Why anarchists are not libertarians

[kaz]

Please post where I said if you want drugs to be legal you want to do drugs. There was no such comment.

Here you go. I know lots of libertarians and none of them to my knowledge do drugs at all or are motivated by that. Why can't we just think it's none of government's business? That you're a "small government" conservative makes the charge even more flamingly ridiculous.

And also that you're a "small government" conservative who isn't phased by the incredible intrusion into our freedom and privacy done in the name of drugs is ridiculous as well.

Or that you didn't learn from prohibition and the fall of organized crime when it ended. Yet you advocate we pursue policies that fund drug gangs and destabalize governments from Columbia to Afghanistan.

And then ... hello ... WE STILL HAVE THE DRUGS!

All you can come up with is that we "frequently (not always)" want do do drugs. It's far more obviously a that we're not retarded and don't want our liberty eroded because of a bunch of socon prudes with sticks shoved up their asses won't open their eyes and see the obviousness of the world around them.

Hedonism because "libertarian" frequently (not always) devolves into "I wanna do drugs with no one bothering me about it."

OK, so I didnt say anything like that. I accept your apology.

You're a dumbass. Forget it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here you go. I know lots of libertarians and none of them to my knowledge do drugs at all or are motivated by that. Why can't we just think it's none of government's business? That you're a "small government" conservative makes the charge even more flamingly ridiculous.

And also that you're a "small government" conservative who isn't phased by the incredible intrusion into our freedom and privacy done in the name of drugs is ridiculous as well.

Or that you didn't learn from prohibition and the fall of organized crime when it ended. Yet you advocate we pursue policies that fund drug gangs and destabalize governments from Columbia to Afghanistan.

And then ... hello ... WE STILL HAVE THE DRUGS!

All you can come up with is that we "frequently (not always)" want do do drugs. It's far more obviously a that we're not retarded and don't want our liberty eroded because of a bunch of socon prudes with sticks shoved up their asses won't open their eyes and see the obviousness of the world around them.

OK, so I didnt say anything like that. I accept your apology.

You're a dumbass. Forget it.

You can't understand my post and I'm the dumbass? Yeah. Right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I bet when it comes to limiting government, we fully agree give or a take a few details. Those generally being in which actions should be left entirely voluntary as opposed to coerced.

The contention of anarchists is built on the failure of a limited government. That government, more often than not, not only fails to protect individual and property rights, but is in fact the culprit of infringing upon them.

The human condition. In some ways I agree with that sentiment. In other ways I view the state as simply an archaic concept morphed to be more palatable to people who have struggled for years under oppression from elitist groups that want to control society. Most people associate anarchy with chaos. But what it really means is "no ruler". Be it 300 and some people, or one.

Nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of government, thugs will move to take control. While government is an evil, it is a necessary one. We must have a means of defense as a society. Without societal defense, despotism is inevitable.

To keep the beast that is government contained, we need many things. First is accountability, the secrecy and skullduggery is what allows crooks like Obama to run wild. No man can be above the law - no executive privilege, no immunity for rulers. Defense MUST be the whole of the people. Arms must be disabused from none. All should be able and LEGALLY entitled to repel attack by any force, including law enforcement.

Constraint within the written Constitution is a leash that could keep our government honest. It is to our shame that we have the means, but not the will, to contain government.

If, given the means to provide a limited and just government, we still allow crooks, thugs, and looters to run wild, then how can we delude ourselves that under anarchy we would do anything other than let the strongest thug rule with an iron fist?

 

[The Rabbi]

narco libertarianism is a descendent of anarchism. They differ only by degree but hold the same basic beliefs. The autonomy of the individual as the centerpiece, is the main one. They are intellectuals heirs of Rousseau and the Romantic vision of "man in a state of nature" as an ideal.
It isn't true. The counter statement by Hobbes ("Nasty brutish and short") is the truth. The Founders did not fear government. The feared a big national government. Their individual states had laws no one would tolerate today for their intrusiveness. But they held a notion of "society" as an organic whole separate and disctinct from a collection of individuals. And they accepted the notion that cities and states could restrict and direct behavior, including religion. The BoR did not originally apply to states, who were free to set their own standards.
They were correct. No society has lasted, much less grown great, with a plethora of hedonism and self-absorption. And this is exactly what narco-libertarianism wants.
The good news is that outside of the internet no one gives a shit about the narco-libs. They haven't had a ballot success since Ron Paul won his last election.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I bet when it comes to limiting government, we fully agree give or a take a few details. Those generally being in which actions should be left entirely voluntary as opposed to coerced.

The contention of anarchists is built on the failure of a limited government. That government, more often than not, not only fails to protect individual and property rights, but is in fact the culprit of infringing upon them.

The human condition. In some ways I agree with that sentiment. In other ways I view the state as simply an archaic concept morphed to be more palatable to people who have struggled for years under oppression from elitist groups that want to control society. Most people associate anarchy with chaos. But what it really means is "no ruler". Be it 300 and some people, or one.

Nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of government, thugs will move to take control. While government is an evil, it is a necessary one. We must have a means of defense as a society. Without societal defense, despotism is inevitable.

To keep the beast that is government contained, we need many things. First is accountability, the secrecy and skullduggery is what allows crooks like Obama to run wild. No man can be above the law - no executive privilege, no immunity for rulers. Defense MUST be the whole of the people. Arms must be disabused from none. All should be able and LEGALLY entitled to repel attack by any force, including law enforcement.

Constraint within the written Constitution is a leash that could keep our government honest. It is to our shame that we have the means, but not the will, to contain government.

If, given the means to provide a limited and just government, we still allow crooks, thugs, and looters to run wild, then how can we delude ourselves that under anarchy we would do anything other than let the strongest thug rule with an iron fist?

Well, government is the thugs you're referring to, unfortunately. It's simply the difference between authorizing them with force and power, verse not doing so and dealing with such thugs accordingly as a society.

I'm surely no newcomer to that debate, but the fact still remains that government is the one that ultimately becomes the iron fist thugs. Therefore, the contention that without an authorized one, the entire social structure would be plagued with them seems at best, rather circular.

Again, i dont think anarchy is achievable, except once the thugs have exhausted their rule. Thats when the vacuum becomes ripe. And anarchy happens anyway. Only in degree where chaos in the absence of rule of law leads some to search for control.

You could say Kaz was right in it all being a part of the human condition.

I argue over limited government just as much as in the reasons the State is a failure. I'd love a constitutionally limited government. But it's a failure.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, government is the thugs you're referring to, unfortunately. It's simply the difference between authorizing them with force and power, verse not doing so and dealing with such thugs accordingly as a society.

I'm surely no newcomer to that debate, but the fact still remains that government is the one that ultimately becomes the iron fist thugs. Therefore, the contention that without an authorized one, the entire social structure would be plagued with them seems at best, rather circular.

Again, i dont think anarchy is achievable, except once the thugs have exhausted their rule. Thats when the vacuum becomes ripe. And anarchy happens anyway. Only in degree where chaos in the absence of rule of law leads some to search for control.

You could say Kaz was right in it all being a part of the human condition.

I argue over limited government just as much as in the reasons the State is a failure. I'd love a constitutionally limited government. But it's a failure.

Have you ever read Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Archives

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I've read some of Hoppe's work, yes.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Oy. Why is it narco-libertarians always come off as arrogant, rude, assholes who think they know everything? And they give exactly the same responses to any given question.

We should make all prescription drugs illegal then too, since they are abused far more often and are equally or more deadly.

???

Who is the government to decide what is best for any individual.

If you want to shoot drugs, so be it, but there shouldn't be any welfare state to come to your rescue either.

Personal Responsibility.

-------------

By the way, how successful has this war on drugs been?

 

[kaz]

Oy. Why is it narco-libertarians always come off as arrogant, rude, assholes who think they know everything? And they give exactly the same responses to any given question.

We should make all prescription drugs illegal then too, since they are abused far more often and are equally or more deadly.

???

Who is the government to decide what is best for any individual.

If you want to shoot drugs, so be it, but there shouldn't be any welfare state to come to your rescue either.

Personal Responsibility.

-------------

By the way, how successful has this war on drugs been?

Exactly. Personal freedom cannot be separated from personal responsibility. If you try, you're going to infringe on someone else's personal freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

Personal freedom: the fetish of the narco-libertarians. It is an unworkable standard.

 

[kaz]

Personal freedom: the fetish of the narco-libertarians. It is an unworkable standard.

It's not unworkable at all, it's just unacceptable to socons who think our bodies belong to government. Then again, socons are sick bastards who obsess about what other people are doing in their bedrooms. Basically it's a combination that they're angry they aren't getting enough sex themselves and that they are fighting their homosexual feelings by overcompensating in their hatred of gays.

 

[The Rabbi]

Personal freedom: the fetish of the narco-libertarians. It is an unworkable standard.

It's not unworkable at all, it's just unacceptable to socons who think our bodies belong to government. Then again, socons are sick bastards who obsess about what other people are doing in their bedrooms. Basically it's a combination that they're angry they aren't getting enough sex themselves and that they are fighting their homosexual feelings by overcompensating in their hatred of gays.

And why do you sound just like liberals when you mouthe those crude idiocies?

It invariably devolves into "my right to this vs your right to that." There is no adjudicating such claims.

 

[kaz]

Personal freedom: the fetish of the narco-libertarians. It is an unworkable standard.

It's not unworkable at all, it's just unacceptable to socons who think our bodies belong to government. Then again, socons are sick bastards who obsess about what other people are doing in their bedrooms. Basically it's a combination that they're angry they aren't getting enough sex themselves and that they are fighting their homosexual feelings by overcompensating in their hatred of gays.

And why do you sound just like liberals when you mouthe those crude idiocies?

It invariably devolves into "my right to this vs your right to that." There is no adjudicating such claims.

That's crude? You don't watch much TV, do you? And actually it's their right to do that versus your right to tell them they can't do it because it bothers you to think about it. I bet your neighbors are having gay sex right now. What are you doing to stop that? Or are you focused about not thinking about it because it's making you hot?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not unworkable at all, it's just unacceptable to socons who think our bodies belong to government. Then again, socons are sick bastards who obsess about what other people are doing in their bedrooms. Basically it's a combination that they're angry they aren't getting enough sex themselves and that they are fighting their homosexual feelings by overcompensating in their hatred of gays.

And why do you sound just like liberals when you mouthe those crude idiocies?

It invariably devolves into "my right to this vs your right to that." There is no adjudicating such claims.

That's crude? You don't watch much TV, do you? And actually it's their right to do that versus your right to tell them they can't do it because it bothers you to think about it. I bet your neighbors are having gay sex right now. What are you doing to stop that? Or are you focused about not thinking about it because it's making you hot?

I somehow don't look to TV for my standards of behavior. That you do is, um, interesting.

Your neighbor sacrifices goats in his backyard and creates a stink. It's his right of religion vs your right of enjoyment. Your cousin decides that her dad ridden with Alzheimers is costing too much money to keep and decides to off him. It's his right to life vs her right to happiness. The Christian kid in my son's class believes its his duty to spread the Gospel and my son doesn't want any part of it. It's each of their abilities to practice religion as they see fit.
Now I realize that the narco-libtards aren't big on religion. But shockingly it is still a major force in America today and people have a Constitutional right to it.

 

[National Socialist]

Government in inherently evil.

 

[kaz]

And why do you sound just like liberals when you mouthe those crude idiocies?

It invariably devolves into "my right to this vs your right to that." There is no adjudicating such claims.

That's crude? You don't watch much TV, do you? And actually it's their right to do that versus your right to tell them they can't do it because it bothers you to think about it. I bet your neighbors are having gay sex right now. What are you doing to stop that? Or are you focused about not thinking about it because it's making you hot?

I somehow don't look to TV for my standards of behavior. That you do is, um, interesting.

Your neighbor sacrifices goats in his backyard and creates a stink. It's his right of religion vs your right of enjoyment. Your cousin decides that her dad ridden with Alzheimers is costing too much money to keep and decides to off him. It's his right to life vs her right to happiness. The Christian kid in my son's class believes its his duty to spread the Gospel and my son doesn't want any part of it. It's each of their abilities to practice religion as they see fit.
Now I realize that the narco-libtards aren't big on religion. But shockingly it is still a major force in America today and people have a Constitutional right to it.

You're a hoot dude. People do have a right to their own religion. What you want is you to have a right to force yours on me. My right to religion includes my right to be free of yours. That's bad, but it's your obsession with what people are doing in their bedrooms that's sick. You're worried about what I watch on TV, if your neighbors are having gay sex, if we're following the practices of your religion. Mind your own business Mrs. Kravitz.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's crude? You don't watch much TV, do you? And actually it's their right to do that versus your right to tell them they can't do it because it bothers you to think about it. I bet your neighbors are having gay sex right now. What are you doing to stop that? Or are you focused about not thinking about it because it's making you hot?

I somehow don't look to TV for my standards of behavior. That you do is, um, interesting.

Your neighbor sacrifices goats in his backyard and creates a stink. It's his right of religion vs your right of enjoyment. Your cousin decides that her dad ridden with Alzheimers is costing too much money to keep and decides to off him. It's his right to life vs her right to happiness. The Christian kid in my son's class believes its his duty to spread the Gospel and my son doesn't want any part of it. It's each of their abilities to practice religion as they see fit.
Now I realize that the narco-libtards aren't big on religion. But shockingly it is still a major force in America today and people have a Constitutional right to it.

You're a hoot dude. People do have a right to their own religion. What you want is you to have a right to force yours on me. My right to religion includes my right to be free of yours. That's bad, but it's your obsession with what people are doing in their bedrooms that's sick. You're worried about what I watch on TV, if your neighbors are having gay sex, if we're following the practices of your religion. Mind your own business Mrs. Kravitz.

Ah yes, Argumentum ad liberum. Arguing like a liberal. It's all about wanting to see what goes on people's bedrooms.
'Tard.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Personal freedom: the fetish of the narco-libertarians. It is an unworkable standard.

Apparently you believe government knows best, hand in your guns.

 

[kaz]

I somehow don't look to TV for my standards of behavior. That you do is, um, interesting.

Your neighbor sacrifices goats in his backyard and creates a stink. It's his right of religion vs your right of enjoyment. Your cousin decides that her dad ridden with Alzheimers is costing too much money to keep and decides to off him. It's his right to life vs her right to happiness. The Christian kid in my son's class believes its his duty to spread the Gospel and my son doesn't want any part of it. It's each of their abilities to practice religion as they see fit.
Now I realize that the narco-libtards aren't big on religion. But shockingly it is still a major force in America today and people have a Constitutional right to it.

You're a hoot dude. People do have a right to their own religion. What you want is you to have a right to force yours on me. My right to religion includes my right to be free of yours. That's bad, but it's your obsession with what people are doing in their bedrooms that's sick. You're worried about what I watch on TV, if your neighbors are having gay sex, if we're following the practices of your religion. Mind your own business Mrs. Kravitz.

Ah yes, Argumentum ad liberum. Arguing like a liberal. It's all about wanting to see what goes on people's bedrooms.
'Tard.

That's hilarious, you just said you argue like a liberal. You said how people who think drugs should be legal just want to smoke pot. Then I got a bunch of insults, so I knew this wasn't going to be a real discussion and decided to have some fun.

So I did your stupid pet trick back to you and said since you're a socon, you want to go into people's bedrooms and you're obsessed with gay sex. And you came back and said I argue like a liberal ... when I was arguing like YOU ...

LMAO. Bitch, you're owned.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're a hoot dude. People do have a right to their own religion. What you want is you to have a right to force yours on me. My right to religion includes my right to be free of yours. That's bad, but it's your obsession with what people are doing in their bedrooms that's sick. You're worried about what I watch on TV, if your neighbors are having gay sex, if we're following the practices of your religion. Mind your own business Mrs. Kravitz.

Ah yes, Argumentum ad liberum. Arguing like a liberal. It's all about wanting to see what goes on people's bedrooms.
'Tard.

That's hilarious, you just said you argue like a liberal. You said how people who think drugs should be legal just want to smoke pot. Then I got a bunch of insults, so I knew this wasn't going to be a real discussion and decided to have some fun.

So I did your stupid pet trick back to you and said since you're a socon, you want to go into people's bedrooms and you're obsessed with gay sex. And you came back and said I argue like a liberal ... when I was arguing like YOU ...

LMAO. Bitch, you're owned.

What are you? Fucking 14 years old. You derailed the discussion with an inappropriate comment.
Narco-libtards are simply liberals who want to smoke pot. I dont think there's any difference beyond that.