Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Oddball]

No, for me what makes the idea seem utopian is the belief that you can create a cooperative society while maintaining a competitive economic structure. Power doesn't derive from government it derives from controlling resources. You can take government away and people will still compete for the control of resources and whoever controls them holds power over the rest.

Nobody can control all, or even most, of the resources.

However, the existence of The State creates absolute control of the resource of the proactive use of aggressive force...This is true no matter which model of The State you choose.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No, for me what makes the idea seem utopian is the belief that you can create a cooperative society while maintaining a competitive economic structure. Power doesn't derive from government it derives from controlling resources. You can take government away and people will still compete for the control of resources and whoever controls them holds power over the rest.

"Power doesn't derive from government?" I could spend all day ridiculing that statement. Our federal government controls about $4 trillion worth of resources right now.

 

[bripat9643]

No, for me what makes the idea seem utopian is the belief that you can create a cooperative society while maintaining a competitive economic structure. Power doesn't derive from government it derives from controlling resources. You can take government away and people will still compete for the control of resources and whoever controls them holds power over the rest.

Nobody can control all, or even most, of the resources.

However, the existence of The State creates absolute control of the resource of the proactive use of aggressive force...This is true no matter which model of The State you choose.

Government is the social organizaton authorized to use the monopoly on force. I don't know how you can get any more powerful than that.

 

[Tehon]

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

No, for me what makes the idea seem utopian is the belief that you can create a cooperative society while maintaining a competitive economic structure. Power doesn't derive from government it derives from controlling resources. You can take government away and people will still compete for the control of resources and whoever controls them holds power over the rest.

"Power doesn't derive from government?" I could spend all day ridiculing that statement. Our federal government controls about $4 trillion worth of resources right now.

Now put it back in the context of which it was intended. We were discussing the power of the ruling class, which the government represents.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government is the social organizaton authorized to use the monopoly on force. I don't know how you can get any more powerful than that.

...by the consent of the governed.

 

[kaz]

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

"Instead of living in squalor because government oppresses us, you want to live in squalor because you want to sit in a tower protecting your land all day so you don't have time to ever do anything productive."


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.

You're imputing a motives upon me and drawing a picture that I'm not arguing in favor of...Classic straw man and ad hominem arguments.....You're also invoking the fallacy of government solipotence

That's an insult? What a dainty little chick you are. Getting huffy over a micro aggression, wow. I expected that from Moonglow or g5000, not you. You know kaz, I could take that as an insult if I wanted to, and I want to. So oddball, how much of the time you were gone did you spend wearing a dress and hustling tricks?

THAT is ad hominem. See the difference now? Your wanting to be insulted is a reject with prejudice

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.

Platitudes aren't arguments.

You've offered shit. When you do, then you can start to whine about platitudes not being arguments. I'll give you a few scenarios. And true story, I hate government. This is seriously your chance to flip a small government libertarian to anarchist. However, you need to give convincing arguments. Not go the route of Kevin Kennedy who said he can't back up how anarchy would work because he's not clairvoyant. What a dumb ass.

Basically my questions hit the two extremes. Legitimate disputes between honest citizens and criminals.

1) Your town is small. You have a house, fields, a pond and a patch of woods. You have a trail through the woods. You take a walk every day. You don't develop it because you want it the way it is. One day you're taking a walk and a new neighbor is cutting down your trees. You say it's your property, you use it. He says walking through it isn't using it, building houses and farming is and he is going to farm it. What do you do?

2) You go to bed early because you're tired. You wake up, go downstairs, and your wife and kids are dead. What do you do?

 

[Oddball]

Now put it back in the context of which it was intended. We were discussing the power of the ruling class, which the government represents.

There's really no ruling class without the concentrated power of aggression, which is The State.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be the rise, and inevitable fall, of certain cliques here and there. Even so, they'd have no centralized power to buy and enforce their cartels, so their reigns and ranges would be rather limited.

 

[kaz]

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:

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Power doesn't derive from government?" I could spend all day ridiculing that statement. Our federal government controls about $4 trillion worth of resources right now.

Power is mind control. It only exists because people believe it exists.

How did government get its control?

Would anyone have the same power/control as government if there were no government?

Why does government have control that individuals would not have on their own?

Too many people have an alarming amount of faith and trust in government and fail to question how government became authorized to do things no one would consent to allow individualas to do in a government-free state of existence.

It is shocking to me. I live among more sheep than I thought.

 

[Oddball]

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

"Instead of living in squalor because government oppresses us, you want to live in squalor because you want to sit in a tower protecting your land all day so you don't have time to ever do anything productive."


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.

You're imputing a motives upon me and drawing a picture that I'm not arguing in favor of...Classic straw man and ad hominem arguments.....You're also invoking the fallacy of government solipotence

That's an insult? What a dainty little chick you are. Getting huffy over a micro aggression, wow. I expected that from Moonglow or g5000, not you. You know kaz, I could take that as an insult if I wanted to, and I want to. So oddball, how much of the time you were gone did you spend wearing a dress and hustling tricks?

THAT is ad hominem. See the difference now? Your wanting to be insulted is a reject with prejudice

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.

Platitudes aren't arguments.

You've offered shit. When you do, then you can start to whine about platitudes not being arguments. I'll give you a few scenarios. And true story, I hate government. This is seriously your chance to flip a small government libertarian to anarchist. However, you need to give convincing arguments. Not go the route of Kevin Kennedy who said he can't back up how anarchy would work because he's not clairvoyant. What a dumb ass.

Basically my questions hit the two extremes. Legitimate disputes between honest citizens and criminals.

1) Your town is small. You have a house, fields, a pond and a patch of woods. You have a trail through the woods. You take a walk every day. You don't develop it because you want it the way it is. One day you're taking a walk and a new neighbor is cutting down your trees. You say it's your property, you use it. He says walking through it isn't using it, building houses and farming is and he is going to farm it. What do you do?

2) You go to bed early because you're tired. You wake up, go downstairs, and your wife and kids are dead. What do you do?

"Basically my questions hit the two extremes."....Begging the question....The presumption that your two extremes are the only ones worthy of examination....Your fictional scenario is also what Rand referred to as "lifeboat ethics".

What I gather from that little tirade is that you want certainty of results before you consider anything outside your limited view of what's possible...Well, neither I nor Kevin Kennedy, nor anyone else can give you any guarantees....What we do know is that there is no other entity in the entire history of humankind as responsible for more death, destruction, wars, anguish, destitution, and misery than The State...The same state that you naively believe that you can somehow tame, no matter how many examples are shown to you of how entirely disinterested its operators are in remaining within their constraints.

Even now, the Overton window his moved so far in the direction of preservation of the current gargantuan, that guys like you are arguing about an idiotic "fair tax", that would have got you tarred and feathered a mere century ago.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

Yes. "Small government" is not the real goal. It's "limited" government that we want. Scope, not size.

I do believe it is constructive to contemplate a state of Anarchy for the purpose of determining the appropriate scope of government. But, like I have said, Anarchy is impossible.

 

[Oddball]

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

Once again, demanding certainty of outcome, before taking any action...Even though you know for damn sure that the current model is unworkable, and that even your vision of "limited government" will eventually refuse to live within its constraints, and grow back into the mess we have now, or worse.

 

[Oddball]

Yes. "Small government" is not the real goal. It's "limited" government that we want. Scope, not size.

I do believe it is constructive to contemplate a state of Anarchy for the purpose of determining the appropriate scope of government. But, like I have said, Anarchy is impossible.

Government refuses to stay limited...It's the nature of the centralization of power with impunity.

It was once said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible too...How'd that prophesy shake out?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Once again, demanding certainty of outcome, before taking any action...Even though you know for damn sure that the current model is unworkable, and that even your vision of "limited government" will eventually refuse to live within its constraints, and grow back into the mess we have now, or worse.

Well, whether you accept the inevitablity of government or not, there it is.

Yes, ,you can never tame the beast. It takes constant attention. You have to constantly BEAT THE FUCK out of government and continually tear it down to prevent it from growing out of control, but you're living a pipe dream of you think we can permanently rid ourselves of government.

The sooner you accept that truth, the sooner you can start helping us continually kick the shit out of the current government.

 

[Oddball]

Once again, demanding certainty of outcome, before taking any action...Even though you know for damn sure that the current model is unworkable, and that even your vision of "limited government" will eventually refuse to live within its constraints, and grow back into the mess we have now, or worse.

Well, whether you accept the inevitablity of government or not, there it is.

Yes, ,you can never tame the beast. It takes constant attention. You have to constantly BEAT THE FUCK out of government and continually tear it down to prevent it from growing out of control, but you're living a pipe dream of you think we can permanently rid ourselves of government.

The sooner you accept that truth, the sooner you can start helping us continually kick the shit out of the current government.

I don't accept the inevitability of The State....That's the difference between you and me .

It will collapse under the weight of its own corruption, immorality, and avarice...I've accepted this and don't need to waste my time fighting to shrink it down to any "acceptable" scope anymore...Problem being that there will be too many people too stupid to see THAT inevitability, that they'll clamor for their servitude to yet another state apparatus.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No, for me what makes the idea seem utopian is the belief that you can create a cooperative society while maintaining a competitive economic structure. Power doesn't derive from government it derives from controlling resources. You can take government away and people will still compete for the control of resources and whoever controls them holds power over the rest.

"Power doesn't derive from government?" I could spend all day ridiculing that statement. Our federal government controls about $4 trillion worth of resources right now.

Now put it back in the context of which it was intended. We were discussing the power of the ruling class, which the government represents.

The government is the ruling class, especially in socialist countries.

 

[bripat9643]

Once again, demanding certainty of outcome, before taking any action...Even though you know for damn sure that the current model is unworkable, and that even your vision of "limited government" will eventually refuse to live within its constraints, and grow back into the mess we have now, or worse.

Well, whether you accept the inevitablity of government or not, there it is.

Yes, ,you can never tame the beast. It takes constant attention. You have to constantly BEAT THE FUCK out of government and continually tear it down to prevent it from growing out of control, but you're living a pipe dream of you think we can permanently rid ourselves of government.

The sooner you accept that truth, the sooner you can start helping us continually kick the shit out of the current government.

The sooner you accept the fact that government will always be your enemy and will always grow until it consumes all of society, the sooner you can start working on practical alternatives to government.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

Yes. "Small government" is not the real goal. It's "limited" government that we want. Scope, not size.

I do believe it is constructive to contemplate a state of Anarchy for the purpose of determining the appropriate scope of government. But, like I have said, Anarchy is impossible.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. Can you name one government that has ever allowed itself to be limited?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government refuses to stay limited...It's the nature of the centralization of power with impunity.

It was once said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible too...How'd that prophesy shake out?

Pure chlorine gas cannot remain such in the atmosphere. I suppose one day we may learn that it can, but current science says otherwise. Why? It binds with other things to become something else. It is not inert. Neither is the state of Anarchy. It is motherfucking, goddamn, son-of-a-bitching IMPOSSIBLE.

You know government refuses to stay in control because we are in society with people who do not take personal responsibility and are not honoring the unspoken societal truce. Government is simply the inevitable offspring of society.

When the mutual agreements of society have been ignored or breached, no one is obligated to remain peaceful and no set of rules apply. Humans have no obligation to respect the life or liberty of anyone else. They are not governed by any moral code or system of ethics. Their only code is to do whatever is necessary to eat and fuck, including ruthlessly killing other humans. Just like animals are under no obligation to each other.

To avoid the animal kingdom state of affairs, and maintain the societal truce, everyone must work to respect the liberty of others to pursue fucking and eating (happiness). Too many people have too many opinions and methods of exercising liberty. There must be decision makers. Enter--Government.

You cannot avoid it. Stop being naive. You can only hope to work with others to suppress it or replace it.

Keeping government in control takes diligence and persistence of the governed. Unfortunately, stupid and/or lazy people are allowed to breed, so this will be a never-ending chore. Because of that truth, at some point, I may actually consider supporting eugenics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I reject anarchy as the most savage/cruel system as nobody has any rights, nor is there respect for anybody's rights.

I like a lot of the Libertarian (big "L") platform, but it is too much government control over individual choice and too authoritarian for me to embrace it fully. For instance their most recent presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, who I know personally and like as a person very much, would have us have open borders and rescind all laws re recreational drugs. And he would make religious convictions illegal to consider in matters of government policy at all levels. It is that kind of lack of understanding of American values that keeps Libertarians from having much success at the ballot box.

So I embrace classical liberalism aka libertarianism (little "L").

The libertarian believes the federal government should have only enough say to allow the various states to operate as one nation, to provide the common defense, and promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare without consideration of race/gender/economic class et al. And the people are then intended to be free to live their lives as they choose and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have whether that be restrictive or lawless or any degree in between.