Anarchist Stuff

[guerilla]

I think the anarchist response would be something along the lines of this sheep mentality being a product of the state, which you may or may not agree with. But even if that's not the case, and without state education/mass indoctrination the people still feel the need to be told what to do, why does it have to be under the threat of violence?

The statist rationalization is a non sequitur.

"Because some people behave like sheep, everyone needs to be treated like sheep."

I hope I don't have to explain to anyone why this statement is blatantly false.

If people want to behave like sheep, that's an argument for anarcho-capitalism or anarchism or voluntarism. Those who do not, should be able to do their thing while the sheep do something else.

We don't apply the same ethics to dogs and humans because dogs cannot interact on the same ethical level as humans. If some biological humans want to behave like animals, why should that necessitate any penalty on those of us humans who want to behave as humans?

 

[REIMktg]

My understanding of AnCap at this point in time:

AnCap – Without any superseding Public Authority/Govt/Rulers and with absolute private property rights and absolute rights over ones Self (inclusively “Rights”). With the added stipulation that those Rights cannot infringe upon or in any way impose upon another's Rights. Rights do not supersede association/agreement/contracts (“Associations”) that each Self enters/agrees to voluntarily.

To this you respond that "Rights" is a wrong word and as such I am inferring that you are implying it has other implications.

If you could, describe the implications of how my understanding of AnCap differs from yours because I do not understand the difference.

You then state that their are no exceptions to man's sovereignty. I only added the stipulation to incorporate the fact that a Self can indeed subject their Sovereignty through voluntary Association. Is this not true?

If it is not true then I cannot enter into an Association that supersedes my Sovereignty prior to that Association. I do not believe you can withdraw the stipulation unless your definition of "Sovereign" includes this ability.

If it does, then my definition is not wrong inasmuch as it is worded differently.

If you believe individuals should be sovereign, and you understand free markets, there is absolutely no reason not to be an anarcho-capitalist. In that situation, you would be aligning your beliefs and understanding with your ethics and your actions.

If we could let's clarify the definition relative to my understanding before we move forward. Hopefully this is in line with your intent of the thread. It may help others reading this as I am certain it will help me.

 

[guerilla]

Unarmed Gunman's post above was, in my admittedly short but frenzied time as an anarchist, the very best argument "against" anarchism that I've ever heard.

You need to do a lot more scholarship.

Humans know the difference between good and evil,

Indeed, most children grasp basic ideas like right and wrong, property rights etc. It's when we become adults, and start to rationalize violence (probably because of how much violence there is in homes and schools) that we lose touch with principles, and become, what is cleverly called "pragmatic".

If Jesus was pragmatic, he wouldn't have died on the cross. He would have cut a deal with the Romans to say his Dad was Zeus or something. Compromise of one's values and beliefs after all, is the backbone of pragmatism.

The mass of sheeple out there aren't evil. Perhaps they haven't had the opportunity to be so yet, but I see them as salvageable, potential good people if they just got free of the statist propoganda that is everywhere in the world today.

Ignorance doesn't have to be evil to be dangerous. Snakes and bears aren't evil. They aren't capable of moral agency. But they can kill you.

So can the sheeple.

Enter Ron Paul. As we found out the hard way, even with the sheeple waking up in record numbers like never before and the delegates finally obtaining real majority numbers in most states, such a person simply can't even get on the stage to be elected. The evil is too strong, the system too rigged.

If Ron Paul was elected, he would have just participated in more evil than he already was.

You are still one of these guys who thinks that moral people can engage an evil system and not be corrupted. The entire election system is a farce, even if Paul was elected, that wouldn't make his time in office legitimate in any ethical sense.

It's a delusional belief Luke.

If the founding fathers' vision had been defended over the last 100 or so years then perhaps I'd agree with you. But it was not and we don't have the country we'd need to even allow for this option.

Read some Lysander Spooner. The American people were sold out before the ink was dry on the Constitution. Any educated anarchist knows the Articles of Confederation were infinitely superior to the Constitution of 1776.

You hurt the cause of ideas when you conflate Ron Paul, politics and Constitutionalism with Anarchism.

 

[guerilla]

To this you respond that "Rights" is a wrong word and as such I am inferring that you are implying it has other implications.

It's not a "wrong word", it's that you use it incorrectly.

Where do rights come from?

If you could, describe the implications of how my understanding of AnCap differs from yours because I do not understand the difference.

Again, where do rights come from? You referenced "rights" at least 3 times.

You then state that their are no exceptions to man's sovereignty.

If there are, then he isn't sovereign.

I only added the stipulation to incorporate the fact that a Self can indeed subject their Sovereignty through voluntary Association.

That's an exercise of sovereignty.

Only a sovereign can "act" (take purposeful action).

 

[guerilla]

 

[JakeStratham]

Krugman is not amused.

 

[dsiomtw]

Damn this is one serious conversion you guys are having. Wish I was more up to speed on this shit. Carry on...

 

[REIMktg]

You want to discuss my use of “Rights”. Why can't we take this discussion in a straight line rather than in multiple directions.

We started when you wanted my definition of Anarcho-Capitalism to which I answered:

AnCap – Without any superseding Public Authority/Govt/Rulers and with absolute private property rights and absolute rights over ones Self (inclusively “Rights”). With the added stipulation that those Rights cannot infringe upon or in any way impose upon another's Rights. Rights do not supersede association/agreement/contracts (“Associations”) that each Self enters/agrees to voluntarily.

So you want to eliminate the word “Rights” because of its implications. Something I specified in the last post. So let's eliminate “Rights” because “Rights” could imply a “Rights Giver” whereas Sovereign implies that there is no “Rights Giver”. the Sovereign have their own authority within themselves by definition. Though this parsing of words does not change the application or practice of AnCap nor the operational accuracy of my definition. Though for purity you want to eliminate any possible appeal to a higher authority hence the objection to “Rights”. Fine. I will add that to my understanding of AnCap.

You did clarify, that your definition of a Sovereign is that the Sovereign can subject some of their Sovereignty through voluntary Association. I felt this was important for the same reason you wanted to eliminate “Rights” from the definition. I think it is a mistake to not specify this ability plainly because its presumption is not as plain as you may think.

Your definition of a free market at its core is then voluntary associations and private property?

From this I would say my understanding of AnCap was correct from the beginning save for your objection over “Rights” and therefore a “Rights Giver”.

So are we now in agreement that I understand the definition of AnCap?

 

[joshman1204]

Thank you guerilla! I dont know that I agree with what you have laid out here but I truly appreciate that you opened my eyes to something I was unaware of.

I was raised in a very non-political home. My parents have never voted as have I nor my wife ever voted in out lives. I couldnt even tell you the difference of a republican or democrat and am truly not affiliated with any government party at all. I do realize that I need to learn more about government and how it affects my life and the lives of my family.

I will certainly come back to this thread when I have the time to do it justice as I feel there is a tremendous amount to be learned here.

Thanks guerilla and lukep for the eye opener!

 

[guerilla]

A quick note about rights. I have issue with it because it's irrelevant to the subject matter, and if we don't have the same understanding of what rights are and are not, we're going to be talking past each other, which again, serves neither of us.

I'd be happy to talk to you about rights sometime if you would like.

You did clarify, that your definition of a Sovereign is that the Sovereign can subject some of their Sovereignty through voluntary Association.

This is called "agency". I can ask someone to act on my behalf, but they can never act beyond what I could do for myself.

Example; I am harassing you. You ask Jake, who is a really big tough guy, to step in and defend you. This is something you can assign to an agent, because you can engage in self-defense.

An opposite of this (but what many people accept as part and parcel of statism) is you hire Jake, to get $100 from me so your kid can go to public school. Since you never had capacity to take money from me, you can't assign this right to Jake as your agent (or, a politician/bureaucrat).

I think it is a mistake to not specify this ability plainly because its presumption is not as plain as you may think.

Dude, this is the story of my life. Believe me, I know.

Your definition of a free market at its core is then voluntary associations and private property?

No. It implies voluntary associations and private property. If you have private property, then every exchange must be free market.

See, this is what I am always talking about. If you presume peace, you have to assume private property (or something compatible). Once you assume peace and private property, you have to assume that exchanges would have to be voluntary, or you don't have peace and private property.

If one is inclined to be logically consistent, then if you are for peace, that implies a lotta other stuff ethically, politically and perhaps philosophically.

A free market is simply exchange based on voluntarism and private property. It describes both the conceptual idea of exchange, the actual exchange and the potential for such an exchange.

So are we now in agreement that I understand the definition of AnCap?

Sure. Just make sure you understand the implications of this (and conversely, opposing it).

 

[guerilla]

I was raised in a very non-political home. My parents have never voted as have I nor my wife ever voted in out lives. I couldnt even tell you the difference of a republican or democrat and am truly not affiliated with any government party at all. I do realize that I need to learn more about government and how it affects my life and the lives of my family.

Well, don't start voting Josh. You're doing great without voting. Believe me. Once you start voting, then you start caring about what politicians say. And since they are all liars, that's really not great entertainment.

 

[lukep]

To your point about the threat of violence though, remember that the sheep are going to follow the shepherds. Anarchists (and other freethinkers) have no desire to lead and manipulate their fellow man, so they can never fill the role of the shepherd. Therefore, the shepherd with the staff will always have the attention of the sheep. It doesn't have to be with the threat of violence, but they will be led. Who else are the going to follow?

Your point doesn't address the likelihood of enough of the sheep waking up (once the state-driven propaganda is removed) that the basic structure of society changes so that leaders are no longer needed.

Right now they need to be led, but once the majority of them are as awake as I am now, the Majority will be hostile towards people who would lead and therefore the would-be leaders learn to STFU and go hide.

With all their leadership gone AWOL, the remaining sheep will need to either step up their game to get with the majority, or just go get stoned 24/7 instead, pretty much dropping out of the human race.

What I mean is the percentage of the population that happily go through life as a sheep (90%+) probably can not be changed much. For every person that wakes up, there is another sheep to take your place.

Judging by the way our youth is taking hold of the internet and learning in new ways with speed and freedom you and I never dreamed of before, I don't see how you could be right in this point. Even the people that the Paul campaign woke up should show you how we're headed in that direction faster than ever before, and the web is making it possible for even the smallest minds among us to grasp the concepts of true freedom, for the first time in history.

And, you're never going to be able to get rid of the shepherds because it is human nature for some to become leaders and fleece the herd, to take advantage of their fellow man - sometimes with the threat of violence, sometimes with graft, sometimes with superior intellect. It's been that way since the beginning of time, which makes it part of the human condition. Therefore, achieving a "voluntaryist society" is probably unachievable.

They'll still be bad guys, no doubt. But a voluntaryist society can deal with bad guys too... Far better than one where the state can protect them or even fund them to do their evil deeds.

You need to do a lot more scholarship.

Admitted. However I did misspeak; I should have said it was the best argument I've heard "On wickedfire." Oops. Stefbot alone has brought up many better arguments in his books to counter.

Ignorance doesn't have to be evil to be dangerous. Snakes and bears aren't evil. They aren't capable of moral agency. But they can kill you.

So can the sheeple.

Given, but my point was that the struggle we face is purely one of good versus evil, and individually, each of the sheeple has yet to pick a team.

So while they're dangerous together, each one must be enlightened if we ever want to see a Voluntaryist future.

You are still one of these guys who thinks that moral people can engage an evil system and not be corrupted. The entire election system is a farce, even if Paul was elected, that wouldn't make his time in office legitimate in any ethical sense.

Not true. Not anymore, at least. I think I've made my position clear on why Paul ran pretty recently. What I said above was to note the actions of his supporters, not him.

I'll try to find the Spooner stuff though; I admit I have some history to learn about the AoC.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Your point doesn't address the likelihood of enough of the sheep waking up (once the state-driven propaganda is removed) that the basic structure of society changes so that leaders are no longer needed.

Right now they need to be led, but once the majority of them are as awake as I am now...

I think you're giving the "unwashed masses" a little more credit than they deserve. It seems like you want to believe that they just need to be shown the way and they'll wake up. What I'm trying to explain is that they don't WANT to wake up. The truth is not hard to find, the fact that so little seek it should be evidence enough. If that isn't, just look at the entirety of human history. The vast majority have ALWAYS sought to be led.

Ignorance is bliss - always has been, always will be. The majority will never stop being sheep, it's part of the human condition. We are pack animals, and we always have been. Fighting human nature is futile, and any "society" that seeks to go against human nature will forever exist solely in textbooks and on forums. Anarchists (and other political freethinkers) will forever be a fringe group, a minority - sometime reviled, sometimes feared, mostly ignored, but forever irrelevant.

Judging by the way our youth is taking hold of the internet and learning in new ways with speed and freedom you and I never dreamed of before, I don't see how you could be right in this point.

The internet is viewed as this bastion of freedom, but really it's the greatest control mechanism the shepherds have ever had. It makes it a lot easier to tailor their message to the sheep, making it far easier and more efficient to control them. Who do you think developed the Internet? Where do you think that funding came from? Google and Facebook (in bed with the intelligence agencies from Day 1) are the greatest spy tools these governments have ever had. Do you realize how much easier it is to control people when you know everything about them?

Even the people that the Paul campaign woke up should show you how we're headed in that direction faster than ever before, and the web is making it possible for even the smallest minds among us to grasp the concepts of true freedom, for the first time in history.

I loved Dr. Paul's message and would have loved to see him get in and fuck shit up. But you do realize that voting for Paul is still voting to be led, right? Some of the more aggressive sheep just wanted a different type of shepherd, that's all. Happens all the time throughout history - we often refer to them as "revolutions", but all a revolution is, is the sheep leaving one flock to go to another.

They'll still be bad guys, no doubt. But a voluntaryist society can deal with bad guys too... Far better than one where the state can protect them or even fund them to do their evil deeds.

I'm not defending the State Luke, just telling you how it is. Saying that a voluntaryist society would be better isn't the point. If I were 9 feet tall I might be a better basketball player, but I'm not and I can't be, so it's a futile waste of time to imagine anything different. Don't get me wrong, it's a great intellectual exercise, but in the end that's all it will ever be.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Your point doesn't address the likelihood of enough of the sheep waking up (once the state-driven propaganda is removed) that the basic structure of society changes so that leaders are no longer needed.

Right now they need to be led, but once the majority of them are as awake as I am now, the Majority will be hostile towards people who would lead and therefore the would-be leaders learn to STFU and go hide.

I'm curious, do you have any idea how much of a wannabe cult leader you sound like?

 

[guerilla]

I'm curious, do you have any idea how much of a wannabe cult leader you sound like?

It's important to stick to ideas, not people or personality.

To discuss ideas, you have to understand them very well.

 

[Moxie]

We are pack animals, and we always have been.

Most wolves leave the pack at breeding age and go start their own.

Humans are attracted to groups and being lead though, so much so that why would there be a need to force people into them, or to prevent them from leaving?

The Amish are a big pack of people that exist in about the same form they would in a voluntary society. Nobody is forced to join and people are free to leave. They did not use violence to acquire their land and they have no desire to force their ways onto outsiders.

The US Amish population is about 250,000. Divide that by the total US population and we get about 1,250. Can you imagine a "USA" with that many voluntary communities? Some of them would have strict rules like the Amish, but others would be very different. There would be much variety to choose from, especially in comparison to Obama vs. Romney.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Most wolves leave the pack at breeding age and go start their own.

So do we, we call them families.

Can you imagine a "USA" with that many voluntary communities? Some of them would have strict rules like the Amish, but others would be very different. There would be much variety to choose from, especially in comparison to Obama vs. Romney.

So do it. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't go join a commune, I'm just pointing out that the majority of people have no interest in doing so. If they did, then more than 1/1250 would be doing so. The shit sounds good on paper, but the proof is in the pudding. The people have spoken and the people want Facebook, Lady Gaga and Jersey Shore more than they want voluntarism.

 

[Moxie]

The people have spoken and the people want Facebook, Lady Gaga and Jersey Shore more than they want voluntarism.

They're voluntarily choosing those things.

I'm talking about if the USA had no government, that many people would still freely choose to join groups that provided organization and leadership - but just like with music, there would a variety of styles and artists to pick from. Lady Gaga and Lil Wayne wouldn't be forced upon all 310 million people, even if someone had proven that everyone wants or needs music.



Why Government Should Be Voluntarily Chosen by Michael S. Rozeff

We have far more choice of fruit juices and drinks in a supermarket aisle than we do of government, and yet the choice of government probably has a far greater impact on our lives than whether we choose grape or cranberry juice.

If you think that you should have your choice of cereal, or spouse, or mode of transport, or job, or religion, even if the reason is simply that this is what you want, then, by the same token, you should have your choice of government if that is what you want.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

@moxie - where exactly do we disagree with each other? You lost me.

 

[bsisbs22]

Nick has a big dick.