Repeal the First Amendment!!

[Onyx]

And your solution is the abolishment of all law, of all protection of rights by the government.

And with no laws, how do you propose society operate?

You have already stated my proposition. I propose society operates without laws or "protections" of rights.

 

[Skylar]

And your solution is the abolishment of all law, of all protection of rights by the government.

And with no laws, how do you propose society operate?

You have already stated my proposition. I propose society operates without laws or "protections" of rights.

Yes, but *how* do you propose that society operate without laws or protection of rights?

The ideal of anarchy is cute and all. But in the absence of authority, authority will be asserted. Without laws, groups of your fellow people will impose their wills upon you. Often in ways that would be quite criminal today.

Given a society as complex as ours, how do you see this complexity being maintained? How would society as it exists operate under the conditions you describe?

 

[Onyx]

Yes, but *how* do you propose that society operate without laws or protection of rights?

There is no more elaboration needed. That is the proposition, and it is the solution to the problems I personally see.

The ideal of anarchy is cute and all. But in the absence of authority, authority will be asserted. Without laws, groups of your fellow people will impose their wills upon you. Often in ways that would be quite criminal today.

So? Freedom has costs. Are you so weak that you cannot defend yourself? Are the police the sole reason for your survival?

Independence comes with responsibility. No one is going to hold your hand and change your diaper. If you can't make it on your own without government, then choose to live in a society that has one. The strong willed true Americans will choose to live in a society of their own that rejects authority and established power.

Given a society as complex as ours, how do you see this complexity being maintained?

You must be kidding, because this society is a joke.

Complexity is the reason why. We all focus so much on social constructs and artificial conceptualizations, that we ignore the simple pleasures of life, and the basic responsibilities that come with living independently.

How would society as it exists operate under the conditions you describe?

My hope is that it wouldn't.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, but *how* do you propose that society operate without laws or protection of rights?

There is no more elaboration needed. That is the proposition, and it is the solution to the problems I personally see.

The abuse of rights is solved by ending the protection of rights?

How does that work?

So? Freedom has costs. Are you so weak that you cannot defend yourself? Are the police the sole reason for your survival?

I wouldn't call bands of your fellow humans forcing themselves upon you and your family 'freedom'. Nor would it be freedom from tyranny. It would simply empower many, many little tyrants.

Again, all anarchy does is empower the tyranny of the majority. With power in the hands of any given majority you happen to meet. If you meet 3 guys and its only you, their majority wins on what rights you posses. Your property rights, your civil rights, your very life......are all subject to the whim of whatever majority you happen to encounter. There's no effective method of conflict resolution. There's little if any recourse for the weak when faced by the strong.

No thank you. That's a vastly inferior situation to what we have now.

Independence comes with responsibility. No one is going to hold your hand and change your diaper. If you can't make it on your own without government, then choose to live in a society that has one. The strong willed true Americans will choose to live in a society of their own that rejects authority and established power.

But they may get together and take your things. Or your family. Or your life. Remember, there are no police in your scenario. No laws prohibiting any act or punishing those that do occur. There's merely what strength you have at any given moment vs. the strength of who you happen to encounter.

If they have more, they do as they wish. If you have more, you do as you wish. Why would that be better than the system of laws that we have now?

Given a society as complex as ours, how do you see this complexity being maintained?

You must be kidding, because this society is a joke.

A joke in comparison to what? The mob of men that decides that they like your house so they're going to take it? Anarchy is the rule of the strong over the weak. The pipe dream that it will eliminate authority and oppression is nonsense. It merely diversifies authority to whoever is strong at any given moment. And they have the power to excert any degree of oppression they wish.

To want nothing more than it to 'all fall apart' is merely nihlism. It would need to be replaced with something better. And nothing you've described is better than what we have. Your proposals are vastly worse.

Complexity is the reason why. We all focus so much on social constructs and artificial conceptualizations, that we ignore the simple pleasures of life, and the basic responsibilities that come with living independently.

Or......keeping the water running is complicated. Keeping the electricity flowing is complicated. E-commerce is complicated. Maintaining a system of roads, adjudication, transportation, law enforcement, medicine, fire fighting, etc is complicated.

Calling highways 'artificial conceptualizations' doesn't change their utility or complexity. Nor does eliminating any central authority translate into more personal freedom. As another authority will rise up and take it from you. Often at the whim of whom ever happens to be taking that power, with little or no accountability.

Which is vastly inferior to the system we have now.

 

[Onyx]

The abuse of rights is solved by ending the protection of rights?

How does that work?

Those are not the problems I see. I don't care about the bill of rights. It only serves to control us really.

I wouldn't call bands of your fellow humans forcing themselves upon you and your family 'freedom'. Nor would it be freedom from tyranny. It would simply empower many, many little tyrants.

I am not worried about it, but thanks for caring. I am more than capable of defending myself and my family.

Again, all anarchy does is empower the tyranny of the majority.

You mean democracies don't do that too?

With power in the hands of any given majority you happen to meet. If you meet 3 guys and its only you, their majority wins on what rights you posses. Your property rights, your civil rights, your very life......are all subject to the whim of whatever majority you happen to encounter. There's no effective method of conflict resolution. There's little if any recourse for the weak when faced by the strong.

Thugs will always be in the minority. Do you think members of our communities will stop caring about us? I myself think the bond and companionship among Americans will only increase.

But they may get together and take your things. Or your family. Or your life. Remember, there are no police in your scenario. No laws prohibiting any act or punishing those that do occur. There's merely what strength you have at any given moment vs. the strength of who you happen to encounter.

They can try. Given how I live in crime central USA, and police have still took more away from me than criminals, I am fine taking that risk. I believe there is some empowerment in local communities, families, and even individuals taking responsibility for their own self defense.

If they have more, they do as they wish. If you have more, you do as you wish. Why would that be better than the system of laws that we have now?

A bit of an axiom here, because you believe that laws actually protect people. They don't. They are pieces of paper. There are clear rights and clear wrongs, and we have no need for pieces of paper to help us distinguish between the two.

A joke in comparison to what? The mob of men that decides that they like your house so they're going to take it? Anarchy is the rule of the strong over the weak.

All forms of rulership involve the strong lording over the weak. Anarchy is the rejection of rulership. It is the belief that anyone who wants to assert power over others deserves a bullet in the head, whether they be the government or a gang of common thugs.

Or......keeping the water running is complicated. Keeping the electricity flowing is complicated. E-commerce is complicated. Maintaining a system of roads, adjudication, transportation, law enforcement, medicine, fire fighting, etc is complicated.

What is the solution we currently have? To steal the hard earned wealth of the American common man to pay for services hundreds of miles away? No, if people need to build something, they can organize themselves voluntarily.

 

[Skylar]

The abuse of rights is solved by ending the protection of rights?

How does that work?

Those are not the problems I see. I don't care about the bill of rights. It only serves to control us really.

Rights are a prohibition of government action. Preventing government interference....controls us? Huh?

I wouldn't call bands of your fellow humans forcing themselves upon you and your family 'freedom'. Nor would it be freedom from tyranny. It would simply empower many, many little tyrants.

I am not worried about it, but thanks for caring. I am more than capable of defending myself and my family.

Bravado doesn't change math. No man can stand against a sufficiently large group of people. That you imagine otherwise doesn't change that.

And why would a rational person want to eliminate all police, all fire fighting, all emergency services, traffic laws, property laws, etc? What would the benefit be? As the costs are quite extraordinary.

Again, all anarchy does is empower the tyranny of the majority.

You mean democracies don't do that too?

Anarchy is democracy. Save on a much more immediate and much less restricted scale. Any given group you're in decides what rights, freedoms, property or even life you're allowed to possess. While a constitutional republic limits the application of group authority in relation to rights. You get no such restrictions under Anarchy. It is whatever the strongest person in that room says it is.

All of the costs you've offered us in democracy exists in anarchy. Only far worse.

Thugs will always be in the minority. Do you think members of our communities will stop caring about us? I myself think the bond and companionship among Americans will only increase.

No, they won't. As remember, in Anarchy the only numbers that matter are those in the immediate moment you're in. If they can outnumber you, you're fucked. And there's no law to hold them accountable. Without any method of conflict resolution, simply taking what you think you deserve would easily become the dominant method of resolving disagreements.

Why would a rational person prefer your system of 'take what you think you're due' to adjudication and professional law enforcement?

You have yet to describe anything that is better than what we already have. Instead describing options that are far far worse.

A bit of an axiom here, because you believe that laws actually protect people. They don't. They are pieces of paper. There are clear rights and clear wrongs, and we have no need for pieces of paper to help us distinguish between the two.

They are pieces of paper that influence behavior due to the risk of enforcement. They effect the way people interact, provide an effect system of conflict resolution, and a set system of rules that everyone knows ahead of time.

Where under anarchy, the rules change based on who you are talking to. There is no such agreement. There is no enforcement, no effective means of conflict resolution. Its just the strong against the weak.

Why would I or any other rational person choose your system over the one we have now?

 

[Skylar]

Oh. And then there's the elephant in the living room: other nations.

We've only been discussing anarchy in the context of your neighborhood or our nation. But we don't exist in a vacuum. There are other nations that would *love* for us to decide that we don't believe in armies, central authorities, law or leadership. There are organiztions that feel the same way. So while we're fractured and decentralized without any adequate defense, our infrastructure crumbling because you've decided you don't like complexity, and our armies disbanded because you don't like governments....

Their governments, armies, and infrastructure is fine.

This is the other great fatal flaw of anarchy. While you're quibbling over what 'freedom' really means and repeating 'from my cold, dead fingers' over and over......another nation that hasn't decentralized can just come and take our shit. And while you may be confident in your ability to defend your family from anything, you're proposal is becoming more and more like the old SNL sketch regarding Mike Ditka vs. the entire Russian Army.

'Ditka. But it'd be close'.

A system of laws also provides a framework for effective national defense. Unless you think you'd get better treatment under say, China. Or Russia. Or ISIS. Or that you personally would be able to take on their entire mitaries.

Either proposal seems....unlikely

 

[Onyx]

Those are not the problems I see. I don't care about the bill of rights. It only serves to control us really.

Rights are a prohibition of government action. Preventing government interference....controls us? Huh?

Yes, relying on the government to give you rights is subjecting yourself to a level of control. A higher human decides for himself what he can and cannot do.

Bravado doesn't change math. No man can stand against a sufficiently large group of people. That you imagine otherwise doesn't change that.

The mathematics of force would be different. I would have a gun and my fellow community members to help me, instead of the police force. It is a trade-off, and one that I think is incredibly beneficial.

And why would a rational person want to eliminate all police, all fire fighting, all emergency services, traffic laws, property laws, etc? What would the benefit be? As the costs are quite extraordinary.

The costs are quite extraordinary. I believe they are in the trillions range.

Anarchy is democracy. Save on a much more immediate and much less restricted scale. Any given group you're in decides what rights, freedoms, property or even life you're allowed to possess. While a constitutional republic limits the application of group authority in relation to rights. You get no such restrictions under Anarchy. It is whatever the strongest person in that room says it is.

That is partially true. The difference is that the person with the power is not established. It is much easier to overrule non-established power than it is to overrule established power. I have always been against legally established power structures.

No, they won't. As remember, in Anarchy the only numbers that matter are those in the immediate moment you're in. If they can outnumber you, you're fucked. And there's no law to hold them accountable. Without any method of conflict resolution, simply taking what you think you deserve would easily become the dominant method of resolving disagreements.

This is already the case. Police can only handle crimes after they have been committed. Any attempt at stopping crime is purely preventive. Know what works better? The cost of violence and theft being a bullet in the brain.

They are pieces of paper that influence behavior due to the risk of enforcement. They effect the way people interact, provide an effect system of conflict resolution, and a set system of rules that everyone knows ahead of time.

Where under anarchy, the rules change based on who you are talking to. There is no such agreement. There is no enforcement, no effective means of conflict resolution. Its just the strong against the weak.

Why would I or any other rational person choose your system over the one we have now?

Because they are confident in their abilities to succeed independently, and know firsthand the dangers of established and organized power structures.

 

[Onyx]

Oh. And then there's the elephant in the living room: other nations.

We've only been discussing anarchy in the context of your neighborhood or our nation. But we don't exist in a vacuum. There are other nations that would *love* for us to decide that we don't believe in armies, central authorities, law or leadership. There are organiztions that feel the same way. So while we're fractured and decentralized without any adequate defense, our infrastructure crumbling because you've decided you don't like complexity, and our armies disbanded because you don't like governments....

Their governments, armies, and infrastructure is fine.

Ha, you don't quite get it yet.

Anarchism is about rejecting claims to power by organizations or individuals. It doesn't matter if another nation claims to have power, the anarchist doctrine simply commands us to reject that claim. A claim is baseless without support, and what we are attempting to do is diminish the support people have for abusive established power structures.

 

[Skylar]

Oh. And then there's the elephant in the living room: other nations.

We've only been discussing anarchy in the context of your neighborhood or our nation. But we don't exist in a vacuum. There are other nations that would *love* for us to decide that we don't believe in armies, central authorities, law or leadership. There are organiztions that feel the same way. So while we're fractured and decentralized without any adequate defense, our infrastructure crumbling because you've decided you don't like complexity, and our armies disbanded because you don't like governments....

Their governments, armies, and infrastructure is fine.

Ha, you don't quite get it yet.

Oh, I 'get it'. Your problem is 'it' is worthless naivete for all practical purposes. As while you are busing 'rejecting claims', power structures still exist. Take.....this nation. You've 'rejected claims to power'. And yet the law still applies to you. The constitution still applies to you. And enforcement of both still applies.

Your 'rejection' of a power structure doesn't make it disappear. Anarchy as a concept is just generic willful ignorance. Where they pretend that power structures cease to exist because they have 'rejected them'. Where the consequence of the collapse of all law vanishes because you have 'rejected power structures'. Where opposing nations and their armies cease to be a concern because you've 'rejected power structures'.

But none of that actually happens. Your 'rejection of claims of power' doesn't actually effect the existence of power structures. Nor would it eliminate any such power structures for someone else who doesn't reject them. And that someone else and their friends can *impose* their power structure upon you.

Even if you reject it. As the constitution so elegantly demonstrates.

This is why anarchy as a concept is so hopelessly worthless. As it doesn't actually address......anything. It merely wishes. It has no effective method of conflict resolution. It can maintain no major projects. It can protect no rights. It can provide no effective defense. It can't even maintain its own existence. Its a wish. A dream. As ephemeral and relevant to our world as a fart in the wind.

As ignoring its fatal flaws doesn't make them disappear. Nor would it convince a rational person to ignore them.

 

[Skylar]

Those are not the problems I see. I don't care about the bill of rights. It only serves to control us really.

Rights are a prohibition of government action. Preventing government interference....controls us? Huh?

Yes, relying on the government to give you rights is subjecting yourself to a level of control. A higher human decides for himself what he can and cannot do.

Until someone else with more power say otherwise. If merely declaring yourself a 'higher human' were all it took for power structures to be abolished, then the laws of this nation clearly wouldn't apply to you.

Yet they do. Demonstrating elegantly how practically worthless your empty bravado is in defining your rights and powers unilaterally. As your conceptions of anarchy requires the desperate, willful ignorance of the power structures that still exist......and you merely *pretend* don't apply.

But so obviously do.

Worse, your 'anarchy' has no resolution for this fatal flaw. It can resolve no conflict. It can maintain very little complexity or cohesion. It can protect no rights. It can provide no effective defense. Your conception of anarchy can't even maintain its own existence when faced with people that reject it.

Which is why your conception of anarchy doesn't actually exist nor is practiced. Every time some semblance of it rises, is squashed....because it has no means of dealing with its own inherent contradictions and fatal flaws.

Bravado doesn't change math. No man can stand against a sufficiently large group of people. That you imagine otherwise doesn't change that.

The mathematics of force would be different. I would have a gun and my fellow community members to help me, instead of the police force. It is a trade-off, and one that I think is incredibly beneficial.

And what if a larger community were to disagree? Or if your community can't agree? Or both?

Remember, a more organized society can support a professional military and a full time army with far more advanced equipment and training. How do you defend yourself against this? Especially when you have no power structures, no armies, no plan of action save what can be hashed together by military amateurs.....giving 'orders' that any can ignore anytime they wish with no consequence. And none of the far more advanced military hardware that your opponents who have rejected your philosophy can field?

This is not the recipe for an effective defense. Of your community, of your state, of your nation. But predictably failure.

Your belief in your own invincibility doesn't actually change math. Or the fatal flaws in your conception of authority. As you've put yourself at a vast disadvantage in comparison to societies that have laws, mandatory taxation, professional armies, public works, and governing constitutions.

Everything about the society that you've described under anarchy is grossly inferior to what we have now.

Anarchy is democracy. Save on a much more immediate and much less restricted scale. Any given group you're in decides what rights, freedoms, property or even life you're allowed to possess. While a constitutional republic limits the application of group authority in relation to rights. You get no such restrictions under Anarchy. It is whatever the strongest person in that room says it is.

That is partially true. The difference is that the person with the power is not established.

Until they establish *themselves*. This is the fundamental break in your reasoning, the almost child like quality of anarchy in general: the assumption that once power structures have collapsed, they will stay collapsed.

This has never happened. Authority *always* asserts itself. A leader or leaders *always* arises. And when they do, they assert their will. Almost always violently.

Pretending that 'this time it will be different.....um, because' isn't sound reasoning.

Why would a rational person choose your naive fairy tale of empty wishes and hopeless assumption.......when in every practical way it would be grossly inferior to the system we have now?

 

[Onyx]

Oh, I 'get it'. Your problem is 'it' is worthless naivete for all practical purposes. As while you are busing 'rejecting claims', power structures still exist. Take.....this nation. You've 'rejected claims to power'. And yet the law still applies to you. The constitution still applies to you. And enforcement of both still applies.

If you destroy it then it wont. If you ignore it then it wont. There are many ways to ward off control.

Your 'rejection' of a power structure doesn't make it disappear.

Anarchy as a concept is just generic willful ignorance. Where they pretend that power structures cease to exist because they have 'rejected them'. Where the consequence of the collapse of all law vanishes because you have 'rejected power structures'. Where opposing nations and their armies cease to be a concern because you've 'rejected power structures'.

They are a concern. Anarchists often promote the existence of strong volunteer militias to protect local communities against those who seek to gain power. I could cite probably two dozen examples of armed groups that had warded off entire armies fr long periods of time in the defense of libertarian or anarchist communities.

But none of that actually happens.

Your 'rejection of claims of power' doesn't actually effect the existence of power structures. Nor would it eliminate any such power structures for someone else who doesn't reject them. And that someone else and their friends can *impose* their power structure upon you.

Sorry, this has already been proven false. There have been many anarchist societies throughout history that have lived independently from laws, bureaucracies, and control. These often gain less attention since they do not have a legitimate existence that can be recognized by other states. Of course, there have been exceptions where anarchist nations have at least gained de-facto recognition by world powers (The Ukrainian Free Territories being the best example, since the Revolutionary Insurectionary Army defeated the Soviets, White Army, and Western coalition forces)

As ignoring its fatal flaws doesn't make them disappear. Nor would it convince a rational person to ignore them.

You are so eager to reject freedom, that you decide to just jump to conclusions on a philosophy you know little about, rather than asking questions to find out more.

 

[Onyx]

Until someone else with more power say otherwise. If merely declaring yourself a 'higher human' were all it took for power structures to be abolished, then the laws of this nation clearly wouldn't apply to you.

I believe talk is worth very little. The world is made by those with power. If a group of people who believe heavily in anarchist ideals have the most power, then they would form a de-facto anarchist society. Implementing anarchism is just as much a war of public opinion than it is a violent war of independence.

Worse, your 'anarchy' has no resolution for this fatal flaw. It can resolve no conflict. It can maintain very little complexity or cohesion. It can protect no rights. It can provide no effective defense. Your conception of anarchy can't even maintain its own existence when faced with people that reject it.

Non-established volunteer millitia's have been very effective at protecting individuals from oppressive government in the past. I could give lots of examples, but the one the Americans can most relate to are the Minute Men.

You have rebel groups controlling territory and neighborhoods. Many of them are anarchist or libertarian radicals. You do not see government officials anywhere close to where they are.

Just recently you had Clive Bundy and a group of local militiamen force the federal government to stand down.

Know of the Michigan Militia? They are the largest armed militia in America, and have more influence than the police in 14 counties, all which pay voluntary dues to keep the millitia maintained.

Fighting off governments isn't a fairy tale. It is easily accomplished when the majority of people are willing to fight for their independence, and have the right equipment and know how to do it for prolonged periods of time.

Which is why your conception of anarchy doesn't actually exist nor is practiced. Every time some semblance of it rises, is squashed....because it has no means of dealing with its own inherent contradictions and fatal flaws.

It has been attempted few times, since it was never that popular o a philosophy outside intellectuals and philosophers during the Enlightenment era. The few times it was seriously attempted, it has always survived for many years. The majority of anarchist rebellions coincided with the liberal revolts around 1850, where a lot of fractured movements failed to gain enough traction.

Anyways, whatever ideology has the most support from the people will prevail. There is no concern from rival nations. It would be impossible for any army to subjugate France for example, without fighting an impossible war of independence afterwards. If the majority of French people want anarchy, then you better believe that anarchy will prevail when that conquering army is eventually driven out.

Remember, a more organized society can support a professional military and a full time army with far more advanced equipment and training. How do you defend yourself against this? Especially when you have no power structures, no armies, no plan of action save what can be hashed together by military amateurs.....giving 'orders' that any can ignore anytime they wish with no consequence. And none of the far more advanced military hardware that your opponents who have rejected your philosophy can field?

I know of dozens of non-established armed groups which have experienced officers, huge arsenals, and a massive recruitment base. Knowledge of these groups is in my area of expertise, and their success in organizing an efficient and effective armed volunteer group is what leads me to believe that anarchism can be a reality.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I 'get it'. Your problem is 'it' is worthless naivete for all practical purposes. As while you are busing 'rejecting claims', power structures still exist. Take.....this nation. You've 'rejected claims to power'. And yet the law still applies to you. The constitution still applies to you. And enforcement of both still applies.

If you destroy it then it wont. If you ignore it then it wont. There are many ways to ward off control.

Except you'd have to destroy it *everywhere* at the exact same time. Which is fantasy.

And then you'd have to keep power structures from returning everywhere. Which is fantasy.

As anarchy provides the means to do neither.

Your 'rejection' of a power structure doesn't make it disappear.

Anarchy as a concept is just generic willful ignorance. Where they pretend that power structures cease to exist because they have 'rejected them'. Where the consequence of the collapse of all law vanishes because you have 'rejected power structures'. Where opposing nations and their armies cease to be a concern because you've 'rejected power structures'.

They are a concern. Anarchists often promote the existence of strong volunteer militias to protect local communities against those who seek to gain power.

Several major problems:

First , you're engaging in violent enforcement of your system of government by creating and deploying a militia to kill those who oppose you. Which we already have. Undermining even the philosophical basis for your argument.

Second, who would lead it? Military action by committee is remarkably ineffective. Especially when no matter the consensus, no one is bound to any decision. A leaderless military with no officers is remarkably ineffective. And how would any such leadership be enforced if anyone can ignore any order given by anyone at any time with no consequence?

The harder you rely on leadership, the more you erode the basis for your philosophy. As all you're doing is replacing one mandatory, violently enforced power structure with another mandatory, violently enforced power structure.

Third, a local militia would be amateur at best. It would contain small arms, at best. It would have little if any unit cohesion, poor and inconsistent training, poor leadership.
Against a professional military with vastly better training, wildly superior weapons, far greater numbers and far better supply infrastructure, you'd have your ass handed to you 19 times out of 20. As they would be deploying jets, helicopters, heavy artillery, cruise missiles, tanks, battle ships, air craft carriers, and other advanced weaponry....while your 'local militia' would have hunting rifles and AR-15s.

Fourth, how would you supply your 'local militia'? Every time your 'militia' deployed, it would cripple your economy. As its the farmers, ferriers and coopers that are taking the field. You have no major public works, so your roads would be inferior, your electricity supply would be inferior, your economy would be sluggish and unresponsive. Making supplying them a ridiculously difficult proposition. Especially when no one is required to do, well, anything they don't want to.

Fifth, your 'local militia' would be tiny. Consisting of a few hundred to a few thousand men and women at best. Professional militaries involve hundreds of thousands, even millions of troops. Your 'local militias' would be gobbled up like pac-man. As they wouldn't be able to encompass the resources, territory, infrastructure, men, supplies, equipment, training, or leadership that a society that has rejected your 'anarchy' would have.

Your proposals all produce *vastly* inferior results to what we have right now.

I could cite probably two dozen examples of armed groups that had warded off entire armies fr long periods of time in the defense of libertarian or anarchist communities.

What 'libertarian or anarchist communities'? Answer that question and you demonstrate my point yet again.

Sorry, this has already been proven false. There have been many anarchist societies throughout history that have lived independently from laws, bureaucracies, and control.

No, it hasn't. As these anarchist societies no longer exist, nor did for any significant period of time. They all collapsed, most with shocking rapidity, because they couldn't compete economically, politically or militarily against neighbors who rejected your philosophy.

As central authority and organization have *tremendous* practical advantages. Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses them. And why virtually every civilization in our history have used them.

 

[Skylar]

Until someone else with more power say otherwise. If merely declaring yourself a 'higher human' were all it took for power structures to be abolished, then the laws of this nation clearly wouldn't apply to you.

I believe talk is worth very little. The world is made by those with power. If a group of people who believe heavily in anarchist ideals have the most power, then they would form a de-facto anarchist society. Implementing anarchism is just as much a war of public opinion than it is a violent war of independence.

And those who didn't believe in an anarchic society would have a tremendous advantage over them. As they would have infastructure, complexity, organization, resources, leadership, economy and the ability to focus them that anarchic societies would not possess.

If the United States collapsed into thousands of 'local militias' and 310 million 'individual sovereigns', they would be ill equipped to face the militarizes of China, Russia, ISIS, or even those within the US that would start to conquer territory creating their new fiefdoms.

The absence of authority would not be sustained. It would collapse as authority reasserted itself.

Many in Tienanmen Square aped your pipe dream. Authority asserted itself. Predictably. Decisively. And quite violently.

Worse, your 'anarchy' has no resolution for this fatal flaw. It can resolve no conflict. It can maintain very little complexity or cohesion. It can protect no rights. It can provide no effective defense. Your conception of anarchy can't even maintain its own existence when faced with people that reject it.

Non-established volunteer millitia's have been very effective at protecting individuals from oppressive government in the past.

Until they predictably collapsed in the face of infighting within the anarchic society or vastly superior military forced applied from outside it. The only historic exceptions are these 'local militia's banding together under central government to protect themselves. As anarchic societies lack the resources, supply lines, leadership, cohesion, training, equipment, men, territory, infrastructure or economy of centralized societies.

In almost every instance, anarchic societies that didn't centralize leeched off the infrastructure that was built under centralized authority......until that infrastructure eroded or was destroyed. As they had no means of replacing it at the level a centralized society could.

I could give lots of examples, but the one the Americans can most relate to are the Minute Men.

The colonies weren't an anarchist society. And Washington was an authoritarian leader. And once they won, they banded together under a Constitution to protect themselves for the *very* reasons I've outlined: the British could have easily picked them off separately. It was only unified, under one leadership and one law that they could hope to survive

Your 'example' evolved in a matter of a generation into the very constitution you denounce. And it did so for very practical reasons. Reasons the founders understood. Reasons you clearly don't.

 

[Votto]

What is frightening about this video is that Yale is historically one of those universities where the best and brightest come from. They are the future leaders in the US.

So has the left groomed an entire generation to surrender the first amendment? It seems so. How does that bode for our future freedoms?

You're easily amused by heavily edited joke videos huh?

Gullible's Travels...

Blame global warming. The lack of water is driving me mad!!

 

[Votto]

You almost gotta laugh that the American federal education system finally succeeded with Ivy League college students having no idea of the Bill of Rights and the greatest system of government ever created on the face of the earth. Thank you democrats.

The Bill of Rights can't be celebrated since it empowers the individual. For it is the individual's freedom that is causing all the problems within society. They pollute too much, eat too much, drive cars that are too big, live in houses that are too big to heat and cool, they have too many children, people are too bigoted etc.

Our only hope at utopia is for government to come in and live our lives for us.

 

[Votto]

You almost gotta laugh that the American federal education system finally succeeded with Ivy League college students having no idea of the Bill of Rights and the greatest system of government ever created on the face of the earth. Thank you democrats.

The Bill of Rights can't be celebrated since it empowers the individual. For it is the individual's freedom that is causing all the problems within society. They pollute too much, eat too much, drive cars that are too big, live in houses that are too big to heat and cool, they have too many children, people are too bigoted etc.

Our only hope for utopia is for government to come in and live our lives for us.

 

[Votto]

The future leaders of the US, the best and brightest, have been groomed by the far left to do away with freedom of speech and religion.

>> Chanting “Bomb Agrabah” might seem like a joke to hardcore fans of classic Disney films, but a recent poll found that 30 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of Democrats are convinced that the time has come to fight back against the fictional location where the 1992 animated classic Aladdin is set.

Public Policy Polling recently released data on their newest survey of GOP voters. Among the most salient findings was that slightly under one of every three conservatives polled responded affirmatively to the question, “Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?”

.... Then again, many of the other poll findings indicate that those who participated in the research are none too concerned with political correctness. In addition to supporting the campaign to bomb Agrabah, more than a quarter of the Republicans asked said that it should be illegal to practice Islam in the United States.

Also notable, nearly half of those respondents supported proposals to create a massive database of Muslim Americans for national security purposes. That same number also supported disallowing adherents of Islam to enter the U.S. Just over a quarter believe that the government should shut down mosques that are already here, perhaps fearing that bombing Agrabah would not sufficiently divert the threat of terrorism. <<

"First Amendment" huh?

1 in 4 republicans said it should be illegal to practice islam in the United States?

So much for their 1st amendment arguments.

If they are preaching terrorism from the pulpit then yes, it should be illegal.

So the question begs, if they are not preaching this, where is it coming from?

 

[Skylar]

The future leaders of the US, the best and brightest, have been groomed by the far left to do away with freedom of speech and religion.

>> Chanting “Bomb Agrabah” might seem like a joke to hardcore fans of classic Disney films, but a recent poll found that 30 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of Democrats are convinced that the time has come to fight back against the fictional location where the 1992 animated classic Aladdin is set.

Public Policy Polling recently released data on their newest survey of GOP voters. Among the most salient findings was that slightly under one of every three conservatives polled responded affirmatively to the question, “Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?”

.... Then again, many of the other poll findings indicate that those who participated in the research are none too concerned with political correctness. In addition to supporting the campaign to bomb Agrabah, more than a quarter of the Republicans asked said that it should be illegal to practice Islam in the United States.

Also notable, nearly half of those respondents supported proposals to create a massive database of Muslim Americans for national security purposes. That same number also supported disallowing adherents of Islam to enter the U.S. Just over a quarter believe that the government should shut down mosques that are already here, perhaps fearing that bombing Agrabah would not sufficiently divert the threat of terrorism. <<

"First Amendment" huh?

1 in 4 republicans said it should be illegal to practice islam in the United States?

So much for their 1st amendment arguments.

If they are preaching terrorism from the pulpit then yes, it should be illegal.

So the question begs, if they are not preaching this, where is it coming from?

And if they haven't?