77 votes

An Anarchist's Frustration

You believe that war is just when an American flag is present on the battlefield. I do not.

You say that taxation is the price we pay for civilization. I disagree.

You claim that men with guns and badges have a higher claim on my life and property because they were elected, or appointed, to a position of power. I am offended.

You think that an organization who has the final say in any disagreement, even involving itself; a monopoly on aggressive force; the sole power to declare legal tender; and the ability to fund itself through involuntary means isn't going to abuse this power? I know better.

Yet somehow, I am the idealist?

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

I know many liberty lovers are not anarchists, as I am, but surely you understand my frustration when someone claims, "Oh, you're just being idealistic."




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

Feet on ground

I always end up getting kind of lost in these rather theoretical/ideological threads.

I can't help but remarking, if that can help to save some time to either (or both) sides of the argument, that it may also be a good idea to re-ponder on the title that shows up, up above [scroll up].

"Daily Paul"

"Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America"

I have always paid attention to titles (and posting rules).

And I know that, to some extent, discussion websites are usually flexible around things that pertain to their own motto/announced design intent, relevant ontologies, etc.

However, I have the weakness to believe that, at least if one cares about not spending too much energy and to stay focused, it's likely also a good idea not to lose sight of those - titles, motto, design intent (and posting rules, of course).

In my understanding, the Daily Paul was not even meant, for instance, from his creator/owner Michael, to be solely dedicated to the messenger - Dr. Ron Paul - or whoever else is deemed the messenger to follow for action/education. Nor that it would solely be dedicated to the libertarian philosophy, or objectivism a la Ayn Rand, or what else I know.

But that's the line and tokens I try not to lose sight of:

Restoration. Constitutional government. United States of America.

So, folks...

What EXACTLY do WE want to be talking about / defending / helping the cause thereof, ON HERE?

I understood some anarchists crave about recovering many dimensions of "Liberty" shared with, say, "Libertarians", or "Constitutionalists", or etc. I got that.

But are our "endlessly" recurring (okay, maybe exaggerating a bit) ideological debates distractions the best way to serve the cause for Liberty?

I really doubt we have much time left. Time is ticking out before tyranny roots itself past the point of no return, I'm afraid.

I'm really concerned. Please refresh yourself about the boiling frog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

And then, read this:

http://www.dailypaul.com/271532/pentagon-gun-protests-low-le...

Can anyone see where I am going? CAN, ANYONE?

Very seriously:

We ought to have drawn our ideological line in the sand for good by now, if we hope to follow up with meaningful, consistent, useful (and peaceful, preferably) action for Liberty recovery.

That's mine anyway: just in the title up above.

Is it just me?

It's about A RESTORATION.

Of something under ongoing, sustained destruction:

THE CONSTITUTION - the texts of which ARE FURTHER DISCARDED, BY THE MINUTE.

And give back A GOVERNMENT WORTH OF THE NAME to THE PEOPLE of the United States of America.

'HTH, &

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

???

.................................................

Anarchist

I couldn't agree more.

It seems more than obvious NONE of the posters who advocate against Anarchy understand the true meaning of the word or have even looked up the literature.

Anarchist

Great post, wonderful synopsis (so to speak).

I think Gerard Caseys book "Libertarian Anarchy" helps move the topic along and gives some excellent examples of just such a society. However minute they may be.

I also enjoy the work by Butler Shaffer as well, another advocate of an Anarchistic society. Then there's this:

"I am an anarchist. I suppose you came here, the most of you, to see what a real, live anarchist looked like. I suppose some of you expected to see me with a bomb in one hand and a flaming torch in the other, but are disappointed in seeing neither. If such has been your ideas regarding an anarchist, you deserved to be disappointed. Anarchists are peaceable, law-abiding people. What do anarchists mean when they speak of anarchy? Webster gives the term two definitions – chaos and the state of being without political rule. We cling to the latter definition. Our enemies hold that we believe only in the former." ~ Lucy Parsons

Link: http://lewrockwell.com/barnett/barnett36.1.html

"The Art of not Being Governed", "The Conscience of an Anarchist", "Men Against the State", have helped to open up thoughts on Anarchy and why people (who have been indoctrinated by the public school system) so vehemently, and at times violently, oppose just such an idea.

"Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." Thomas Paine

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Pot - Kettle - Black...

"Insulting people isn't "a logical" defense of Anarchism.
Submitted by FreedomsReigning"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Inulting people is boring and counterproductive.

I'm not interested in insulting Anarchists. I'm interested in exposing them as frauds and users who can't explain their broken ideas. I LOVE winning ideas. I LOVE winning the debate for liberty, so why do I not love Anarchism?

Because Anarchism is a losing idea and a path to total failure.

jrd3820's picture

ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ITF4HoRZRY

Go get them guys!!!!!!!!!

Everything you think we need

Everything you think we need government for can be done by a free-market. From security, prisons, law enforcement, and even law. Let Robert Murphy explain...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSeYEz67Se4

He has lots of good videos and articles. See: "Wouldn't warlords take over?". My answer to that is, "Haven't they already?"

"War is a Racket" - Maj. General Smedley Butler

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

My answer to that is "then

My answer to that is "then why change one system of warlords for another"?

Ventura 2012

Well, the point is that

Well, the point is that warlords wouldn't take over.

Do read: http://mises.org/daily/1855

"War is a Racket" - Maj. General Smedley Butler

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Yeah, Im just responding to

Yeah, Im just responding to the relevance of your response. I don't totally disagree with the article, I do think that some sort of peaceful equilibrium in anarchy is possible I just don't think its possible to get there or that the equilibrium is significantly better than what we can achieve in a more realistic and palatable system.

Ventura 2012

That is a very fair

That is a very fair argument...

"War is a Racket" - Maj. General Smedley Butler

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

wolfe's picture

A favor....

I have interest in many of the lines of conversation within this thread and similar, but have a hard time sifting through the comments, especially because many are simply repeating previous points, or ad hominem attacks.

If interested, I would love to see the various statements in support of minarchism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/271331/anti-anarchist-thread

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Cyril's picture

And here's my Constitutionalist's Frustation:

And here's my Constitutionalist's Frustation:

the TRUTH is...

YOU, WE ALREADY LIVE IN AN ANARCHY.

The laws ARE GONE, in case you have not noticed.

Government chosen by the People and controlled by the People IS NO MORE, either.

All we have now IS THOUSANDS OF PERVERTED LAWS. With PSEUDO-GOVERNMENT THUGS.

Can you kindly POINT OUT me difference, exactly, between having NO LAWS AT ALL, NO GOVERNMENT, and ALL LAWS AND AN OVERBLOATING GOVERNMENT PERVERTED ALL AT ONCE?

Well, I see ... N O N E.

The U.S. Constitution, at least up to the 13th Amendment WAS ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.

Before they corrupted it.

Yes, WHAT WE HAVE NOW is a very conveniently fuzzy mix of ANARCHY with COLLECTIVISM, under the MONIKER DISGUISES of "PROGRESSIVISM" (see your dear Democrats) or of "NEO-CONSERVATISM" (see your dear GOP).

This is, TODAY, in the United States of America:

PEPSI vs. COKE ANARCHY'S RULE OF THE ONE MOB POWER (in FAKE money and REAL guns and drones) WITH THE MORE BRUTE FORCE... to brainwash the youths and mobs, to control the corporatists, to buy the cronies and the politicians.

Yes, YOU, WE indeed LIVE IN AN ANARCHY TODAY.

It is just UNDER A VERY SOPHISTICATED DISGUISE WITH LEGIONS OF REGULATOR MINIONS AND TONS AND TONS OF REGULATIONS...

TO SERVE THE FORCE and subject the People to it.

The Constitution's small government principles AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS are, REALLY... virtually...

G O N E .

We seem to have some remnants of the 1st Amendment we can use...

but, FOR HOW MUCH LONGER ?

Now, good luck with trying to convince TODAY'S ANARCHISTS IN CHARGE, WHO HAVE THE BIGGEST GUNS (while they are coming for yours) that you have a better implementation of anarchy in mind, to have everybody try next.

That ain't gonna be easy.

Meanwhile, I'll stick to the denouncing THE BETRAYAL AGAINST THE FOUNDING TEXTS and DEFENDING THEIR RESTORATION :

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

'Hope it helps, &

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Chaos by government design not anarchy

Anarchy has laws the real laws Malum in se, ( things evil in themselves murder,rape, theft) laws where actual harm is done to people which are recognized as legitimate not the system of the state which prohibits things in which no harm is done.

see

Malum Prohibitum: The Evil Legal Language of Progressivism by William L. Anderson
http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson357.html

What we have is the government creating the Hobesean All against the All, this is chaos not anarchy.

Anarchy rejects the rulers not law.

Cyril's picture

"Anarchy rejects the rulers not law."

"Anarchy rejects the rulers not law."

Okay. But then, how do YOU guarantee that all will :

1. REMEMBER there is even a law?

2. BOTHER to read or understand it?

3. BOTHER to respect it?

4. ALLOW those who are, precisely: a) LAW-ABIDING, b) honest, c) peaceful, d) productive people, e) minding ONLY their own business, to continue be protected by it - The Law?

Do you think all men are what is commonly referred to by "angels"? Or CAN even be? Or even that most can EVER be so?

I don't. I would love the contrary to be true.

But it's NOT the facts. That is : it's not what History shows.

The FACTS are SOME men, in ALL times, in ALL places, will ALWAYS try abuse, steal, deceive, suppress others -even, PHYSICALLY- who are in their way for whatever goal they pursue.

This is human nature. Most people are willing to live peacefully with others... until they get TO WANT MORE, more "whatever" (power, property, fame, allegiance, or a mix thereof) and DENY others' natural rights and forget where they came from, themselves.

I DO NOT say that ALL people are DOOMED to be become evil or abusers.

What I say is : ANYONE CAN possibly become so. ANY time.

And that's where you need the law and something, some people to SERVE it (the Righteous Law) - and not use it, as today (the Law Perverted).

So, you need SOME law enforcement.

You need SOME courts.

You need SOME people-controlled government.

The SMALLEST POSSIBLE ONE, granted.

But you need SOME.

And YOU WANT ALL OF THE ABOVE IN PERMANENT CHECK by the People, in case SOME try to abuse their prerogatives.

That is EXACTLY WHY the founders have put A SECOND Amendment after the FIRST.

The first is to allow EVERYONE to be able to speak their mind FREELY, including AGAINST WHATEVER government they had formerly put in place.

The second is to allow EVERYONE to be able to REFUSE to be subjected by the latter as well.

Every single of the first 13th Amendments has only but one or a few ORTHOGONAL purposes to PROTECT the inalienable rights to life, move, association, speech, property, and justice rendered by the peers.

Every other of the amendments starting with the 14th and on are SUSPECTS.

But when Ron Paul said "the Constitution has failed", IMO, he DID NOT mean the texts have failed the people. Instead, in my view, he meant :

THE PEOPLE HAS BEEN FAILED BY A CONSTITUTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.

WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR.

AND WE DON'T GET WHAT WE HAVE NEGLECTED TO DEFEND AND PROTECT.

THIS IS LIFE.

If ***I*** NEGLECT my kids' education, then ***I*** CANNOT expect them TO NOT WASTE THEIR OWN LIVES, later on.

EVEN IF ***I*** educate them well, ***I*** am not even sure it will enable them to reach out to their own happiness later on.

But THAT is the best ***I*** CAN DO. And the minimum ***I*** MUST DO.

If I care, that is.

"EX NIHILO, NIHIL."

And, WHETHER we like it OR NOT, IT IS EVEN MORE OF A SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY, with the texts we ONCE claimed we care about:

Foundation texts are NOT living things ABLE to defend themselves.

They are ONLY pieces of records which shouldn't change in their interpretation (unlike what THE TRAITORS do with them today), and thus, it is men WHO decide to not follow them, because THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDAS against the People that the texts, if they were followed, would continue protect.

THE PEOPLE HAS FAILED THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS HOW THE CONSTITUTION "FAILED".

Now we have to deal with it. It happened MANY OTHER TIMES in past History, in other countries, civilizations, cultures - FOR MILLENNIUMS.

This is NOTHING NEW.

AT ALL.

MERE NEGLECT OF THINGS THAT MATTER IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, AND ITS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

Our current and future scientific, technological knowledge, WILL NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING about it.

Beyond that, it may become a religious/faith question for some, but that should remain optional. AND PERSONAL, PRIVATE, INTIMATE, out of one's FREE WILL, that the same Bill of Rights' 1st Amendment ALREADY acknowledges, anyway.

Which is A GOOD SIGN that the text WAS POSITIVE. RIGHT FROM THE START.

And STILL IS, IMO.

...

Therefore,

Let us just FIGHT BACK to restore the Constitution, at least up to the 13th Amendment, inclusive, and preferably NOT BEYOND it.

There is no doubts in my mind that if we would just go back to a Constitution with the first 13th Amendments ONLY, then prosperity, justice, and peace would be restored for all.

That wouldn't get rid of the criminal behaviors. But at least The People, anew, would have a word to say against those.

Unlike today :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Just my views, anyway.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Tu es 100% correct, mais il y

Tu es 100% correct, mais il y a trop de jeunes ici qui n'a pas d'education. Ils ne vivent pas a le monde realle. Peut-etre apres ils avaient travayer des annees ils penseront comme nous. C'est a Dieu.

J'espere que mon francais est bien. Il y longtemps depuis que je l'avais parle. Et il est plus difficile a ecrire.

Cyril's picture

Side note: really, you can stop worrying

Er..

Side note: really, you can stop worrying about your written french.

It is more than good. I wish more french would even be able to spell and conjugate as good as you do. Serious. It's one of those languages you can never tame completely anyway in written form, even as native speaker. I hope you knew!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

eh I only worry because I

eh I only worry because I have not been able to use it in years. So, I am afraid that I can no longer use it as I should be able to.

Cyril's picture

Hehe... vous etes de retour avec votre francais? :)

Hehe... vous etes de retour avec votre francais? :)

Woa, visiblement, la langue de Moliere, ca vous manque!

Je comprends. J'ai rien contre bavarder en l'utilisant, mais le DP n'est peut etre pas l'endroit le plus approprie pour ca... mais j'ai pas de pbm avec les pm, juste pour info. ;)

A plus. :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Mais, le semestre prochaine,

Mais, le semestre prochaine, j'ai dis une blague a un etudiant qui est etudiant avec moi a l'u. Et je l'ai dis en francais. Tu sais cette blague?

"Un fermier avais eu un cochon qu'ils voudrait vendu.
Pour faire plus facile vendre il a dit que le cochon peut faire l'addition.
Un jour, un homme est approche le fermier et il a dit 'cet cochon peut faire l'addition?'
Et le fermier a reponse 'oui il peut le faire'
L'homme a dit 'laisse-moi voire'
Donc, the fermier a dit au cochon '2 et 7 et quoi?'
Le cochon a dit 'neuf, neuf neuf, neuf'
L'homme semblait qu'il l'aimait mais ca c'etait pas suffit
Donc, le fermier a dit au cochon '4 et 5 c'est quoi?'
Le chocon a dit 'neuf, neuf, neuf, neuf'
L'homme ne pouvait pas cru, il a dit 'laisse-moi lui demande'
Et le fermier a dit 'ok'
Et l'homme a dit '3 et 5 et quoi?'
Et le fermier a tire le taille de chocon
et le chocon a dit 'HUIT, HUIT, HUIT, HUIT, HUIT!'

OK that's my french joke. Probably not in the best french but I like to tell it anyway : )

Haha d'accord. Je comprends,

Haha d'accord. Je comprends, Un PM en ton future peut-etre. : )

Your claim is ancient

"The FACTS are SOME men, in ALL times, in ALL places, will ALWAYS try abuse, steal, deceive, suppress others -even, PHYSICALLY- who are in their way for whatever goal they pursue.

This is human nature."

Saint Augustine came up with this notion over 1500 years ago.
You're both wrong though. People are a result of their experiences.

The problem though is not that you are wrong, it's that your philosophy is inconsistent and makes you an enabler.

Any such force which seeks to curtail the predation of man by men, will be comprised of men, and is therefore a failed notion.

Furthermore, by seeking to create constructs of control by which to prevent predation, there has been established the first objective of a predator – the creation of the means of control.

Cyril's picture

Failed notion?

"Any such force which seeks to curtail the predation of man by men, will be comprised of men, and is therefore a failed notion."

I am not even sure it is a failed notion. Hence, I'm not sure I was wrong.

Think about it.

If it was a failed notion, why would anyone have bothered putting the 2nd Amendment between the first and the third?

ESPECIALLY, coming from the same men who were defining THE TERMS OF EXTENT OF POWER OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FUTURE AND SURROUNDING PEOPLE.

If it was a failed notion, it would never have been deemed SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to precisely ENABLE the people stay in check of their own government, in whatever future, immediate and farther - AND BY COUNTER-FORCE COMING FROM THE PEOPLE, PRECISELY - if necessary.

Everything you said holds with past Monarchies and Democracies, I suppose.

But my claim is the U.S. Constitution is something unique in History if only by the mere presence of lines such as found in the first and second Amendments.

So, I maintain my other initial claim:

THE PEOPLE has failed the Constitution. BY NEGLECT.

And in my view, this REMOVES nothing from the intrinsic value of the text in the first place.

We can bring the horse to the river. And he may still not be willing to drink from it.

But the river is -STILL- THERE.

The horse may be in denial or stubborn, but WE TRIED.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The second amendment enables

The second amendment enables everyone equally.
This is distinct from, for example, "Group X has superior authority over everyone else, with these privileges and duties..."
Whether for the intention of safety or not, the latter enables a group of would-be do-gooders to do as they will, be they predators or angels.

You know that though - you keep saying we are run by gangs.
I agree with you. I believe in no gangs. I believe that nobody has any authority over anybody else. I believe that when we grant such authority, it enables the worst among us to do as they will.

More importantly though, the second amendment is just a reflection of a natural right we would have regardless of it being in print. There is no natural right to 'have authority over others and punish evil at your whim' as must exist with a state.

Cyril's picture

My only question, following your logic, is then:

My only question, following your logic, is then:

how are you going to ensure that only "good people" are the result of would-be only "good experiences"?

I really have no clue how you could do that, if only to try improve on the status-quo, which is non-crime vs. crime.

Also, how to measure the performance/outcome of your solution vs. traditional forms of (desirable) small government?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You can't.

You can't, but men are not -inherently- good or evil. That is the point. Augustine was wrong.

Comparing the externalities of anarchy and minarchy is irrelevant.
There is no moral imperative to institute minarchy. Anarchy is, however, a moral imperative because it is the only system which does not presuppose coercion.

Cyril's picture

I beg to differ.

I beg to differ.

St Augustine was right. All men CAN become evil.

Rousseau, if you wish, was wrong, yes (all men were good for him; we saw what it led to in France, 1791-1795; he, FOOL).

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Any such force which seeks to curtail the predation of man...

So, you find it's OK to just...

... DO NOTHING to help the voluntarily law abiding men/women (most people) defend themselves against predators (in minorities, but always around)?

That was my initial point:

so, that all comes down to who has the most and biggest guns.

This is what we have already today.

We are only nitpicking whether we ought to accept it as coming from "(too big) government" or "any random criminal gang we're unlucky enough to have in our neighborhood".

Aren't we?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

No

What guarantee does one have that the police are not predators?
You seem to believe that at least some are. You said yourself that all are capable of abuse. If all are capable of abuse, then why place anyone in authority over anyone else? That is why the notion fails.

If men are predators, then the worst thing to do is enable some men via power hierarchy.

Without such structures, all men have the same foothold. This is where we should be.