24 votes

I am an advocate of a stateless society... Anyone want to debate? I would love to improve my arguments.

I just saw a thread that prompted me to offer a place to go to debate this topic.

Feel free to join in.

A little bit of background. I spent over a decade as a Libertarian/Constitutionalist. Recently I have been reading a lot of information about a voluntary government.

I realized that the Mad Max zombie apocalypse picture I had in my head about a voluntary society was indoctrination and so began reading even more.

Here are a few points to get things rolling.

1. It helped me to think of a stateless society as a voluntary government/s society. Removing the word anarchy changed my feelings and allowed me to think more clearly about the topic and beat indoctrination I did not even know I had.

2. I believe the phrase voluntary government/s is an accurate description of how we would choose to organize ourselves. Clearly we enjoy some services offered by government. A)Defense from foreign enemies B) Defense from domestic enemies. C)Court/Arbitration system, etc. If the vast majority of people (I would think over 99%) want these services, then several entrepreneurs will offer them. Effectively becoming a voluntary government as we know it. With the principle in place that they must earn our business with superior products or services, and not steal at will, a better product at a cheaper cost is likely.

3.The burden of proof in this debate: If you do not agree with a stateless society, then what you are saying is, "I am willing to send men with guns to your home and take your property to give myself these services because I think society will be unlivable without this force" I would argue that in order to initiate force, the burden proof is on you to explain why the world will go to hell without our wonderful government. AS a reminder, when it was suggested that slavery be abolished on moral grounds, there were plenty who said, "Society will collapse", "the economy will collapse", "Who will pick the cotton?" fortunately the world decided that this fear mongering was not a valid justification for being immoral and making slaves of free men.

Plenty more to say of course, but I don't want to write an essay. :) What are your thoughts? Any voluntarists here?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Who's ingoring mans covetous nature? Me or an Anarchist?

I'm more than ready to oppose injustice, and dealing with you Anarchists is NO PROBLEM in a Constitutional Republic.

Sorry. I'm just a lowly retard, a sheep, and an imbecile who can't read. I'll need you to explain it and defend voluntarism. It SHOULD be easy for you smart guy. Be the messenger now.

Tell me about how you're going to serve justice Anarchist. Tell me about how you're going to stop me or any other covetous mob from destroying your society, and don't tell me about something that sounds like a state, or a country, or a government, or collectivism, or laws, or elections, or representation, or collective violence.

Remember, you don't want government. Government is evil and the root of injustice.

I do want government, and government is about using collective force and debating how it can be used to keep the peace by serving justice, and since liberty is the foundation for justice, legitimate government is about trying to defend liberty with collective force.

Tell me how you're going to serve justice in a free market of violence with your wallet replacing government, debate, consent, borders, states, and countries.

I say you get rolled like a drunk businessman passed out at the train station, clueless and ignorant to what was eying over your property.

The fact that you are

The fact that you are suggesting that you would really have to think about NOT taking advantage of a drunk businessman passed out is evidence why you want a government.

Governments are created to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts which the people who devise the government don't want to do themselves -probably for fear of getting killed. Since Government is devized to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts how can one call it good? Also, what does it say about the people who advocate for the existence of government?

That's right. Covetous people exist. Now deal with it.

Oops.. you can't. You think injustice comes from government.

"Governments are created to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts which the people who devise the government don't want to do themselves"

Spoken like a good little victim of causality. As I've said many times, Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty, because they don't know where injustice comes from, our covetous nature, nor will they defend liberty with force, serve justice. They try and blame injustice and immorality on government. Government is collective force and debating how to use it to serve justice. They're akin to gun grabbers who think they can get rid of injustice by getting rid of guns.

I know you don't like it, but there ARE muggers in this world, butt loads, and they do choose to steal from one another. They choose to feed on the weak. They choose to destroy.

They will choose to take over your stateless society. For good people to succeed, they have to question what it is covetous people will do. All you have to do to show what a fraud Anarchism is is to play devils advocate.

If your society isn't ready to deal with evil, than your system will fail.

A Constitutional Republic is more than ready to deal with YOU Anarchist.

The funny thing is, if you

The funny thing is, if you -or anybody else- tried to mug me, there would be one less mugger in the world. The thing is that I believe in self defense and you somehow would want to prevent crime from ever happening. Preventing crime is impossible unless you believe in creating an Office of Pre-Crime, but then you are trading every bit of liberty you think you have to pretend to be safe. You could just move into a Super Maximum Security Prison; you would certainly be safe there.

You will STILL get what you deserve.

"The funny thing is, if you -or anybody else- tried to mug me, there would be one less mugger in the world."

Do you understand the difference between facing a mugger and facing hundreds of thousands of muggers? This is about collective force, which you Anarchists want to be able to buy and use in a free market of violence, because what you covet is power. Yet you need to figure out how to sell it while pretending you oppose collectivism and want liberty. The only way you're going to get liberty is by defending it, and not just your own, but from an army of muggers.

It wouldn't even be an army of muggers you'd REALLY need to worry about. It would an army serving justice on the Anarchists who thought they were going to rule people in a free market of violence. It would be an army serving justice on those who thought they were going to buy power after a creating chaos.

There aren't any Anarchist politicians or countries for a reason, because your ideas can't be defended and nobody wants Anarchism except a few two faced liars who can't tell you what they actually want.

Your only hope is to play make believe thinking evil is just an illusion, and you can get rid of immoral behavior and injustice by getting rid of government (and shooting a few muggers).

Your Stateless Society will be EASILY taken Anarchist, because you never figured out why governments even exist or why they're created in the first place. In your own Anarcho-Barbarian words; the only reason governments exist is to commit immoral, unethical, and evil acts, and trying to sell that idea leaves you looking intellectually dishonest. (which you are)

You will STILL be taxed in a stateless society Anarchist. (It's called extortion) You will STILL be facing collective violence.(they're called goon squads) You will STILL be subject to injustice (enslaved). You will STILL dream of freeing yourself through destruction (be an Anarchist).

You will STILL get what you deserve Anarchist (injustice).

What you don't seem to

What you don't seem to understand is that in Voluntaryist system, the motivations which drive the vast majority of people to be criminals, don't exist.

Without the Black Market for Mobs/Gangs to make huge amounts of money -strictly due to the government imposed ban of certain things- then where would they get the money to continue operations? Most people aren't in the Mob/Gang for free; and whether you like it or not, they all do utilize cost-benefit analysis, and currently in our system as it is, it is more beneficial for criminals to be criminals, with very little potential cost.

More people will more than likely be armed, and unlike now, most people trying to purpatrate a crime will most likely get shot. This will -for the very posibility alone- change the cost-benefit analysis of crime. Something else which changes it, is the fact that capital will be easier achieved in the Free Market than by violence. Also, the pay, one would get by their Mob/Gang would be considerably lower than it is now, while the risk to ending-up shot or dead will increase.

There is no scenario where it becomes more beneficial to commit crimes, then to just go to work providing an actual product or beneficial service. If you think that a contractor of violence would be able to be sustained, I cannot see how. The word gets out -it already does, both in the Underground and Aboveground worlds- they couldn't take everything at once, and with that they would lose over time.

We are not Somalia, so if you think an outside government would help, that would be highly unlikely. The outside governments would be trying to regain or maintain market share which we would be taking by shedding the dead weight called government. If those countries -even all of them put together- tried to use violence against us, their only recourse would possibly be Nukes. Other than that, and they would bankrupt themselves trying. However, in using Nukes on the US, they would neccessarily take out the vast majority of inhabited Canada, Mexico, and most if not all of the Central American and some of the South American countries just due to the nuclear radiation of our Power Plants and the nukes the US would still have in storage. If we got to launch just a few, they would be done, because their major cities are the vast majority of their populations and they are so close together.

You have never explained why everybody would become a crime organization, other than; they will. Every aspect of the crime organiztion would be limited or non-existent in a Voluntaryist system, so all indication would say that crime would be less likely to exist, then more likely. More Guns equals less crime, legalized drugs leads to less crime, leaglized prostitution leads to less crime, and legalized gambling leads to less Mob/Gang activity. So, how can getting rid of all of those lead to more crime? The ability to earn a living -and not just a measily living but a decent/good living- would be much easier with less potential danger than a criminal would potentially face in a Voluntaryist system; so why would an individual or group of individuals decide to take the more risky, less beneficial -for the level of risk- route?

The reason I asked about what it says about a person who advocates for government is because, that immoral, unethical, and 'evil' istitution is the individual advocating for government; your just afraid of getting caught commiting those acts, so you want to create an entity to do it which wont get caught or be objected to by the subjects.

"What you don't seem to

"What you don't seem to understand is that in Voluntaryist system, the motivations which drive the vast majority of people to be criminals, don't exist."

You're clueless to the motivation that drives injustice, and I understand you PERFECTLY. You don't know what causes injustice, and think you can snap your fingers and mans covetous nature goes away. You think that it 'won't exist'. Like I said, you need to believe that injustice is something born from government. You are a victim of causality.

Getting rid of government won't get rid of mobs or gangs or the motivation to steal. It will put mobs and gangs in charge.

"then where would they get the money to continue operations?"

All the same places they get it now; extortion, and by taking what isn't theirs without fear of facing justice, and with all of you Anarchists around pretending Justice is now a minor issue with government out of the way, it won't be long until they're selling you like cattle.

"Most people aren't in the Mob/Gang for free; and whether you like it or not, they all do utilize cost-benefit analysis"

That's why people steal, the cost-benefit analysis. Do you see it as some kind of legitimate business that produces value? No. They STEAL value, and they volunteer to do so. They choose to take what they covet with force.

"More people will more than likely be armed, and unlike now, most people trying to purpatrate(lol) a crime will most likely get shot."

I have no doubt there would be TONS of people getting shot, killed, robbed, raped, extorted and enslaved, and your gun won't be of much use for the same reason it's not much use right now. You'll be dominated by collective violence and fear.

"There is no scenario where it becomes more beneficial to commit crimes, then to just go to work providing an actual product or beneficial service."

That implies, yet again, that you don't know why anybody steals. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make injustice go away. All the same scenarios where a person decides to take what isn't theirs will STILL exist. Even more so, because there will be no legitimate system of justice, just a bunch of Anarchists, goon squads, and kangaroo courts. Screw em. Burn em out like rats. Serve justice on the rats and create a legitimate government.

"If you think that a contractor of violence would be able to be sustained, I cannot see how."

I know, but like I said, Anarchists need to have a blind spot when it comes to why people steal. They need to try and blame it all on government.

Causality. Everything you attempt will fail for a reason. I say you're just idealists, and I say the world has seen enough of you to recognize you for what you are; self aware Judas Goats.

"The outside governments would be trying to regain or maintain market share which we would be taking by shedding the dead weight called government."

They'd roll over you like you weren't even there. You'd be easy pickings and it has to do with why you think there would no longer be any profit in stealing.

"We are not Somalia"

Anarchism would be. What you'd create is a transitional state while a whole bunch of wanna be Warlords tempted people with plunder, slaves, and dominion. What you'd create is a world filled with injustice, all because you thought you could snap your fingers making government disappear and taking injustice with it.

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about, so much so, that I can only assume that what you are is a wanna be warlord who covets power, that you want to destroy my Constitutional Republic leaving people like a thousand little Somalia's ripe for injustice and to be turned into whatever it is you actually want to create.

Whatever you actually want to create, it sure isn't a stateless society. Your inability to defend the idea demonstrates it.

There won't be any motivation to steal... Good one Anarchist. Do you ever get tired of running face first into cement walls?

You are so delusional it is

You are so delusional it is funny.

Currently lets ay an iPad costs $600; this is reason for someon to steal it, becasue for a low income person making $7/hr it would take 80+ hours to earn enough money to purchase one. However, an individual can steal one in little to no time, and the possiblitiy of ever getting caught or killed in the process is extrememly low. This is what creates criminals.

In a Voluntaryists system; Apple nor the iPad would be around very long with those kinds of prices. Do you know why? Because the government wouldn't be protecting Apple in a miriad of ways; and Apple would then have no other choice but to compete with everybody else. This would bring the price of the iPad down considerably. As competition grew in the tablet computing market the prices would continue to decrease; as prices decrease it would become easier for those with low income to afford such things; making the cost-benefit analysis -in conjunction with the likely-hood of getting shot or killed- move to the side of legitimate work as apposed to theft.

The reason prices don't come down now even when an item doesn't sell, is because the company gets to deduct it from their taxes twice; once it reduces the overall Net Income and two it acts as secondary loss. Meaning that the company selling the item gets to deduct the amount of money it cost the company to buy the item, and they also get to deduct the amount of money the item would have cost a customer had one bought the item. This is why companies would rather throughout an item then to mark its price down considerably just to get rid of it. They preserve more of their money -and in some cases actually make money- just throwing the item away. This is due to the tax code, which your government created. This is why it is less likely for a company to actually reduce the price of an item which is not selling. This cannot happen without a government to back-up a company's losses with tax payer money.

Extortion makes-up a small section of Mob activity; as I've stated it is mearly a tool to express authority. If the Mob tried to make extortion their sole revenue streem, they would quickly start finding their men being shot at and killed; becasue they would have to take 70%-90% of the money made by any business. I don't think shop owners would stand that kind of theft for very long. The Mob would then have another problem; with people shooting at the Mob enforcers, those enforcers are going to want more money to do that job. With more money going out to enforcers and less money coming in via shop owners; how do they stay operating?

You deserve injustice Anarchist.

"You are so delusional it is funny."

I don't hear you laughing, and you won't be laughing when you face justice. You'll crying and screaming: "but I'm a Voluntarist!!!"

There's nothing delusional about recognizing mans nature. You denying it is what's delusional Anarchist. People will STILL steal, because free is better than paying. They did the math, and know the consequences. They want what injustice offers them; plunder, slaves, and dominion.

And what's with you thinking the price will plummet? Are you a Communist who won't defend intellectual property rights?

"Because the government wouldn't be protecting Apple in a miriad of ways; and Apple would then have no other choice but to compete with everybody else."

Now YOU would be free to steal what isn't yours?

"This would bring the price of the iPad down considerably."

Covetous people would STILL steal them just like you want to steal intellectual property. What you'd create is intellectual stagnation and monopolies. Apparently you don't understand the cost analysts of theft, and in Anarchy, there would be even less chance of facing justice.

"If the Mob tried to make extortion their sole revenue streem, they would quickly start finding their men being shot at and killed; becasue they would have to take 70%-90% of the money made by any business."

Then go grab your gun hero? You consider government to be a mob of thieves, then why are you not shooting at them? Oh that's right, you're a coward and need a mob to hide in.

Extortion wouldn't be the only income a mob controls. There would cartels using monopolies and collective force to stifle competition. They would use free market solutions in a free market of collective violence to unjustly profit off controlling industry. You would create gangland government, with those who can buy the most muscle writing the rules with no debate, elections, or consent. I say you're a Communist and Judas Goat who wants top down authoritarians and know a free market of collective violence is your only hope, and what's stopping you, government, needs to be destroyed. Why can't you get the job done? Do you not have anybody willing to do your fighting for you Anarchist?

"With more money going out to enforcers and less money coming in via shop owners; how do they stay operating?"

There would be even MORE money coming in via shop owners begging somebody for protection, and operating will be as easy as burning down a few of your buildings and setting mobs of looters on you wannabe Anarchists. Since you could only create Anarchy through destruction, being destroyed by chaos is what you'll justly deserve.

You deserve injustice Anarchist. You deserve to be exposed as delusional and unable to face up to the truth about why people steal or where injustice comes from.

Free is only better than

Free is only better than paying, when the likely-hood of getting killed is low; and when working for it is very laborous. In a Voluntaryist system, these two conditions would not be met, and therefore, theft is very much less likely than in our current system.

I never even said anything about Intellectual Property having anything to do with the price of the iPad being reduced. I pointed to how our tax system rewards those who refuse to lower prices to meet the market, by enableing those companies to deduct it from their taxes two different ways. You obviously like paying companies for not selling products at the price from the actual market, by giving them tax kickbacks. While I don't believe in taxes at all, what the current tax system does is pushes the taxes responsibility from companies and the extremely wealthy onto everybody else. This is due to the ability for those to utilize many accountants to find as many loopholes as possible and exploit them; which could only mean that everybody else gets stuck paying those taxes. Apple paid 1.4% taxes in 2011, however if you ask them they paid the normal business rate; the problem is with the loopholes they got the vast majority of the money back. The money which was supposed to be payed by Apple into the treasury has to be made-up somewhere so it adds to the deficit. GE has been paying 0%, for the same reasons. Warren Buffet announced that in the end he pays a less percent of his income in taxes than his secretary. This is how the government protects businesses and the wealthy with the tax system.

I traditionally don't desire for there to be any taxes what so ever; for I am a Voluntaryist. However, with the ballooning debt and deficit thanks to the woderful government, the middle class and poor cannot have the majority of the burdon passed onto them. Taxes could be lower in this current system if they got rid of the loopholes; do we really need 80k pages of taxes?

The problem for the big corporations would be that the price of their individual products would increase dramatically, and people would quit buying that junk. Right now the cost is spread out amongst everybody, especially those who cannot even afford to buy that junk.

Extortion wouldn't be the only income a mob controls. There would cartels using monopolies and collective force to stifle competition.

The Mob and Gangs have enough problem stiffling the little competition they have now; how in the hell do you think they are going to be able to stiffle competition in the order of thousands of companies making the same product? I assume you are talking about the Mob/Gangs going into a traditional business. How much would it cost to stiffle thousands of competitors? How would they stiffle competitors thousands of miles away? How would they stiffle competitors outside of the former US?

There would be even MORE money coming in via shop owners begging somebody for protection, and operating will be as easy as burning down a few of your buildings and setting mobs of looters on you wannabe Anarchists.

There seems to be something which you are not realizing: (1) Controlling an industry is different than controllong a small geographic area. (2) It costs lots of money to even control a small area currently -where the likely-hood of getting shot or killed is extremely low. The amount of money required would increase due to the likely-hood of getting killed.

I agree that the likelihood of being killed will be much higher

"Free is only better than paying, when the likely-hood of getting killed is low; and when working for it is very laborous."

I agree that the likelihood of being killed will be much higher in Anarchy, but it won't have anything to do with justice being served.

"In a Voluntaryist system, these two conditions would not be met, and therefore, theft is very much less likely than in our current system."

Working for it will still be laborious, and if you don't understand that, you don't know why people steal.

"I never even said anything about Intellectual Property having anything to do with the price of the iPad being reduced."

I know you didn't, but it's easy enough to read between the lines and hear your Commie talking points leaking out.

"In a Voluntaryists system; Apple nor the iPad would be around very long with those kinds of prices. Do you know why? Because the government wouldn't be protecting Apple in a miriad of ways; and Apple would then have no other choice but to compete with everybody else."

The primary way that Apple is protected by the law and what's preventing them from needing to 'compete with everybody else' is the law protecting intellectual property. You're hinting that in your Communist, er I mean Voluntarist system, justice will no longer be served.

The rest is just Anarcho-Communist babble where you try to imply giving corporations tax breaks raises the price of goods, which implies you have no idea what you're talking about. Any tax you put on a producer gets transferred to the consumer, although tax breaks don't necessarily mean lower prices. The principle of supply and demand is at work which can means tax breaks may simply mean more profit.

"You obviously like paying companies for not selling products at the price from the actual market, by giving them tax kickbacks."

Like I said, Anarchists are liars and frauds. You have NOTHING to base that on, but that won't stop a liar from running his mouth and bearing false witness.

You're just a Socialist who wants a Communist revolution and needs to destroy the American government so you can take what you think is yours; everything. You are the antithesis of Libertarian. Nobody knows better than an Anarchist that what they want isn't Anarchy,

Anarchy is nothing but a transitional state. It's a means to an end, and judging by your talking points, what you want is Communism, not free markets.

The market isn't free without justice being served and a free market of violence will not serve justice. It will serve those who can buy or create the most violence. I say you think the workers will control the muscle and write the rules.

Do you call yourself an Anarcho-syndicalist, an Anarcho-Capitalist, or do you just hide behind "Voluntarist" while you try to to destroy a Constitutional Republic? I say you just want to buy and use collective violence to make sure Apple competes against thousands of competitors without those awful protections they get from government and the law.

I say you're a Communist.

"The Mob and Gangs have enough problem stiffling the little competition they have now; how in the hell do you think they are going to be able to stiffle competition in the order of thousands of companies making the same product?"

Easily, and when they do it, it will be the producers doing it to themselves; Cartels of Socialists and Communists. The workers, free to use violence will fight for control of production. Eventually it will turn into Communism, with all your Voluntarist islands getting gobbled up by oligarchs and Warlords.

"(1) Controlling an industry is different than controllong a small geographic area."

Anarcho-syndicalists can't wait to try and steal industry away from those who created it and own it. They're a horde of looters salivate at the idea of Anarchy, at least as a transitional state while they try and set up a workers paradise (slum-scape)

"(2) It costs lots of money to even control a small area currently -where the likely-hood of getting shot or killed is extremely low. The amount of money required would increase due to the likely-hood of getting killed."

As your sphere of control grows, so would the profits. Now we're just talking logistics, and central planners LOVE figuring out the logistics of tyranny.

How do you feel about Communism? Is there something wrong with it?

You say that working for it

You say that working for it would still be laborous; obviously one would have to work, but you never explaind how it would be logical for someone to risk their life to steal that which wouldn't take that much time to work for. All you have to do is look at the LA Riots of the 1990's to see how shop owners protected their places, and how the looters whent elsewhere, so they wouldn't get killed by the armed shop owners.

Yes, the people would have to protect themselves and their property -whether they did it themselves or hired someone- OMG, don't tell me that in a Voluntaryist system people actually have to be responsible for protecting their life, liberty, and property, that's just not fair; that's what other people are for. Why should I pay the full price of someone protecting me and my property when the neighbor should be forced to pay for my protection as well?

The argument you are trying to make about goverment and defense(Police) is the same argument the socialists make about public education -everybody should have to pay for it, even those who don't want or use it. But, you only want others to pay for it so it doesn't cost you so much -spread the cost around. If you want something then you should pay for it; if you don't want to pay for it, then you mustn't really want it all that much then, huh?

So you don't mind paying 25 to 38% in taxes and that Apple only pays 1.4% or GE pays 0%; you are a useful tool. When your government NEEDS nearly 5 trillion dollars a year in revenue; you give away hundreds of billions if not more, thereby creating higher deficts and that is good in your opinion? The only thing that they do with that money is higher more chinese workers anyway. They still don't sell more products thatn they would, because the price is too high to warrent an increase in sales. So, the extra product that they are making -with the money that you pay them through taxes- they, the corporations, throughout or sell on the Black Market to make extra money while useing those losses to get even more money from you from that years tax return.

The Fact that you do not understand how the Government and the Corporations, and Wealthy are siphoning your wealth out of you via the tax code is what makes you so valuble to them; because you will just paying for what they want until the day you die.

In a Voluntaryist system there wouldn't be a tax code to distribute wealth from one group to the next; there goes your Communist claim.

Seriously, do you really think that Apple would keep those prices while constantly holding inventory of their products, if they didn't get tax kickbacks at the end of the year for all of the products which they didn't sell?

Take out the word 'National'

Take out the word 'National' and leave the 'Defense'. Look at that.. you now have an organized voluntaryist militia. How easy was that :)

I watched a debate today on the subject:

http://www.dailypaul.com/277482/debate-larken-rose-vs-atty-t...

"History... So It Doesn't Repeat: A debate on the concepts of "authority", "government", and the "state", featuring author Larken Rose vs. Tom Willcutts (attorney for www.TragedyAndHope.com)."

I got to half an hour on that debate... but Tom Wilcott....

was too stupid to tolerate.

Does anyone know Larkins line of questions he was talking about? I really wanted to know, but just couldn't sit through the debate even though I was playing it at double speed.

And I agree the moderator was not much of a moderator.... it was more of a 2 vs 1 debate.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

I think Larkin's premise is

I think Larkin's premise is that government cannot have rights that people don't have because people cannot give away rights that they themselves do not have. I think the "debate" ended well. I actually think that the lawyer perhaps was given some food for thought by the time it was over. He seemed stumped a few times like he was hearing some concepts for the first time. If you check out the comments on the thread you may get more insight without enduring the "debate." I think the moderator did a little better later in the talk, but he did have a hard time keeping his opinions to himself and just letting the 2 speak. I am glad I watched the whole thing. I found it interesting.

I watched the first few minutes which...

raised some questions. In the intro a woman's voice said the participants were going to "debate whether or not government has rights which the individual does not." But governments don't have rights, individuals have rights. And as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." So the premise of the debate was based on a falsehood.

Then the moderator, Richard Grove, said the participants were going to "have a logical reasonable conversation about irrational unreasonable things like authority and government." So the alleged moderator of the debate had already concluded that anarchism is logical and reasonable and government is not. This seemed slightly irrational.

Anarchist/voluntaryist Larken Rose spoke first and described his ideology as a "weird strange fringe position", which I agree with. He concluded his opening statement saying "there cannot be a legitimate ruling class", followed by the host who described the origin of anarchism as a "long interesting history of intellectual elites fleshing out these ideas." So in other words, anarchism is a creation of the ruling class which Mr. Rose, the anarchist, had just said cannot be legitimate. Oops! Oh what a tangled web the anarchists weave when at first they practice to deceive.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Thank you for taking time to

Thank you for taking time to provide a sample synopsis

I found the debate interesting. I kept thinking about Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and left a comment regarding that on the post: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2990814 I also noticed this comment today which I found interesting: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2991855

While leaving you this comment I think further of Thomas Paine’s words:

“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer”

I think if people’s suffering were not heightened we would not even be having debates between Anarchists and Lawyers, I also think of Thomas Jefferson’s words. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/reply/277248/2991513 between which the words you quoted from him are sandwiched:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…
...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It seems to me that governments can cause their own downfall when they begin to govern unjustly. I say “they” because in some sense I no longer give my consent because the rule of law has been breached as The Bill of Rights is eroded. However, I do continue to give my subordination. So with that point, it seems to me that a government can also derive its power thru coercion. And I think it is under those circumstances that those who would like to institute new government or no government at all begin to speak out. The question in my mind is do those who wish to overthrow government to gain control cause unjust governance in order to upset the applecart.

Or was the applecart upset at the beginning: http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/henry.html Patrick Henry was concerned:

1.10 The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely.
1.15 Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?
1.18 The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans?"

Have you ever read Patrick Henry’s work concerning the ratification of the Constitution? There are those who believe the stage was set to steal Liberty from the People in 1788.

...

Many of the States refused...

to ratify the Constitution based on the same concerns expressed by Patrick Henry. The compromise was the Bill of Rights, which included the tenth amendment that gave all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to the States.

When we previously exchanged comments on anarchism, I mentioned my experience in a northern California community where many political activists and civic leaders were openly anarchist. They were very controlling and used government to coerce conformity. All their coercive tactics were portrayed as serving the cause of economic and social justice. I hear the very same sentiments from the anarchists at DP who claim to oppose government, but in reality, are just advocating for a "privatized" government.

There's a saying on Wall Street: The bulls make money and the bears make money, but the pigs get slaughtered. For now, the pigs are running this country and there's no doubt in my mind that anarchists are nothing but a front for the pigs. If I were an anarchist, I would cut my losses and get out of the pig pen before the slaughter.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047 (Fraud and the Federal debt)

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Thank you for the link.

Thank you for the link. From the site I found these words:

“Bottom line, Wall Street fraud and irresponsible risk taking, all condoned by criminal co-conspirators in Congress, drove the economy and budget over the cliff."

And when I compare them to your comment to me:

“There's a saying on Wall Street: The bulls make money and the bears make money, but the pigs get slaughtered. For now, the pigs are running this country and there's no doubt in my mind that anarchists are nothing but a front for the pigs. If I were an anarchist, I would cut my losses and get out of the pig pen before the slaughter”

It seems to me if the pigs are running the country they are co-conspirators with wall-street. What does that make wall-street? The farmers? The pig-pen? The pig-feed? Or are they the bears and the bulls?

I do believe that anarchists are used to front pigs. I believe there are provocateurs who lead utopian minded people so that when the country is in shambles due to the pigs, there are people who help the pigs fight to divide and conquer the country even further. It seems to me though, that sometimes if the criminal anarchists win along with criminal communists and criminal socialist that it is wall street and the bourgeois who get slaughtered. And that is a great concern form me. That some how all of this division will be used to slaughter masses. I don’t want to see anyone slaughtered.

I am wondering. How long do you think the pigs have been in control of the country? There are some who think Hamilton was a pig and set the country up under a consolidated constitution in order to front a national bank. The Bill of Rights did nothing the remove the consolidation of government. It was only a statement of the rights of the people. However, when the pigs rule, they trample the people’s rights. Perhaps we started with little sweet pink pigs and have graduated to wild boars who now want to drop hellfire missiles on US Citizens who are imminent threats. That sounds like authorization for a preemptive strike to me and the American people are applauding the progress.

Make no mistake, I am not an anarchist. I never even heard the term till last year. But I think the dividing line is criminal and noncriminal and I think that criminals can be capitalists, anarchists, socialists. The dividing line to me is built on voluntary associations. I think criminals do not allow competition and therefore voluntarism is not an option under criminal rule as they feed on stealing power from productive individuals. Those who allows competition and voluntary associations will allow productivity to flourish and the people to keep the fruit of their labors.

However, I believe that the American people have been fooled by labels and terms instead of realizing the problem is with criminals who make their crime legal.

“"...and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.” http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

I don’t think the Bill of Rights fixed the problem.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Other-Founders-Anti-Federalism-Dis... Page 229:
"made like A Fiddle, with but few Strings,"
"play any tune upon it they pleased."
In Context:
"Regarding the Constitutional Convention, he [William Manning] echoed a common Anti-Federalist complaint: the framers deliberately employed ambiguous language to facilitate their aristocratic designs. He confidently asserted, "The Convention who made it intended to destroy our free government by, or they never would have spent 4 Months in making such an inexpliset thing." The Constitution was a "made like A Fiddle, with but few Strings," so that those in power might "play any tune upon it they pleased." The ambiguity of the Constitution was a deliberate product of Federalist aristocratic machinations-confirmed by the practices of Federalists since ratification. Under the guise of constructive interpretations, Federalists were seeking to extend the powers of their federal government and trample on the people's liberties."

The song being played has changed over time as criminals have become emboldened and the people have become placid. It will not be Nero who fiddles while Rome burns, it is the American people who have had their heads in the clouds while Liberty has been stolen.

When I read your words:

"powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to the States.

When we previously exchanged comments on anarchism, I mentioned my experience in a northern California community where many political activists and civic leaders were openly anarchist. They were very controlling and used government to coerce conformity. All their coercive tactics were portrayed as serving the cause of economic and social justice. "

I think of Washington DC. Coercion is used by criminals of all labels. I saw it used at both the Democratic and Republican Conventions last year. I think we need to use more than labels to identify those who are Friends of Liberty.

What is one to do when the pigs are in charge?

...

Pigs refers to those who get too greedy...

and that includes political and business leaders who think they can create a brave new world where pigs rule and never get slaughtered. Bulls and bears refer to market players who are either bullish that markets are going up, or bearish because they believe markets are going down. In summary, bulls and bears play by a rational set of rules but pigs ignore the rules (government and market) and in the end, get slaughtered because of their greed and ignorance. Slaughter in this case is a metaphor for the pigs losing their financial and political power.

What do we do when the pigs are in charge. First of all, it's nothing new, pig profligacy led to the American and French Revolutions and it will happen again. I advocate for a non-violent revolution modeled after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who put his life on the line educating and motivating people to stand up for their rights. It's never easy and there's no guarantee of success, but the evolution of rights and limited government to secure those rights, has over time, greatly improved the human condition. One example of this is all nation states have outlawed slavery based on a universally accepted notion of morality and human rights.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Oh

OK. Thank you for providing an explanation of pigs for me. Really, I didn't put all that together before my earlier reply to you.

The author of this post stated the following

3. The burden of proof in this debate: If you do not agree with a stateless society, then what you are saying is, "I am willing to send men with guns into your home to take your property to give myself these services because I think society will be unlivable without this force".

It's interesting that the author chose to "quote" everyone who might disagree, before they even have a chance to disagree. I guess that's the author's idea of "freedom" of expression in a stateless society. And based on the author's statement, anyone who disagrees with a stateless society is guilty of a thought crime that violates the fabled Non-Aggression Principle. But the voluntary anarchists would probably respond saying, oh no, crimes only occur when men with guns enforce laws. And from that point, the conversation would only get more bizarre.

Most anarchists are intelligent thoughtful people, so their attempt to sell illogical control freakazoid nonsense can only be understood by concluding they're dupes or sociopathic liars.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Concur

I agree, I advocate for a stateless society as well. So no argument here, but I would suggest the assertions put forth between Rothbard and Konkin.

" I believe the phrase

" I believe the phrase voluntary government/s is an accurate description of how we would choose to organize ourselves. Clearly we enjoy some services offered by government. A)Defense from foreign enemies B) Defense from domestic enemies. C)Court/Arbitration system, etc. If the vast majority of people (I would think over 99%) want these services, then several entrepreneurs will offer them. Effectively becoming a voluntary government as we know it. With the principle in place that they must earn our business with superior products or services, and not steal at will, a better product at a cheaper cost is likely."

It isn't like you only have one government to choose from. You have over 200 governments you can choose to live by, with whatever consequences.

Government itself is a consequences of the market.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Well said...

"Government itself is a consequence of the market."

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

I don't want to choose between governments...

I want to choose no government... where can I go for that?

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Somalia, for one. There are

Somalia, for one. There are minor islands out near Australia. Places around Greenland. Northern Canada effectively has no government.

Of course, you can always choose to end your own life if you don't want to live under any of these conditions.

You can say that you have a right to choose, but that doesn't mean you have a right to choices. I can say I want to have the choice of buying a flying car that can travel in time...but it doesn't exist, and that is simply life.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I agree with your point.

I have a right to choose not choices. However, you must agree that I have a choice to attempt to persuade my fellow man to join me, and perhaps find more ideal places with more people to live the stateless life.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

The same way another has the

The same way another has the choice to use force against you and keep you "enslaved".

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a