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."



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

There is law without government

natural law, don't kill, steal, commit fraud.
Anarchy is a political theory, which only deals with interpersonal interactions (politics). All interaction must be voluntary. You cannot use threats of violence or actual violence to force another person to behave as you wish.

Anarchy does not stand alone, it also needs the morality provided from non governmental groups such as churches, or by a belief in ethical behaviour without religion.

Ethical and moral behaviour come from commonly held principles, which are taught to children by the family and other societal organizations.

Anarchy : I cannot tell you to not ingest raw milk, or patronize prostitutes.
Morals: A principle that says you should not do certain things , which comes from within, (self government) and is taught by society (which is not government).

Once you allow some people to tax others that is not anarchy it is tyranny.

A voluntary association with free entry and exit is not and cannot be a government.

Lets stick with the definition of government a monopoly of force within a geographic area. Do not call voluntary association a government.

Do you need government to tell you how to buy a meal in a restaurant? NO! You know what to do, and you know that you cannot order a meal and not pay for it. This a voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.

These everyday interactions are by definition actions without rulers, there are rules.

If you do not follow the commonly held rules you are soon to be shunned, ostracised, or outlawed in the old English common law sense. This is the enforcement without a government.

On top of this you can contract with insurance companies, arbitrators, and collection agents, and reputation registries.

All of the above organizations are private market based and are paid for by fees from the organizations.

I like your post, and I

I like your post, and I believe you are saying the same things as myself, except I accept the fact it cannot ever be voluntary for everyone. That is not the nature of man and until you change that nature, which I believe is impossible, you'll never have what the anarchists are claiming is possible. This is the same exact reason, something we have seen in practice, that communism doesn't work. China is not a true communist state, there has never been a true communist state. They were all oligarchies.

That's my last 2 cents on thread.

Nature of man?

Well, thats a fine argument if you know of some celestial race of angels that can fill the ranks of government. We certainly wouldn't want to give it to a small number of hopelessly flawed or evil human beings.

All will not behave morally or ethically

All will not behave morally or ethically, deal fairly with the good, and defend yourself against the rest.
I personally believe that more than 95% are in the good.

So a society based on Anarchy is possible because the overwhelming majority will only perform voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges.

You just made my case for me.

You just made my case for me. Thanks. /end thread

This sums up proactively trying to establish anarchism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWwqxwZzl9I

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Wouldn't work well as a political party

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k18/zorrotmm/HerdingAnarch...

In all seriousness though, anarchists have no problem with human organizations. They're just against forced hierarchies backed by threats of violence.

Anarchists have LOTS of problems on their hands.

"They're just against forced hierarchies backed by threats of violence."

No they aren't. They want a free market of violence and coercion because they WANT 'forced hierarchies backed up with threats of violence' and they will use collective force, bought and paid for without any debate, representation or consent.

They aren't asking for the ability to defend themselves. They already can. What they want is the ability to attack other people with violence and coercion without facing justice from those who can't match them in their free market of injustice.

Anarchists are frauds and liars who hide behind liberty attempting to unleash chaos, misery, and injustice bought and paid for in their free market of violence and coercion. They can't defend their own ideas. Their ideas are indefensible, but they're REAL good at claiming what they stand for, yet betray what they stand for with everything they offer.

In the end, they don't think you can see through them to the ugly little destroyer hiding behind their empty words.

Well put.

Although I think you are a little harsh on anarchists. They are not all the same. Anarchism (no law) in practical reality has two possible outcomes:

a) Communism
b) fascism

Neither is great. Depending on their beliefs about fundamental human nature (how we will all treat each other when there's no law), anarchists look forward to one of these outcomes.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Lets review definitions

Communism: The state owns everything
Fascism: Merger of state and corporate power

If anarchism is the absence of a state, both political systems are impossible.

Impossible? No. Simpler.

"If anarchism is the absence of a state, both political systems are impossible."

Government is collective force.

Fascism: The merger of collective force and corporate power.
Communism: Collective force owns everything.

Anarchism no rulers

Anarchism no rulers, there is law natural law,

If there is no state or government who will enforce the communism or fascism?

Answer : No one.

I know what I will tolerate as acceptable behaviour, and government tyranny and theft is not among acceptable behaviours.

Which means someone has to

Which means someone has to enforce what is not tolerable. Do you see where this argument fails? It really isn't that difficult.

Au Contraire, It is emminately logical and correct

You want to invent something to enforce tyranny. I said that tyranny cannot exist without the state.

And that is an article of faith

backed up by absolutely nothing whatsoever. Certainly not by history. Your faith, like the communist one, is that the revolution will cure all problems.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Ugh, not going over this

Ugh, not going over this again. I've said my piece. I can't help if you refuse to listen.

LOL. Died too young.

LOL.

Died too young.

Anarchism, by which I mean

Anarchism, by which I mean society organized on voluntary principals, is the goal of all consistent thinking freedom lovers.

Most

saw the solution in a "new future man", some did not understand that such a man is a Utopia.

That what Marx taught. 500 years of bloody Revolution.

That, presto, a new man.

The Impoverished Man having destroyed the wealth of generations.

Free includes debt-free!

I do understand

and I agree with you on so much. But please understand my frustration when I am working my arse off and I see people that 99% think like I do and they wont ,as I see it, get in the fight . I respect Anarchists who actually offer and alternative. Too often though I see self proclaimed anarchists , as I see it , using the label as an excuse to not stick their necks out. It's hard for me to respect that when I and a lot of others are sacrificing and sweating

Just say no

No the most powerful word.
The political action I seek is to get a tieless minority to say NO to the state. I do not want to fight the state I want to ignore it to death.

wolfe's picture

I respectfully disagree with that statement.

Many who worked to get a "vote" for Ron Paul, as soon as that vote was cast by a Republican or Democrat, they returned to their previous mindset.

However, the people that I convinced of the principles and ideals, and to which the "vote" was a secondary issue, remain committed to the principles and ideals.

I believe the changes that I have caused to be more valuable in the end.

After the votes are cast, and the elections held, the wars continue, the theft continues, and those votes had no real impact one way or the other.

But the people that were -taught-, the people that were turned into believers remain.

So which is more productive? Fighting for a vote at all costs by saying what people want to hear(Rand, even if his actions were good), or educating people (Ron) who's actions align with his speech and therefore educates.

Once again, I argue that Ron, that education is far more valuable a change within society.

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

I respectfully agree

with yours in many ways. That said after education there must be action. Education is the source acts are the result. A stateless society may never happen but a society that truly recognizes and respects the individual in real concrete ways that take the threat of violence that is on us every day in this police state IS possible in out lifetime. Its only going to come about through action . I just feel that some people are all talk . Maybe I am to anti intellectual I dont know but I think we need bold actors as well as thinkers

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Already said..

I'd make some point here, but freeyourmind has pretty much said it all...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Besides, Ron Paul has always

Besides, Ron Paul has always invited anarchists to participate in his endeavors. He understands that political anarchists are not madmen, but simply fellow travelers in the liberty movement.

tasmlab's picture

An understatement!

He founded the Mises institute where the Chairman, Lew Rockwell, Rothbard's heir, is an anarchist and just about everybody and their brother associated with Mises.org are too (Murphy, Block, et al.)

He tells us all to read Rothbard

He promotes anarchism, IMO, despite, or confusingly, promoting quite a few pro-government actions too.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

wolfe's picture

In addition...

He has openly thanked us and welcomed us at some of the rallies.

When he states a position, the justification that follows is always an explanation of why he believes it is in line with the NAP, regardless of whether he says "NAP" or not.

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

Link

wolfe's picture

I dug one out a long time ago and posted it...

It's hard to google the content of youtube videos, unfortunately, lol. If I can find one again, I will repost.

Edit: Oh, I just realized you weren't asking for one, but offering one. lol

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