So Eyesys ...

[Ted S.]

Ted S., Thank you for a well thought out response.

I am thankful that you and I live in a nation where your dissent may be voiced.

 

Touché

[Wingshooter]

Well do you think there are any gay ISIS members?

Easier for them to stay in the closet with the burka and all :rofl:

[R_Bert]

Easier for them to stay in the closet with the burka and all :rofl:

Just look for hairy toenails.......err.....OK....I guess not.

[Ted S.]

Downward spiral.

 

Language. NSFW

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKZRcIGnaqE

[mikegideon]

And if that pistol were to be compensated would that be over compensation ?

 

Yes. If you can't handle the regular recoil, then you're headed back in the girlie direction. Penis shrinks accordingly :)

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1187012" timestamp="1410050140"]Not intentionally. To be honest, I didn't really read the second paragraph. My eyes kinda glazed over after the "oh noes! Anarchy!" first paragraph. Not to insult or slight you, just a failing of mine. The Higgs quote is my response to that first paragraph. To your second paragraph, that question was very well answered by Ted. The market is very good at providing things people actually want and need, not what some folks in legislative halls [i]think[/i] everyone else should have.[/quote] It all sounds great until you get that one guy who decides he wants to steal stuff, kill, rape or rule the freedom loving anarchist society. Or worse, he gets together with some like minded fellows a Then you're screwed. I understand what you are sayung about the danger of the state- and i am an Ayn Rand libertarian all the way. I do also see the value of ordered liberty as our founders originally intended - and i see it as Dar superior to pure anarachy. You may be the most benevolent and non-violent anarchist, but you can't guarantee everyone would share your philosophy in this new world you are advocating.

[Hershmeister]

PS: and as proof of my point and to bring this post back On topic, consider the ISIS crew - they are not at all interested in your live and let live approach - whats your plan to deal with them and their ilk?

[Wingshooter]

PS: and as proof of my point and to bring this post back On topic, consider the ISIS crew - they are not at all interested in your live and let live approach - whats your plan to deal with them and their ilk?

Yep. They want to cut our heads off and are plotting to kill us

[Ted S.]

It all sounds great until you get that one guy who decides he wants to steal stuff, kill, rape or rule the freedom loving anarchist society. Or worse, he gets together with some like minded fellows a Then you're screwed.

 

Pretty much just described every government to ever exist. :rock:

Edited September 7, 2014 by Ted S.

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Ted S." post="1187136" timestamp="1410065872"]Pretty much just described every government to ever exist. :rock:[/quote] No a it describes every place in history where more than one HUMAN ever existed. Or if you prefer a religious reference - see the entire bool of genesis - from cain and able, to joseph and his jealous brothers. To Isaac and easu, to noah, to soddom and gomorrah, to the tower of babel. Your problem is you don't see the issue as a human foible but rather a problem of having a government.

[TMF]

No a it describes every place in history where more than one HUMAN ever existed.

Bingo.

The only manner in which to fight or deter this behavior is to have morally straight people who are willing to do violence on behalf of the weak to preserve their lives. That continuity of force does not exist in peaceful Utopias or collection of Utopias. This is why they would always fall victim to evil unless they had powerful allies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clod Stomper]

I've been called an anarchist.  I don't self-describe as such, though.  

 

In a perfect world, anarcho-capitalism would be a workable system.  But in a perfect world, so would communism (small c).  Unfortunately, the world we're afflicted with* is divided up into 3 different types of people.  1) Those who want to rule  2)  Those who want to BE ruled  3)  And those who want to be left the eff alone.   

 

The first two types greatly outnumber the third type.  I doubt that will ever change.  At least in the next few thousand years.

 

So the best we can do is try to limit the damage of the first two types.  This involves creating a government limited by the "rule of law" and the "consent of the governed".  

 

Believe me, I would prefer a system totally independent of a central entity.  But that just isn't realistic.  At this point, at least.  

 

 

 

 

 

*I know that a preposition is not a word you should end a phrase with.   :devil:

Edited September 7, 2014 by Clod Stomper

[Sam1]

Wow this thread turned interesting.

 

Anarchy would never survive, it has not and will not because the people involved only want the rule to apply towards their actions, not on actions applied against them.

 

Example: Anarchist loves to go do whatever say rob someone for some food.  Doesn't think he should be punished for it.  Next day the person that was robbed breaks into his house and murders his wife and children. Viola, you now have a situation that will not be deescalated until some form of a group gets involved whether it be a neighborhood watch, a police force or whatever.  And when that happens the "awesome" anarchist community is no longer following it's own beliefs.

 

Same with those silly protests they get involved in, the sheer fact that they are participating together organized in a group to send an authoritative message that they do not like the rules, is in itself contradictory to anarchy.

 

I always find the claim that anarchy is legit, rather humorous.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Sam1

[Ted S.]

Because I realize post 148 is a wee bit long:

 

Anarcho-Capitalism is what I advocate; it's a newer model of Anarchism, but there are quite a lot of other newer factions of Anarchism out there (just as all other ideologies). Anarcho-Capitalism is an eleutherophobes nightmare; it's the free-est natural point a person could theoretically be if they are conscious and responsible enough to live with that freedom. It's purely conjecture just as any other ideal is, but so is a functioning government that  works to the benefit of all people, or to the least, a functioning government that coerces its citizens as little as possible. It's as fanciful to think that that utopian standard such as this may exist,  as it is to think that a government in todays world can last for more than a couple hundred years (or even decades at this point) without massive failures, total regime changes, or some other major social/ideological schism that for all intensive purpose marks distinguishably new government.

 

ISIS is a great example of how government doesn't prevent people from killing, raping, stealing, etc. These things/people exist regardless of the existence of a government.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Ted S.

[Omega]

Meh,idealists make me shake my head. The only way for these people to exist is for a larger society to allow them to exist. As an anarchist society you have to be able to self sustain and in this day and age its impossible. Even some isolationist societies such as the Amish have to use some of our facilities which IMO they are not entitled to due their tax free status.

[Chucktshoes]

Personally, I find the idea that the very same people who can't be trusted to govern themselves can be trusted to select people to govern everyone to be fairly humorous.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Hershmeister]

Yes its amusing but propose an alternative that can exist in the world as it exists

[Chucktshoes]

And we are back to the Higgs quote I posted. The evils of anarchy are purely conjectural while the evils of the state are 100% factually documented. Propose to me a state that doesn't owe its existence to theft, kidnapping and murder? Edited September 8, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Hershmeister]

You are ducking my question yet again - this time with a question

[Chucktshoes]

No, I'm not ducking it. I am denying its validity. Statists always demand a perfectly working system from anarchists while completely ignoring the fact that the state is grossly guilty of all the things they say anarchy will bring. So when you say "show me how your ideas will work" when they haven't been tried, I only ask you to provide a single example of how the state can work free of 3 simple evils from the thousands of years its existence. I simply ask what your standing is to demand from me what you cannot produce yourself. Related to the subject of government theft, aka taxation. "The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution. It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman. In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated: Go to A— B—, and say to him that “the government” has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of “the government,” and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done, that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore. It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to support “the government,” it needs no further argument to show. "- Lysander Spooner Edited September 8, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Hershmeister]

You continue to focus on the taxation piece - give that a rest - we likely agree on much of that issue - however focus on the need for laws and enforcement thereof. Anarchy cannot deliver on that. Frankly your argumentation reminds me of Anjem Chaudry who when confronted with the evils of radical islam and shariah law in contries like saudi arabia, he replies by saying that they are not implenting it correctly - and then conveniently ducks shedding any light on what that might looks like - because he answer is of course tyranny.

[Chucktshoes]

The reason I focus on taxation is that without that theft, the state cannot provide for the enforcement of its edicts. Natural law is very simple. I own myself and therefore I own the fruits of my labor. I am responsible for the protection of my property and if I so choose, may voluntarily contract with a private entity to provide those services. If the law in question does not involve a violation of someone's life, liberty or property than it isn't law, but tyranny. Every other service government claims a monopoly over suffers in quality. Why would the courts be any different? Allow the market the opportunity to find the proper solutions.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1187486" timestamp="1410143739"]Frankly your argumentation reminds me of Anjem Chaudry who when confronted with the evils of radical islam and shariah law in contries like saudi arabia, he replies by saying that they are not implenting it correctly - and then conveniently ducks shedding any light on what that might looks like - because he answer is of course tyranny.[/quote] The very same thing applies to your defense of the state. I would say more so in that I don't claim to have all the answers. I only say this current way doesn't work and hasn't in every version ever tried, let's try another path.

[Hershmeister]

Sorry but there is no market solution for services the entire public needs. There is ways the problem of shirkers. If you have ever lived in a neighborhood you know that even with an HOA mandated fee to pay for common area upkeep, there are some who choose not to contribute. And as far as your natural law argument, who pays for the courts needed to adjudicate disputes? Or in your fantasy world are there no disputes or have you thought of every law we would need in our society and then pass around a petition for all the anarchsist to sign? And what if just a few anarchists have different views than you? How do you gain their acceptance of the society's rules? More examples of failed market solutions are fire protection. Fire services used to be available only on a contract basis. It did not work out too well. Your continued refusal to toss out even a notion of an alternate solution truly weakens you argument. Is a tyrannical state bad? Yes. Is an organized government better than pure anarchy? Yes - and until you can explain why not then thats where we are

[RC3]

Isnt it wonderful being able to have different opinions?