Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Harpy Eagle]

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

Hmmm, wrong. We had civilization before we had government. The later is a parasite on the former.

Anarchy and civilization do not mix, pick one or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You certainly haven't proved that. LIke I said, cities and towns existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. That's an irreftuable fact of history.

Jericho - Wikipedia​

Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BC),[12][13] almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch of the Earth's history.[14][15]​

What makes you think there was no system of governing in Jericho?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Society is just people relating to each other the way they do everyday. Government is not required for me to buy eggs from my neighbor’s farm,

It is required for you to use currency to buy the eggs. Without a government, there is no currency.

for a man to start a bus company to take people where they want to go,

Without a government there is no currency to pay the man, there would be no roads to drive the bus on and there would be no bus because something like a bus would never be built on a barter system.

for a charity to have a fund-raising event,

a charity is a legal entity, without a government there is no such thing.

for people to start a meetup group... come on now... oxymoronic? Really?

YEA! you got one! yes, people can met without a government.

Anarchism is not compatible with civilization? So advanced organization is not possible without government?

advanced organization is not possible without a system of rules to govern the organization. Anarchy is chaos and organization can never come out of chaos.

Please explain to me how robbing and hurting people is an absolute necessity for organization? Because that is all governmental authority adds to organization.

Rules and authority are an absolute necessity for organization, anarchy is the nonrecognition of authority, thus there are no rules but the rules set by the individual. When each individual sets their own rules, there will never be organization, only chaos.

Remove that, keep everything else, and what have you got?

chaos because human nature does not keep to the rest.

How does Apple manage to design, manufacture, distribute, and sell iphones without robbing and beating people? Voluntary cooperation. Happens all the time.

Apple does not exist without a government.

First, no government means no currency and something as complex as a computer or Iphone would never be built under the barter system.

Second, Apple is a corporation, which is a legal entity that only exist because of the government.

Third, without laws there is nothing to stop a worker at Apple from taking all of their secrets and giving them to Motorola or Samsung.

Fourth, Apple employees 123,000 plus people all over the world, such vast numbers would be impossible under the barter system that would have to exist as currency is a function of the government.[/quote][/quote]

 

[ding]

BTW open borders has got to be the worst idea ever.

Tell it to God, or whatever. Open borders is not an idea, it’s a description of reality.

No. It is a really really bad idea that is totally unworkable. I get the logic behind it, which by the way is flawed as well, but it is the untenable problems it creates.

Additionally, we have no obligation to non-citizens and you have no valid complaint that we do.

That's actually three different points in case you were wondering.

The logic is that you have no right to violently prevent presumably innocent people from walking across an imaginary line into property you don’t have a rightful property claim to. What’s flawed about that?

I have a valid genral complaint that you’re supporting something immoral as per the argument above. I also have a valid personal complaint that billions of potential friends do not have access to my private property because you (by proxy) are denying them admittance to this area without just cause.

Of course we do. It is called sovereignty. Unless of course you think it is OK for me to walk into your property anytime I want. Are you OK with that? Can I bring some of my friends with me?

Sovereignty of who? In regard to what? Who has a valid property claim on half a continent and beyond?

The difference is that I am the valid owner of my property. I inhereted it by direct family lineage. The claimed property is currently in use, reasonable in size, and its borders have not been disputed by neighbors.

You can’t compare the two at all, or at least you must explain how they are comparable.

You recognize your right to limit access to your property, right? That's sovereignty.

If your nation has no sovereignty, you have no sovereignty. You cannot have a valid claim to your property if our nation has no valid claim to its property as your valid claim rests upon their valid claim. I don't believe you have thought this through.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

I would like to hear why he thinks that taxes aren't theft.

Are they not:
- Taking of property.
- Without consent.

Which of the two conditions isn't fulfilled? This isn't exact rocket science.

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

 

[ding]

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

The odds are 100%. Just look at your paystub if you don't believe it. Those deductions are all robbery.

You should do something about that if that is what you believe.

What should I do, go on a shooting rampage at the U.S.Treasury?

That's your call. You are the one who believes that every single penny of your federal taxes are theft. How about you just stop paying your taxes? Stop the theft.

You know as well as I do that the criminal gang known as "the government" will not allow that.

So if a thug holds you up to steal your wallet, you won't fight back? Because he won't allow it either.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is no voluntary form of taxation. According to the definition, taxation isn't voluntary. It's compulsory.

All taxation is voluntary. It is consented to when you freely choose to live in the society that is collecting the taxes.

If you do not wish to pay taxes to the United States Government the solution is simple, you leave the United States. That is your free will to do. If you choose to stay then you are consenting to the rules, which include paying taxes.

 

[ding]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

1. I couldn't care what you or anyone else believes about me.

2. You believing that matters to me really means that matters to you.

3. I'm not the one who believes the government is stealing from me, so your analogy applies to you and not me.

4. Yes, some things are worth dying for.

5. Your actions belie your words. You say this is all important, but you bend over and take it.

 

[ding]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

I would like to hear why he thinks that taxes aren't theft.

Are they not:
- Taking of property.
- Without consent.

Which of the two conditions isn't fulfilled? This isn't exact rocket science.

Tell you what... make a high level list of government expenditures by broad categories and we can go down that list and discuss which ones are valid and which ones are not.

That way we can quantify on a percentage basis how much is actually theft because I reject the premise that all taxes are theft. Fair enough?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

1. I couldn't care what you or anyone else believes about me.

2. You believing that matters to me really means that matters to you.

3. I'm not the one who believes the government is stealing from me, so your analogy applies to you and not me.

4. Yes, some things are worth dying for.

5. Your actions belie your words. You say this is all important, but you bend over and take it.

He not only bends over and takes it but he is openly a cheerleader for Trump...how that squares with being an anarchist I can not figure out.

 

[ding]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

I would like to hear why he thinks that taxes aren't theft.

Are they not:
- Taking of property.
- Without consent.

Which of the two conditions isn't fulfilled? This isn't exact rocket science.

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sovereignty of who? In regard to what? Who has a valid property claim on half a continent and beyond?

The difference is that I am the valid owner of my property. I inhereted it by direct family lineage. The claimed property is currently in use, reasonable in size, and its borders have not been disputed by neighbors.

And what happens when your neighbor decides he wants your land as well and he has more guns and people than you do? What sovereignty will you have then? What good will your claim of ownership do you when your land it taken from you by one with more might? In anarchy the only rule that applies is that "might makes right"

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Many people feel frustrated during political discussions because it seems like people are living different truths. They are so vehement in their relative positions, yet those positions are directly opposed. Everyone can't be right!

If two people are perceiving correctly, when they both direct their attention toward something, they should see the same thing. We need to continually remember and recommit to sound practices in order to stave off bias, and discern clearly. I'm copying a post from the Education section to serve as a reminder:

"The following is a basic primer on the ancient Trivium method of education. It forms the basis for how to think critically and apply sound knowledge in practice. It is comprised of three subjects, each representing a step in this all-important process:

KNOWLEDGE: Also known as "grammar", this step is raw data collection; the input stage. Success in this area is what we call "having on open mind". Contrary to common misconception, an open mind does not mean accepting all opinions as equally valid. It merely means that all information is permitted to pass into the next stage of the process without gaining automatic admittance into our belief system, or being blocked at the door due to preconceived notions.

UNDERSTANDING: Also known as "logic", this is the step of evaluation; the processing stage. Building associations, recognizing patterns, determining validity through reason and logical consistency... This is where we separate wheat from chaff, and decide which ideas are worthy of admitting into our worldview or belief system. It is the process of establishing principles which will guide our behavior.

WISDOM: Also known as "rhetoric", this step is the application of valid conclusions; the output stage. Though many equate the word "wisdom" with deep understanding, it is actually the implementation of that understanding through behavior. This step requires the commitment and courage to act in accordance with our experience and understanding gained in the previous two steps.

This method is the foundation for sound judgement and right action, and I thought it appropriate to mention it here on USMB, where we discuss matters of great societal import. It requires an earnest effort, being willing to evaluate honestly, accept truth even where it conflicts with previously-held positions, and bring our perspective into better alignment with what we discover."

 

[Tehon]

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

When consent is required, it’s not taxation; it’s charity, or business, or something else. Taxation means hand it over or be punished. If not, we could just ignore the IRS like a Salvation Army Santa. It doesn’t work like that and you know it.

Each individual interprets taxation differently.

The majority in this country consent to taxation in accordance with the constitution at a minimum.

We long ago rejected the brutish life you wish to champion in favor of living in a civil society.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Society is just people relating to each other the way they do everyday. Government is not required for me to buy eggs from my neighbor’s farm,

It is required for you to use currency to buy the eggs. Without a government, there is no currency.

for a man to start a bus company to take people where they want to go,

Without a government there is no currency to pay the man, there would be no roads to drive the bus on and there would be no bus because something like a bus would never be built on a barter system.

for a charity to have a fund-raising event,

a charity is a legal entity, without a government there is no such thing.

for people to start a meetup group... come on now... oxymoronic? Really?

YEA! you got one! yes, people can met without a government.

Anarchism is not compatible with civilization? So advanced organization is not possible without government?

advanced organization is not possible without a system of rules to govern the organization. Anarchy is chaos and organization can never come out of chaos.

Please explain to me how robbing and hurting people is an absolute necessity for organization? Because that is all governmental authority adds to organization.

Rules and authority are an absolute necessity for organization, anarchy is the nonrecognition of authority, thus there are no rules but the rules set by the individual. When each individual sets their own rules, there will never be organization, only chaos.

Remove that, keep everything else, and what have you got?

chaos because human nature does not keep to the rest.

How does Apple manage to design, manufacture, distribute, and sell iphones without robbing and beating people? Voluntary cooperation. Happens all the time.

Apple does not exist without a government.

First, no government means no currency and something as complex as a computer or Iphone would never be built under the barter system.

Second, Apple is a corporation, which is a legal entity that only exist because of the government.

Third, without laws there is nothing to stop a worker at Apple from taking all of their secrets and giving them to Motorola or Samsung.

Fourth, Apple employees 123,000 plus people all over the world, such vast numbers would be impossible under the barter system that would have to exist as currency is a function of the government.

I'm going to ask that you prove your assertions. In like kind, I will offer my argument refuting them:
The fact that something currently exists in governmental form does not necessarily imply that it exists because of government.
Do you understand and accept this?

Currency does not require government. In fact, government didn't even invent currency. People invent currencies when need arises. People traded with shells. Prisoners traded with cigarettes. SIlver, gold, anything can be used as a currency if people agree upon its value. And there need not even be just one currency. Right now there are people who trade in both dollars and bitcoin, for example. In addition, currency would be better without government. Gold has retained its value across thousands of years, whereas my grandpa used to see "3 movies for a nickel", and I pay $20 just to see one.

Are you actually suggesting that without government we couldn't build roads and buses? Who pays for the roads? Who builds roads? Who designs buses? Who builds buses? Would these people not exist in the absence of government? Is there no possible way that people could organize without some of them having the ability to violently coerce other people?

Anarchy is NOT chaos. Anarchy means no one rules over anyone else; it doesn't mean no one can follow a plan. Advanced organization is not only possible on a voluntary basis, but it exists all over the place at this very moment. Think of the immense organization involved with a sports league. All the scheduling of games, flights, hotels; all the ticket sales, and seating arrangements; all the vendoring and media coverage; all the compilation of stats and figures... this is all done voluntarily!

None of it requires someone to violently coerce others in order to produce this huge, consistently successful organization of millions of people acting in concert. None of it requires that any one person knows the whole plan, either. There is no master plan. The league president doesn't know how run a hotel. The airline owner doesn't know how to schedule games. The ticket sales office doesn't know how to make uniforms. The end-user doesn't know how to do anything, but ultimately pays for everything of his own free will.

In the end, you've got thousands of people showing up for a game in the same place, at the same time. All the players are there, all the equipment is there, all the food is there, all the security personnel are there, fans are in their seats, cameras are rolling, and millions are watching on TVs and phones all across the nation. Each of the people involved only knowing their tiny piece of the puzzle.

Now tell me again how "human nature" prohibits organization in the absence of a whip.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You recognize your right to limit access to your property, right? That's sovereignty.

If your nation has no sovereignty, you have no sovereignty. You cannot have a valid claim to your property if our nation has no valid claim to its property as your valid claim rests upon their valid claim. I don't believe you have thought this through.

Sovereignty is inherent to the individual, whether others choose to recognize it in any given instance or not. My valid claim to property is not dependent upon any other human being. If I build a boat, it's my boat because it exists as an extension of my intellectual and bodily labor.

In fact, if my "nation" has sovereignty, I do not have sovereignty. My nation's government has a claim upon my property that supersedes my own. They can tell me what plants I can grow, what substances I can use, what objects I can own, which people are allowed to visit. They can also charge me tax on property I already purchased. Where is my sovereignty in all of this?

Luckily, my "nation" does not have sovereignty, and so mine yet remains. Though since they act immorally by not recognizing this fact, I've got a huge problem, and that problem is partially your fault if you support government. So thanks for that.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

Do you understand that you don't get to decide when I give my consent?

One party cannot validly determine the terms of what constitutes consent unilaterally. If you believe they can, then what's stopping anyone from saying, "By wearing a low-cut top to a night club you imply your consent to being raped"? Even if the club posted a sign to this effect, wrote up documents confirming the implication and had a million people sign it, that does not mean the woman gives her consent; it does not make the rape justifiable. Do you understand this???

Man does not have the power to alter morality. Not by any means. 100% universal consensus would still not make an immoral act moral. To believe in this bogus, indoctrinated hogwash of "implied consent" is to grant license to anyone to do anything. If you say I imply my consent, and I expressly deny my consent, both claims can't be valid, so whose takes precedence? Considering that we're talking about personal consent, I'd say the person saying "Hey! I don't give my consent!" has the greater claim. I mean, ffs, what could be more bloody obvious?!

Telling me to "love it or leave it" is just bully bullshit. Love that I take your lunch money everyday, or leave the school. Love that I have shootouts at the park while your kids are playing or leave the neighborhood. Love that I rape you every night or leave the marriage. Hey, you're free to leave, so you must love it since you're still here. I'll stop now because I'm getting mad. Snap the fuck out of it and be a human being, for God's sake.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Sovereignty of who? In regard to what? Who has a valid property claim on half a continent and beyond?

The difference is that I am the valid owner of my property. I inhereted it by direct family lineage. The claimed property is currently in use, reasonable in size, and its borders have not been disputed by neighbors.

And what happens when your neighbor decides he wants your land as well and he has more guns and people than you do? What sovereignty will you have then? What good will your claim of ownership do you when your land it taken from you by one with more might? In anarchy the only rule that applies is that "might makes right"

But that's exactly what we have with government! Ever hear of "eminent domain"? The government already claims possession of my land because it has more might. That's why it can tell me what I can do upon it, who I can have upon it, charge me every year to live upon it, and take it from me if they "need" it.

At least in a free society I have a chance of fighting back because everyone around me doesn't blindly accept the thief's invalid claim. If I shot a cop coming to my house to arrest me for growing pot, the country would call for my fucking head! You say it's right for government to do precisely what you say it's wrong for my neighbor to do. That's an inequality of rights, which is impossible - all men come into this world with equal rights. To deny this is to deny reality itself. This is the mind control. I was under its sway for almost 40 years, and you're under it at this very moment. Wake up! You're supporting evil in the name of good.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The majority in this country consent to taxation in accordance with the constitution at a minimum.

We long ago rejected the brutish life you wish to champion in favor of living in a civil society.

If the majority in this country voluntarily pay taxes, then what's the problem? Clearly, there's enough people willing to pay for public services, so why the hell are you condoning violence in the name of "civilization"? Obviously it's not even necessary, no less moral.

Go ahead and pay for what you want to pay for, and let me do the same. I like roads. I like fire protection. I'll pay for them. You don't have to force people to pay for what they want; that's why SONY doesn't need gestapos. If people don't want it, then guess what? You don't get to have it! It's not brutish to let people choose how to spend their money; it's brutish to club them over the head to get them to pay for what YOU want, but THEY don't. That's robber's work, and you're condoning it. Please stop committing aggression against your fellow man, by proxy or otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

Nope...But Bripat's point stands.

That all of the federal taxes he is paying is theft? Then he should stop paying them.

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a fucking moron?

I would like to hear why he thinks that taxes aren't theft.

Are they not:
- Taking of property.
- Without consent.

Which of the two conditions isn't fulfilled? This isn't exact rocket science.

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

No one freely chooses to be a member of society. They are born into their societies. You don't give consent to pay taxes by being born or by living on some certain location. How did the government acquire the right to tell me what I can do on my own property? Don't say "the social contract" because we've already established that there's no such thing.

You're using the logic of Guido "the leg breaker"'s protection racket. If you don't pay him for protection, then you agreed that he is free to break your legs. No legal system supports such an "agreement," so what makes you think it's OK for government to do it?

 

[Oddball]

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

Can you scare me up a copy of this contract?...I'd like to have my attorney give it the once-over and see if it's worth signing.