality".

If you view concept of morality as being a result of the consensual societal truce and its resulting government, you would agree that what Harley is saying is correct.

Our society agreed that we would have a certain form of government to protect individuals within. One of the conditions of that consent is that our government will act in our best interest, including taking action to control who is allowed into our society. When the action or inaction of our government allows more individuals to take our resources and opportunities, our government has failed in its primary objective.

The societal truce we have with our fellow countrymen is not necessarily shared with outsiders. Because they don't live by our rules and respect the terms of our truce, they threaten our survival. Outsiders who intrude on our society without our consent (illegal vs. legal immigration) disrupt the give/take relationship we have already established. They make the prospect of meeting our primal needs and obtaining the tools/devices to do so more difficult and unpredictable.

Their intrusion IS primal violence against us They are the lone lion who is trying to take over a pride. They completely disregard our needs to a base human level. Morals become irrelevant.

The non-consensual foreign intrusion on our society gets many of us pissed off.

Why?

It threatens our ability to meet our primal needs. Our anger is the natural response to that threat. Anger is what drives us to act to ensure we can meet our primal needs at a base level. That anger is the warning signal to others living under the truce that we are about to put an end said truce. As I stated above, when the societal truce ends, the established morals become irrelevant.

Ignoring the warning signals for too long is a recipe for collapse, which I suspect, and evidence tends to suggest, is the goal of some within our society. They too are acting contrary to the mutual goals of our societal truce.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

In other words, "as long as the world is immoral, I will strongly support immorality".

So your support of immorality feeds back into the loop and creates the justification for itself. Circular and counter-productive, no? if you're not willing to break the chain, why on earth would you expect anyone else to? You're condemning humanity to eternal immorality. You're looking to the immorality of others to justify your own, and they are looking to yours to justify theirs.

A "nation" is a body of people under the authoritarian domination of a particular ruling class. A "border" is an area where men with guns violently prevent the free movement of people without consideration for the nature of their character, their guilt or innocence. These are clearly immoral concepts, and you support them because you're afraid you can't combat immorality otherwise, and so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing, I will not be the one others can point to and say, "Look, people are immoral, so why should I be any different?"

Calling a Nation immoral is completely subjective.
I cant, in any way, agree with your post.
Are stupid decisions moral?

If you can’t agree, why not?

A nation is a body of people under the authoritarian rule of a particular ruling class. They are bound, by way of violent punishment, to the decrees of that government (regardless of the process that puts lawmakers in power). How is this not immoral? What’s subjective about this?

Stupid decisions are immoral if they infringe upon the rights of others. I cannot speak to whether they are inherently immoral otherwise.

 

[TNHarley]

As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

In other words, "as long as the world is immoral, I will strongly support immorality".

So your support of immorality feeds back into the loop and creates the justification for itself. Circular and counter-productive, no? if you're not willing to break the chain, why on earth would you expect anyone else to? You're condemning humanity to eternal immorality. You're looking to the immorality of others to justify your own, and they are looking to yours to justify theirs.

A "nation" is a body of people under the authoritarian domination of a particular ruling class. A "border" is an area where men with guns violently prevent the free movement of people without consideration for the nature of their character, their guilt or innocence. These are clearly immoral concepts, and you support them because you're afraid you can't combat immorality otherwise, and so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing, I will not be the one others can point to and say, "Look, people are immoral, so why should I be any different?"

Calling a Nation immoral is completely subjective.
I cant, in any way, agree with your post.
Are stupid decisions moral?

If you can’t agree, why not?

A nation is a body of people under the authoritarian rule of a particular ruling class. They are bound, by way of violent punishment, to the decrees of that government (regardless of the process that puts lawmakers in power). How is this not immoral? What’s subjective about this?

Stupid decisions are immoral if they infringe upon the rights of others. I cannot speak to whether they are inherently immoral otherwise.

Having punishment for violent crime robbery and other acts is immoral?
Im sorry, that is too extreme for me.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

In other words, "as long as the world is immoral, I will strongly support immorality".

So your support of immorality feeds back into the loop and creates the justification for itself. Circular and counter-productive, no? if you're not willing to break the chain, why on earth would you expect anyone else to? You're condemning humanity to eternal immorality. You're looking to the immorality of others to justify your own, and they are looking to yours to justify theirs.

A "nation" is a body of people under the authoritarian domination of a particular ruling class. A "border" is an area where men with guns violently prevent the free movement of people without consideration for the nature of their character, their guilt or innocence. These are clearly immoral concepts, and you support them because you're afraid you can't combat immorality otherwise, and so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing, I will not be the one others can point to and say, "Look, people are immoral, so why should I be any different?"

Calling a Nation immoral is completely subjective.
I cant, in any way, agree with your post.
Are stupid decisions moral?

If you can’t agree, why not?

A nation is a body of people under the authoritarian rule of a particular ruling class. They are bound, by way of violent punishment, to the decrees of that government (regardless of the process that puts lawmakers in power). How is this not immoral? What’s subjective about this?

Stupid decisions are immoral if they infringe upon the rights of others. I cannot speak to whether they are inherently immoral otherwise.

Having punishment for violent crime robbery and other acts is immoral?
Im sorry, that is too extreme for me.

No, of course not, but that does not require authority - every individual has the right of defense and may delegate or organize to that effect. An organizational body of this nature is not government (as it does not govern or hold authority of any kind), and certainly its area of protection is not a bordered nation. Its function reflects a right common to all mankind, so there is no distinction between the law (natural law) within its “jurisdiction” and without.

 

[TNHarley]

As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

In other words, "as long as the world is immoral, I will strongly support immorality".

So your support of immorality feeds back into the loop and creates the justification for itself. Circular and counter-productive, no? if you're not willing to break the chain, why on earth would you expect anyone else to? You're condemning humanity to eternal immorality. You're looking to the immorality of others to justify your own, and they are looking to yours to justify theirs.

A "nation" is a body of people under the authoritarian domination of a particular ruling class. A "border" is an area where men with guns violently prevent the free movement of people without consideration for the nature of their character, their guilt or innocence. These are clearly immoral concepts, and you support them because you're afraid you can't combat immorality otherwise, and so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing, I will not be the one others can point to and say, "Look, people are immoral, so why should I be any different?"

Calling a Nation immoral is completely subjective.
I cant, in any way, agree with your post.
Are stupid decisions moral?

If you can’t agree, why not?

A nation is a body of people under the authoritarian rule of a particular ruling class. They are bound, by way of violent punishment, to the decrees of that government (regardless of the process that puts lawmakers in power). How is this not immoral? What’s subjective about this?

Stupid decisions are immoral if they infringe upon the rights of others. I cannot speak to whether they are inherently immoral otherwise.

Having punishment for violent crime robbery and other acts is immoral?
Im sorry, that is too extreme for me.

No, of course not, but that does not require authority - every individual has the right of defense and may delegate or organize to that effect. An organizational body of this nature is not government (as it does not govern or hold authority of any kind), and certainly its area of protection is not a bordered nation. Its function reflects a right common to all mankind, so there is no distinction between the law (natural law) within its “jurisdiction” and without.

It does require authority, IMO. I dont have enough faith in humans to handle things like that MORALLY without some one there to keep them in line.
I believe in small govt but there should be something there.
If we were all just little communities like humans were 2K years ago? Maybe that would work. But not with the populations we have now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The solution is to restore local control on as many issues as possible.

I do not agree, because the same problem persists in state elections.

The solution seems very clear: publicly funded elections.