Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[bripat9643]

"Social Contract" is a truce. It is an agreement to not kill each other and let each other pursue food and sex without violent interference.

Anything above and beyond that understood agreement is not contractual. It is compulsory from birth.

Except 99% of the population never agreed to it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That is why I am a Libertarian for the most part. I want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing sorriness.

No welfare, bailouts, subsidizes or entitlements.

We can easily do that without jeopardizing the few minimal necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

However, you missed the point that I made. The point that I made was that humans are not moral or decent enough so that anarchy would work. Many humans are assholes and without the reasonable constraints would brutalize others and would steal from others.

Tony Soprano and MS-14 are not killers and thieves because the government made them do it. They are killers and thieves because they are assholes.

The point you made makes no sense...If you really believe that people are so morally bankrupt that anarchy couldn't work, then why on Earth would you erect a framework where there's a monopoly on the proactive use of aggressive force, which has shown, time and again, attracts such brutal assholes to it like moths to a flame?

The point I made is the reason why anarchy will never work. You may not want to accept it but the fact is that there are too many assholes on earth that would gladly kill, rape, brutalize and steal if they could get away with it without collective constraints.

I have yet to see a good plan to transitions the present government constraints (as bad as they are) to an anarchically society. It ain't gonna happen. People are too flawed to make anarchy work.

He's trying to explain that the immorality you're citing as the need for government is only magnified by governmental power. This is logically irrefutable unless you're trucking in politicians from other planets. There is no mechanism by which we may keep some of those immoral people out of government, and they are far more dangerous wielding its power than they would be without it.

Imagine placing a machine gun in the middle of a prison yard. Think that's going to help make it a better place?

 

[ding]

That's still coercion, dumbass. What if you tell the court to fuck off?

Then at least one of us would have had the balls to follow his convictions.

You mean you're an imbecile. You have no convictions other than that you're entitled to take money from others to use for your purposes.

Given that I probably pay more in taxes than you earn it isn't very likely I am taking anything from anyone I did not earn myself.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

"Social Contract" is a truce. It is an agreement to not kill each other and let each other pursue food and sex without violent interference.

Anything above and beyond that understood agreement is not contractual. It is compulsory from birth.

You have concisely described the "Non-Aggression Principle", i.e. fundamental morality. Widespread knowledge of why this is a good idea is man's salvation.

 

[ding]

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'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

There is no right to be free of discrimination, and regulations are not the only way to prevent corporations from "preying on people." No corporation preys on people 1/100th as much as the federal government preys on people.

To be free of discrimination is a human right, and if you are going to claim that the public does not need protection from corporations through regulation, you are either a shameless liar or hopelessly stupid.

Except that there are things we should discriminate against. So to argue that to be free of discrimination is a human right is not correct. That would be indiscriminate indiscriminateness.

What the hell are you taking about.? Are you saying that people do not have a right to not be treated like shit because of their race, religion, ethnicity , sexual orientation and so forth? Would you take that position if you were the victim of discrimination based on any of those factors?

I am talking about indiscriminate indiscriminateness which is the practice of tolerating everything. There are things we should not tolerate. There are things we should oppose. There are things we should discriminate against.

 

[bripat9643]

That's still coercion, dumbass. What if you tell the court to fuck off?

Then at least one of us would have had the balls to follow his convictions.

You mean you're an imbecile. You have no convictions other than that you're entitled to take money from others to use for your purposes.

Given that I probably pay more in taxes than you earn it isn't very likely I am taking anything from anyone I did not earn myself.

If you vote for tax increases or the politicians who support them, you are taking money from other people.

 

[ding]

Except for the fact that men do not follow the moral law. The main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

View attachment 190954

Which is why we live in a Republic with checks and balances.

 

[ding]

But that aggregate of people is not whose sovereignty you want me to recognize; it’s their government.

It is one and the same. We rely on the government to protect our natural rights.

 

[ding]

That's still coercion, dumbass. What if you tell the court to fuck off?

Then at least one of us would have had the balls to follow his convictions.

You mean you're an imbecile. You have no convictions other than that you're entitled to take money from others to use for your purposes.

Given that I probably pay more in taxes than you earn it isn't very likely I am taking anything from anyone I did not earn myself.

If you vote for tax increases or the politicians who support them, you are taking money from other people.

Your logic is as flawed as you are emotional.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Except 99% of the population never agreed to it.

What I am saying is that the only agreement is non-violence. Nothing more.

So, those parading around the "social contract" as a justification for compulsory participation in an established system of taxation can shove it up their asses.

I will not kill you. You will not kill me. That's all we can expect from each other under any "contract" in existence from our births.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is one and the same. We rely on the government to protect our natural rights.

But, as you are well aware, Government is the only entity NOT protecting our natural rights. In fact, government is the nemesis of natural rights.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Except 99% of the population never agreed to it.

What I am saying is that the only agreement is non-violence. Nothing more.

So, those parading around the "social contract" as a justification for compulsory participation in an established system of taxation can shove it up their asses.

I will not kill you. You will not kill me. That's all we can expect from each other under any "contract" in existence from our births.

Why can we expect that? If it is in best interest to kill you why would any implied contact stop me?

Why do you assume such a contract exist?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"Social Contract" is a truce. It is an agreement to not kill each other and let each other pursue food and sex without violent interference.

Anything above and beyond that understood agreement is not contractual. It is compulsory from birth.

You have concisely described the "Non-Aggression Principle", i.e. fundamental morality. Widespread knowledge of why this is a good idea is man's salvation.

A non-aggression principe is unnatural, I do not know why it should be the default position.

Nature is filled with aggression. The fact you seem to think it is not center to human nature is your biggest mistake and why your views which sound noble on the surface, are only about an inch deep


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Which is why we live in a Republic with checks and balances.

"Why Toby, if I's 'idn't know better, I say you's thinkin' you's been wronged! Don't you know we's gots chicks and balances? Massa Trump, Massa Schumer, and Massa Roberts be's keepin' each other proppa, an' no mistake! Now no mo' foolin' wit' all dis bidness - that crop ain't gwine pick itself!"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A non-aggression principe is unnatural, I do not know why it should be the default position.

Nature is filled with aggression. The fact you seem to think it is not center to human nature is your biggest mistake and why your views which sound noble on the surface, are only about an inch deep

Yes, but humans live in society because they have developed the ability to reason and empathize. If they do not have to kill each other to coexist, why would they? Why take the risk?

Human nature has developed into a desire to be non-aggressive for survival.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why can we expect that? If it is in best interest to kill you why would any implied contact stop me?

Why do you assume such a contract exist?

What is the purpose of society? Why not revert back to the wild and kill for survival?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A non-aggression principe is unnatural, I do not know why it should be the default position.

Nature is filled with aggression. The fact you seem to think it is not center to human nature is your biggest mistake and why your views which sound noble on the surface, are only about an inch deep

Yes, but humans live in society because they have developed the ability to reason and empathize. If they do not have to kill each other to coexist, why would they? Why take the risk?

Human nature has developed into a desire to be non-aggressive for survival.

And we put rules and authority in place to enforce the idea. Anarchy would remove those and rely on the individual to do the right thing.

If we both own a farm and I want more, under anarchy there is no good reason for me not to to kill you if I can and take your farm.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why can we expect that? If it is in best interest to kill you why would any implied contact stop me?

Why do you assume such a contract exist?

What is the purpose of society? Why not revert back to the wild and kill for survival?

What do you think anarchy is? You just described the inevitable result of anarchy


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[TNHarley]

I love this thread.
Thanks Brian Blackwell

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And we put rules and authority in place to enforce the idea. Anarchy would remove those and rely on the individual to do the right thing.

If we both own a farm and I want more, under anarchy there is no good reason for me to to kill you if I can and take your farm.

Likewise, there is no good reason for me to not kill you and take your farm.

Let the violence begin.

Do you see the mutual need to reach and keep agreements?