RobertNashville

I believe armed revolution and/or armed resistance is "silly" because I believe it will likely fail and because even if it succeeds I'm not hopeful that the government that rises from the ashes would be even as good as the one that was just overthrown (the American revolution is quite unique in that regard in that a successful revolution resulted in a government of based on freedom and liberty).  I believe it is inappropriate to use force to obtain change so long as we still have free elections...a mechanism for change that does not involve violent revolution (an option our founders did not have) even if I'm not hopeful that the elections will be successful. Ultimately, if the country continues its death spiral armed revolution may come but I neither desire it nor think it will ultimately have a desirable outcome.   If I was dismissive of others in the 2012 election cycle it was because I believed and still believe that 2012 was a pivotal year for the country (frankly, I believe we haven't even yet seen the real harm that will eventually come to us by Obama's reelection). However, with regards to voting and supporting candidates with little chance to succeed I have changed my position somewhat because 2012 was also my last election voting for the "least bad choice".   I'm through with the whole sticking mess called the "Republican Party" and the only way I'll vote for anyone going forward is if I'm convinced he/she is truly worth of the office they seek and if they hold correct positions on the few issues that are deal-breakers for me...I will vote for such candidates regardless of "party" affiliation and regardless of whether I think they will win or not.  Where I will still likely differ with many "Libertarians" and other third-party folks is that I have no illusions about such candidates actually winning their office. If people want to support them, fine; I'm not going to tell them not to do so...I may well be supporting the same candidate but I don't really expect third-party candidates to win; at least not at the national level which leads me back to the last line of my first paragraph...if the country continues its death spiral armed revolution may come but I neither desire it nor think it will ultimately have a desirable outcome.

I think you are wrong and his post following yours proves it; he wants an absence of government. What he refuses to understand that in with an absence of government you WILL have violence and the strong preying on the week and acting out their baser instincts.

You cannot have "A" without having "B" which is why a democratic republic guided by a constitution is ALWAYS the better option unless, as Oh Shoot so correctly pointed out that if yo are going to advocate anarchism, best be well prepared for the resultant anarchy.

There are, of course, a lucky few who will never have any serious health problems and live a very long life. However, after years of exhaustive study and research I have come to one, inescapable conclusion about "Cancer" which is that almost everything in existence can cause it and that the only 100% guarantee of avoiding it is to die before you get it.   Therefore, whenever I hear "it can cause cancer" I simply tune it out as the garbage it is.

Well, I guess if someone doesn't like the "contract" called our Constitution he/she could more to another country as a way to "opt out" or I suppose they could refuse to obey any law at all; not sure how far that will get them.   When people start talking about the Constitution as a contract that they "didn't sign" (and by extension,I would assume, have no obligation to follow/abide by) it starts sounding a lot like the ridiculous and dangerous "sovereign citizen" movement

Yes and always has been...if you have an "official definition" that everyone agrees on please pass it along! :)   "As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy."  Marshall, Peter (2010). Demands The Impossible: A History Of Anarchism. Oakland, CA: PM Press.

Yeah...based on what he said there I believe he doesn't want any/would prefer no government at all...he made it quite clear that he doesn't trust people to crate a government...that any government is an infringement on his "rights".  You can intemperate what he said differently if you like.

Adherence to the Constitution?  I suggest you look again at what he said...   Someone who would never seek to create a government is someone who is saying he doesn't want a government. That is not advocating adherence to the Constitution or any other method of government. He also said specifically that he is an anarchist...that word does not describe someone who wants to adhere to any government; in fact, quite the opposite.

There is, in fact, no one definition of anarchism that someone can claim as the ‘right one” so if you are trying to say I’m using the “wrong one” I would say the claim is moot. For purposes of the discussion/my posts the definition I’m using would be that an anarchist is anyone who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism which is a society without government or law (and in fact there can be no “law” without some form of government) which is what Chuckshoes indicated in his prior post he wanted and is what I am and have been responding to. How someone else would define an anarchist is immaterial for purposes of this discussion.   Sure, bad stuff happens and in an world with no government and no laws there would be nothing anyone could do about it…no redress of grievances…no justice.

We are a representative democracy (which is significantly different than a pure democracy) guided by a constitution. When our representatives act against our rights then we have the right to replace them with people who will respect our rights.  If the people don't do their job that isn't the fault of government nor justification for advocating no government at all.   No one has ever said that our form of government is perfect, only that, so far, it is the best ever devised by man and certainly better than zero government of any kind.

It has everything to do with anarchy when one, as one here is, is proposing no government/rules of any kind which is what I was responding to.   Further, if what you are doing on your property/how you are using your property adversely affects me/my property then your actions have crossed the boundaries of your property and are impacting me and infringing on my rights.

All human beings have God-given rights but people cannot enjoy those rights without laws to codify and protect them and to settle the conflicts that will always arise between individuals when rights conflict with each other.   There can be no laws to codify and protect those rights or to settle those conflicts without government to institute those laws and the organizations that enforce them and resolves conflicts (police, courts, etc).   Anyone who wants anarchy...no government...no laws of any kind is not a champion of "individual rights" no matter how much they claim they are. Rather, they are a champion of animalistic behavior where the bullies and predators pray on everyone else.

Yes...do look at the context.   The US. IS a representative democracy; is also a constitutional republic in that we are guided by a constitution. I'm not sure why you care since you have stated you want no government of any kind.   As to the "property rights"; yes..I believe people have a right to voluntarily come together and set rules and standards for themselves just as I believe that people have a right to enter into contracts that set fort what each party is expected to do and what each is expected to receive.  Further, thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people living in close proximity to each other as they do in modern society absolutely must have rules and standards for the protection of everyone's rights.  You can bemoan that all you wish but your moaning will not change the necessity of modern society.

I have come to the conclusion think that the best way to treat states like NY, CT, NJ and the like who want to enact draconian and unconstitutional firearm regulations is for good men and women to vote with their feet.  There are other places to live (and I would submit, better places to live)...let these states that continue to do stupid things such as enact these gun laws and continue out of control spending to sink into the cesspool they are creating for themselves.   If enough people and businesses left these states might just get a clue and it they didn't then at lest the good people wouldn't be there to suffer with the idiots.

I have never said anywhere or even hinted that a democracy is better than a representative democracy or that "majority vote trumps the rights of the individual".

Because government, even with its faults and pitfalls is the ONLY thing that can work and a representative democracy is the best form of government any group has yet devised.

Some people can but as a whole, people can't be trusted - people have proven that for as long as we've had recorded history. If people always did the right thing by others we wouldn't be in the mess we are in...we wouldn't have men kidnapping and killing (and who knows what else) to 10 year old little girls like the guy just arrested today.

The concept of government is not nearly as flawed as the concept of anarchy.  

One has zero to do with the other.   I can't help it if third-party candidates have little to no chance, especially on the national level, to get elected but that has nothing to do with my being all for all incumbents getting voted out of office. Despite our disagreements I can't believe you can't see the difference between the two issues.

If you think I am opposed to or believe that I think it "extremist nonsense" to vote out every current sitting politician then you've never really read and understood any of my posts here.  It's never going to happen but I welcome the effort.   I'm just opposed to "killing them" because of differing political/philosophical views because there are other options short of murder.

Lets see...Hitler was a dictator killing millions of his own people who would never be removed from office except by death who was by most any standard you could name, a "military' target. I see nothing comparable to Hitler's Germany and the United States today.   We don't "kill" legislators and members of the press who disagree with us politically; we vote them out of office and stop reading their press.   If some of you folks really want to storm Congress and start killing the legislators whom you disagree with I can't stop you but you are never going to get me to say you have the right to do that as long as the power of the vote exists.

I don't have any "feelings" about him one way or the other. What does he have to do with anything here?

I know this isn't really "fair" of me to make this observation but I can't help but wonder if we aren't seeing the natural result of a Government Motors vehicle built by UAW workers.   I mean...putting government and a union together to get something done...is it any wonder that the damn thing would catch fire! :)

I, for one, am immensely glad that we don't have a Confederate Stats of America today but if by some chance the CSA has won the war and we did have two countries where there used to be one I've not doubt that both would be just as screwed up as the current USA is.

You can get as frustrated as you want but based on the legislators I've personally talked with as well as what others have told me (who are much more involved in this than I have time to be) there simply aren't enough legislators in Tennessee right now who are willing to vote for constitutional carry...yet.   If you've got other information...if you've sat down and discussed this with enough legislators that lead you to believe otherwise then please share that information.