Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[gipper]

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.

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

Exactly. Now we know our enemy.

Take away a tool of the ruling class and they will use other means to subjugate you. You will still not be free.

Problem is few Americans know the tool of the ruling class, is government. They are stuck believing their government is good and looking out for their best interests. This fraudulent belief is instilled in them by government schools and the state run media.

The ruling class derives its power from the consent of the governed. It stands to reason that we would be a heavily propagandized society.

If the people knew who the ruling class is and of their nefarious actions, the ruling class would be toast. Since the ruling class controls so much of our society, they control the message. So, I don't think Americans will wake up any time soon.

 

[Tehon]

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

Exactly. Now we know our enemy.

Take away a tool of the ruling class and they will use other means to subjugate you. You will still not be free.

Problem is few Americans know the tool of the ruling class, is government. They are stuck believing their government is good and looking out for their best interests. This fraudulent belief is instilled in them by government schools and the state run media.

The ruling class derives its power from the consent of the governed. It stands to reason that we would be a heavily propagandized society.

If the people knew who the ruling class is and of their nefarious actions, the ruling class would be toast. Since the ruling class controls so much of our society, they control the message. So, I don't think Americans will wake up any time soon.

You can't even discuss class antogonisms in America. The idea is generally suppressed. I'm actually surprised that you are entertaining it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

A Utopian pipe dream if ever there was one. There is no way you are going to convince the ruling class to freely relinquish their power.

Have you never studied Marx? You think much the same, though his thoughts do not seem as Utopian.

"Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to."

Good quote. What makes the idea seem utopian is a misunderstanding of the nature of power and authority. Those who you say will not relinquish their power actually have no such power to relinquish. Our struggle is against an idea, a religion, a faith-based (and fear-based) belief.

A people who recognize the fallacious nature of authority will not blindly do another’s will, as all law enforcers and military personnel do. Without these enforcers, the power of the ruling class evaporates; peacefully and naturally.

A deception holds the whole thing in place, and it is not utopian to think a deception can be overcome on a societal scale. Mankind has left many such misunderstandings behind. The society is a body of individuals, so if an individual can be made to see more clearly, so can a nation, or a world.

"The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." - Murray Rothbard

 

[MisterBeale]

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

Exactly. Now we know our enemy.

Take away a tool of the ruling class and they will use other means to subjugate you. You will still not be free.

Problem is few Americans know the tool of the ruling class, is government. They are stuck believing their government is good and looking out for their best interests. This fraudulent belief is instilled in them by government schools and the state run media.

The ruling class derives its power from the consent of the governed. It stands to reason that we would be a heavily propagandized society.

If the people knew who the ruling class is and of their nefarious actions, the ruling class would be toast. Since the ruling class controls so much of our society, they control the message. So, I don't think Americans will wake up any time soon.

You can't even discuss class antogonisms in America. The idea is generally suppressed. I'm actually surprised that you are entertaining it.

The difference between the class structure in America, and the class structure in other nations, is if you are a part of the middle class, chances are you know someone/are related to someone in the upper middle class.

If you are in the upper middle class, chances are, you know someone/are related to someone in the upper class.

This is especially becoming even more true and the unofficial caste system that was bigotry holding back minorities is even more eroding. This used to be the socialists and communists best shot at making inroads in this nation.

I foresee more and more middle class and upper class minorities will make socialism and communism more unpalatable to Americans.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

Oxymoron.

The Marxist conception of communism is a society based on free association.

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Marxism, in practice, is rooted in compulsion. Implementing Marxist schemes without compulsion is like trying to go swimming without getting wet.

This is my concern too, but if they could figure out a way, go for it. I guess if everyone’s on the same page, maybe it can be done; but it’s beyond my understanding of the philosophy to see how.

Marxists claim they are against compulsion, but they invariably support every massive scheme of government compulsion that comes down the pike, like public schools and socialized medicine.

Well, you know how it goes. We've got billions of "Christians" who all use the teachings of the Bible to different ends. I'm leaving the door open to the possibility that someone may use Marx's writings to a just end. I've never seen it, and am not sufficiently well-versed in his philosophy to imagine how this could be, but I'm trying to remain open-minded considering this person seems to count himself among "freedom-minded people".

 

[gipper]

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

Exactly. Now we know our enemy.

Take away a tool of the ruling class and they will use other means to subjugate you. You will still not be free.

Problem is few Americans know the tool of the ruling class, is government. They are stuck believing their government is good and looking out for their best interests. This fraudulent belief is instilled in them by government schools and the state run media.

The ruling class derives its power from the consent of the governed. It stands to reason that we would be a heavily propagandized society.

If the people knew who the ruling class is and of their nefarious actions, the ruling class would be toast. Since the ruling class controls so much of our society, they control the message. So, I don't think Americans will wake up any time soon.

You can't even discuss class antogonisms in America. The idea is generally suppressed. I'm actually surprised that you are entertaining it.

Why do my posts surprise you?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Phenomenal explanation! Now I gotcha. Thank you for taking the time to lay that out so thoroughly. I never thought about it quite like this.

What I appreciate most is how you’ve highlighted the unity between moral philosophy and practicality. A division between these perspectives is all-too-common, and its validity is assumed, rather than explored. Wisdom is the height of practicality. Morality is the model for practical behavior.

Bravo! Fantastico! Grazie mille! Don’t be surprised if you hear me echoing these thoughts in future conversations. You’ve provided us all with another spoke pointing toward the hub of liberty. Much obliged, to be sure.

Thank you.

Your summary of my perspective is both brief and on point. As Shakespeare's Polonious from Hamlet said about being brief:

This business is well ended.
My liege and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad.
Mad call I it, for, to define true madness,
What is ’t but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go.


Before this thread, the word "morality" or "moral" to me was a loaded word that I always avoided. I come away with a broadened perspective and the ability to apply the term more comfortably. To me, acting morally is contemplating how the exercise of individual liberty can be maximized without sacrificing the individual liberty of others. If individuals living in society can constantly examining and adjust their own attitudes and behavior in the mutual pursuit of maximizing the liberty of each individual, there is no need for authority. Personal reflection is the authority. In fact, authority frustrates that purpose because individuals will default to the bare-ass minimum. .

Of course, the lack of authority can only happen theoretically. No two people honestly pursuing maximum liberty will reach the same conclusion on issues. Others will need to intervene and make decisions, which is authority. But, the dispute is much easier to resolve when both have made an honest effort to adhere to the liberty goal. The mere pursuit of a society constructed in that fashion will yield much better results for the benefit of each individual, which is the purpose of society.

I agree that the duty falls on us to constantly examine, and encourage other to examine our own political views to root out positions that do not promote the liberty ideal. It is a rigorous challenge, but once one starts making breakthroughs and actually harboring a genuine respect for the liberty of other individuals, the bliss experienced is a high that no drug can provide.

I began to seriously examine my political and social biases about 12 years ago, which has seriously transformed me. I had the hardest time throwing off my social-conservative attitudes indoctrinated within me for as long as I can remember. One was my attitude toward same-sex individuals and their right to enter a marital contract. I was frustrated by the open campaigning for Marxism in all its dirty forms.

I hated the thought of the fruit of my efforts not going to my family, but to some asshole who did nothing to deserve it. I hated the gross disrespect for my life and liberty, which was exclusively promoted by the Democrats. Same-sex individuals mostly wanted the same economic freedom but were under the Democrat tent because only the Dems respected and promoted their personal liberty. Same-sex individuals who love all manner of freedom were trapped under the tent of a party that sought to infringe on their economic liberty. They had to make a hard choice, but personal liberty prevailed because the dog-shit GOP gave those individual the collective finger. They were backed into a corner with no options.

That is when I made an honest effort to put myself in the position of same-sex individuals and see the world as they see it. I asked myself:

1. Would you fight to protect the liberty of same-sex couples to marry each other if they agreed to fight for your economic liberty?

2. Forget what everyone else wants. Forget religion and the rules associated. Forget what mom and dad taught you. What freedoms are really important to you, personally, that you want others to help you promote and protect?

With that exercise, I realized that I really don't give a fuck who marries whom, as long as the liberties important to me are respected and protected. That was the moment that was able to shake that religious and social aversion to same-sex couples and their rights. I realized that I was in error. The realization was the most refreshing experience of my adult life. I felt the weight of my own destructive attitudes lifted from my shoulders at the realization that if same-sex couples fought for my economic freedom I would take pride in fighting for their right to marry or whatever they need.

Since that transformation, I am constantly checking my own attitudes for those that may fall short. The hardest part is to be willing to consider another perspective and be pliable enough to let go of long-held positions that may be inconsistent.

I still find myself examining and adjusting attitudes. It's a process worth pursuing. What liberties are important to me? What liberties are important to that guy? Can we both preserve our liberty without diminishing the other? If not, who has the greater burden? Who should yield and to what extent? How can we compensate?

I have developed an intolerance for others who lack the decency to at least consider a way to preserve my liberty. Most of them are closet communist/leftists, which should explain some of my attitudes expressed on USMB.

A forthcoming illustration of the introspective process. In a culture where philosophy is taboo, and external liability is ubiquitously cited, this is a noble endeavor all-too-rare.

You highlight the necessity to give what we would receive, to sow what we would reap. You must respect the liberty of others to do what you prefer they do not do (within natural law rights) in order to gain your own liberty. The fertile ground for freedom is tolerance. A dangerously misused term, particularly by leftists, who believe tolerance means leveraging the violent coercion of the state to force people to bake cakes. True tolerance is the ability to abide individual liberty, even where it conflicts with your notions of proper behavior, without resorting to violence (be it personal or by proxy).

You've also noted the fact that "authority" is actually a fundamental component of a successful free society, and revealed the necessity for a distinction between internal and external authority. Mark Passio said it best when he described his position as "external anarchy, and internal monarchy". We must be guided by a personal commitment to principles; to ascertaining their validity, and keeping them in their rightful, primary place. A free society is a society without rulers, but not without rules.

In reality, the widespread adherence to external authority is an illusion, (as I explore in the thread CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality). There are many models for thought, but one way to think about it is that external authority fundamentally conflicts with moral standards (whatever they may be). Another way to think of it is that there is no such thing as external authority, since the act of deeming an external authority worthy of obedience is made via internal judgement. This is why I often assert the inherent, unalieanable freedom of man. It is not only that external authority is invalid because it is not worthy of obedience, but that it is an impossibility, and thus to support it is to "abandon reason for madness".

"Mad call I it, for, to define true madness,
What is ’t but to be nothing else but mad?"

Great quote there, thanks for injecting some art into our left-brain investigations!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

The difference (big one) is consent. Another difference is risk/reward. Another is that success is not guaranteed. The only assurance is a mutual halt to violence.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Man, your head is crammed full of more crap than a waste car on its way to a shit landfill in Alabama---- let me tell you, I'm about as much against big government as anyone, but you cannot have law and order to a society, ie, a hedge against chaos and anarchy, without some officially recognized hierarchy of authority. Local authority, state and federal jurisdiction, each with a different set of responsibilities each to govern by law. People abide by laws as a central foundation to the very essence of civilization; the very word anarchy defines a state where there is no law, no central authority, and it is every man for himself.

Someone sure did a fuck job on your head, man, you are really messed up. Most telling was when I gave you that video and rather than focusing on the CONTENT, you triggered on the background music and images that were a mere video accompaniment to go along as illustration for what the dialog was about, as if it were some sort of "conspiracy." I don't know where your brain went wrong, if your parents dropped you on your head as a baby, but you have some seriously bad wiring. Another USMB Loon added to my list of idiots.

All the ad hominem ranting is just a waste of time. Let's focus on the issues, please.

Chaos and anarchy are not synonymous. You can cite definitions to this effect, but the anarchist position is rooted in the etymology of the word, and all it means is "no rulers". It literally means freedom from external authority. Equating anarchy, as an anti-political position, with choas, is a mind-control con-job. I absolutely addressed the content of the video, in addition to citing it as blatant propaganda, and simultaneously addressed your notion of anarchy as "every man for himself". It is ludicrous to suppose that anyone would adopt this position - it's simply not how humans behave.

There is nothing about anarchy that suggests lack of organization and cooperation. In fact, it's the only true cooperation to be had. Cooperation implies consent. Authority doesn't need your consent or cooperation, it just beats you into obedience. What could be more obvious? The fact that you pick who's beating you doesn't change this fact, and "implied consent" is wholly invalid if not rooted in expressed consent as to the terms of what constitutes the implication.

Imagine a person who has a personal bodyguard, who is under their employ. The mutually-consensual hierarchy here is that the protected has all decision-making rights over the actions of the protector, within the scope of his employment. The protector does not have authority, he does not represent law, he has no claim over the protected party, or anyone else (other than the claim to a pay check). Do you see how protection of rights does not require that the protector have authority over anyone?

Law prevents nothing, it protects nothing. DEFENSE is what protects, and defense does not require authority.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The fertile ground for freedom is tolerance.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Man, your head is crammed full of more crap than a waste car on its way to a shit landfill in Alabama---- let me tell you, I'm about as much against big government as anyone, but you cannot have law and order to a society, ie, a hedge against chaos and anarchy, without some officially recognized hierarchy of authority. Local authority, state and federal jurisdiction, each with a different set of responsibilities each to govern by law. People abide by laws as a central foundation to the very essence of civilization; the very word anarchy defines a state where there is no law, no central authority, and it is every man for himself.

Someone sure did a fuck job on your head, man, you are really messed up. Most telling was when I gave you that video and rather than focusing on the CONTENT, you triggered on the background music and images that were a mere video accompaniment to go along as illustration for what the dialog was about, as if it were some sort of "conspiracy." I don't know where your brain went wrong, if your parents dropped you on your head as a baby, but you have some seriously bad wiring. Another USMB Loon added to my list of idiots.

Actually, like most Anarchist with which I have interacted, Blackwell is very thoughtful. He actually takes time to examine his own beliefs and consider alternatives. He effectively and efficiently lays out his thought process, which is fairly persuasive.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You can't even discuss class antogonisms in America.

Let's discuss them.

The proletariat is a figment of a diseased imagination. The Bourgeois is simply another name for a productive person or an entrepreneur who takes risks for profit.

The only classes that matter are the productive and the less-than-productive.

Class antagonism is envy.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That quote is amazing! Hahahaha

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You're going to have to highlight the "ad hominem" attack in there for me because I'm not seeing it.

As for strawman, again, that's lame. I'm talking about the effect of your policies. I am not saying you said you want to sit in a tower. I'm saying that's what you'll end up doing because bad people will endlessly threaten your property and your family.

Anarchy is something that can only exist for a moment, it's like the big bang. When you eliminate government, the weak, largely leftists, will join with warlords and form armies to conquer you. You will join with your neighbors to defeat them. At that moment, you have liberty. The next, you have a government again.

Anarchy is about liberty as much as Marxism is about equality. It's a talking point. That's not in any way what would happen

There's misunderstanding about what government is, and the anarchist position, in this objection. If you're really interested in understanding the position (even if only to better refute it), and why it's deemed a moral and logical necessity by its proponents, take the time to listen to the book linked below. I personally believe this book is required reading for anyone who wishes to discuss government with any lucidity. I've also provided a short clip that highlights a missing component in your assertion that gangs will become a new government:

 

[BrokeLoser]

Weird how I never hear productive, hard working, successful people talk about this “ruling class”....yet the 39 year olds with neck tattoos, driving pintos and living in mamas converted garage always seem to bring it up. Aren’t they they ones who need a “ruling class”...doesn’t their survival depend on a “ruling class”?

 

[Unkotare]

Anarchists are arrested-development morons.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Anarchists are arrested-development morons.

So listen to the book I posted above, and prove it by refuting its arguments.

Nah, you won’t do that. Why bother? It’s so much easier to just dismiss them as morons, especially since most people agree... at least for now.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Weird how I never hear productive, hard working, successful people talk about this “ruling class”....yet the 39 year olds with neck tattoos, driving pintos and living in mamas converted garage always seem to bring it up. Aren’t they they ones who need a “ruling class”...doesn’t their survival depend on a “ruling class”?

Oh, so people who achieve success are less likely to acknowledge the injustices of the system within which they succeed? Amazing! I can’t imagine why this is so...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, so people who achieve success are less likely to acknowledge the injustices of the system within which they succeed? Amazing! I can’t imagine why this is so...

The frustrating part of all that, is that some use the perceived injustices to demand "justice" they do not deserve...like the resources obtained by another. The other frustrating part is that many believe their participation in society entitles them to things it does not. The only justice one should expect is minimal interference in his/her pursuit of "happiness" (fucking and eating).

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The frustrating part of all that, is that some use the perceived injustices to demand "justice" they do not deserve...like the resources obtained by another. The other frustrating part is that many believe their participation in society entitles them to things it does not. The only justice one should expect is minimal interference in his/her pursuit of "happiness" (fucking and eating).

Wait, you don't believe that people come into this world with an inherent right to a good job with three weeks paid vacation and free healthcare?! For hundreds of thousands of years humans had these "rights" and were driving themselves crazy looking for this stuff, but they couldn't find it anywhere in the jungle.