-19 votes

Anarchists: "Duhhh, we can't leave the state, some other state will get us "

If someone really believes that they're living under an immoral system of slavery, they have a duty to leave, to stop paying taxes and supporting it.

Yes, if you leave the protection of society, and set up your life somewhere outside of government, some gang of people might rob you, take your stuff, make your their slave. It might even be other states that do so.

That's the whole point. You stay here because you have MORE LIBERTY than if you went it alone, the anarchy route. That's the point, none of you leave the state and risk it alone, or together, outside the state.

Your retort "the state will get us wherever we go, we can't leave, it will be even worse outside the state."

My reply is, exactly. duh. You prove my point.

You submit to the state because it protects your liberty better than you could.

You prove it every day by living under its rules and paying its taxes.

How could you get rid of the state? The neighboring state would then roll over you.

Unless you got rid of EVERY OTHER STATE in the world through the "moral force" of your "arguments" - all at once - there's always gonna be a state that can just run over you...

Your liberty does not exist WITHOUT a state defending it.

If you really believed in the efficacy of protection agencies, you would hire one and have it protect you and go settle some place with a weak government. You don't do it. The world is cruel and violent. You are afraid. You live behind the protection of the government and b1tch online.

That is all.

Comment viewing options

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

childish things

"But what would you replace the state with ?
The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state.
Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be 'replaced'.
. . .
I miss the serenity of believing I lived under a good government,
wisely designed and benevolent in its operation.
But, as St. Paul says, there comes a time to put away childish things."
The Reluctant Anarchist (JOSEPH SOBRAN)

Dero A. Saunders

“[A]s long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.”

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Oh, so you think liberties

Oh, so you think liberties come from the state, not from being human. No one is claiming they are incapable of defending their own rights, they are merely recognizing that some state will always try to barge in and take away their rights.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

He didnt say that he said

He didnt say that he said that your rights will be taken from you without a very strong protection.

Ventura 2012

You are confused.

"If someone really believes that they're living under an immoral system of slavery, they have a duty to leave, to stop paying taxes and supporting it."

Maybe so, but it is very difficult to leave, to stop paying taxes and to end ones support of it - particularly for U.S. citizens. U.S. law dictates U.S. citizens have to pay U.S. taxes no matter where they live. So, simply relocating does not solve that problem. While the refugee may not feel obligated, the U.S. government does. Even abandoning U.S. citizenship when relocating does not solve the problem because the government assumes a citizen is dropping citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes. The law is written therefore to continue the tax obligation another 10 years after citizenship is abandoned. Not paying makes the ex-patriot subject to arrest. The plantation is truly global for the U.S. citizen.

"Yes, if you leave the protection of society, and set up your life somewhere outside of government, some gang of people might rob you, take your stuff, make your their slave. It might even be other states that do so."

Government is not the same as society. They are two different things. Government does not protect you and the courts have ruled that it has no obligation to protect you and is not liable if it fails to protect you. The promise of protection is like that of mafia insurance; You pay the premium to the mafia, or it will burn you out.

Similarly, stop paying the government what it demands and it will go beyond withdrawing its fake promise of protection; It will actively work to harm you.

The idea is government is a product of human activity. It is artificial. People form societies because they are social; They are better off in a society than outside one. They form governments because they need protection from other people in society. This is due to the fact that people are also selfish and will exploit others if given the opportunity. The problem is government is made up of people with the same failings as other people. In fact, those who have a personality compatible with exploiting others tend to be attracted to government because government is where the opportunity to live off others lies.

If government is there to protect rights, who is going to protect one from government violations of those rights? The answer is nobody. The Declaration of Independence says when that happens, government gets changed or replaced by the people. So the obligation is not to leave, but to push for change. Government reacts violently against that, however. That is true both on the individual and group level. Government doesn't care how many people who are not paying it that it kills, or robs, or imprisons. For government and the sociopaths who inhabit it, its survival and the status quo are paramount.

It is very easy to accuse people, who participate in a system they denounce, of hypocrisy. But, I think that is pretty myopic.

I watched a documentary recently about a young man who was raised in a North Korean slave labor camp. He believed for most of his life that the whole world was like the labor camp. Then a prisoner from the outside arrived and told the young man he had actually eaten cooked chicken before his arrest. The idea of one day eating some chicken motivated him to escape. He crawled over the body of another prisoner who died on the electric fence to escape. Eventually, he made it to South Korea and relative freedom.

Nevertheless, he longed to return to the predictable life of the labor camp, despite the routine physical abuse he suffered there. He knew, if he returned, he would be killed. So he stayed in South Korea with all of its money worries.

The point is there is no perfect solution. That does not mean the system we live under cannot be improved or should not be replaced. Except for the very wealthy, or the very poor, there is no escape for individuals from the U.S. Change is the only option left.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Is this up here as an exercise for new libertarians?

Bill3 keeps pushing the same tired Rawlsian, Social Contract theory, arguments that all the state championing ilk have as their 'sacred' underpinning. He's advocating the exact same government justifications for coercion and magical 'implicit' consent, re-flavored to scare the liberty minded.

Not that I blame him, or anyone that agrees with him, it's only what's been pushed on the public since US inception. Hell, Thomas Jefferson fell for this same bullshit years ago when he crafted the oxymoronic idea of an 'Empire of Liberty'; but at least these arguments were new in his day.

If you agree with Bill3, what's your excuse for using the same philosophical arguments as the big government statists, leftists, and neocons that you abhor?

i don't subscribe to any

i don't subscribe to any social contract theory and never read any rawls.

most states probably originated in violence, not contract. however, the fact that those subjugated were unable to repel the violence makes it clear they needed a stronger defense to begin with. they may have had greater liberty, but they lacked the ability to defend it.

the ideal is the greatest personal guarantee to liberty without sacrificing that defensive strength needed to repel external and internal violence. how much internal disorder and violence we're willing to put up with in order to maximize liberty is a different matter, but there is no individual liberty without first peace, order and security of life.

why not? because people value peace, order and regularity above freedom for its own sake. people want their family and children to be safe and to be able to provide for them. they view government as necessary to provide that ability, even if they also value liberty.

the complete absence of coercive government, unlimited freedom, is ranked lower by most people than the security of their person and property.

if there is actually a way to achieve unlimited personal liberty and zero coercion, without creating intolerable danger to life and property, and do so in such a way that each step in the transition does not endanger those higher priorities, then people might go for it.

i have seen no one prove this can be done or even make the most cautious attempts toward demonstrating it. i have not even really seen anyone show a real interest in doing so.

i reserve the right to remain doubtful of promises of untested, untried, unproven utopian schemes. but i am very interested in seeing how such a society might be tried out, and to see whether it could defend itself from other societies organized with nuclear armed military states.

well, let the experiment begin...

perhaps when the collapse commences, the US military will go freelance, selling its services for sound money to all comers, and enforce no law except defense of its clients.... maybe the military won't break up and will give itself a commercial structure with a board of directors and ceo, and define the currency of the future as X item, token, or commodity...

i highly doubt it, but a post modern sort of feudalism, held together by the freelance military of an ex-superpower, and without serfs, but instead customers, free to lillpad hop from private city to private city (helicoptering over those who deny access?), is certainly one possibility.

maybe we should just focus all of our efforts on indoctrinating the military with anarchocapitalist theory and infiltrating it to the highest ranks with hoppeians.

whether anarcho-feudalism with mobile capital and serfs will secure more rights and freedom to the average person than nation states did... open question.

but it is interesting to think about how such an order could come about in practical reality rather than just claiming its theoretically possible "if everyone agreed it should be done."

any time someone's argument starts with "if all of us did this together, we could..." run the other way.

I was mostly with you

until you made it into an insult at the end.

It's true that attempting to establish a homestead somewhere free would likely result in annexation. It would be guaranteed if you were actually prosperous.

The "all at once" comment was another I'd call a good one if you were serious about it. Yes, the idea is to educate the populace en masse. Even then, would large numbers of people have the diligence to resist invaders, especially if they were prosperous and the invaders promised peace for a price.

But the state isn't protecting our freedoms. They are a gang of thugs receiving protection money and keeping other thugs off their turf. We are a little bit more free from those other thugs than we would be without the state, but only because of the lack of diligence of the populace to resist them. There are ways a populace can resolve together to resist, I just need to see the level of diligence required to achieve that before I can even know it exists.

Defend Liberty!

Bill, your logic....

"well you live here so you agree at least. don't know about everyone else."

So when slaves ate the masters meal, did that mean they consented to their enslavement?

All voluntaryist I know, don't expect the ideal stateless society to occur without a revolution between the ears of a critical mass of people. In the interim we just do the best we can to ignore the state and Foster the spirit of voluntaryism. If our great grand children are still bickering about who to point the states guns at, thn we failed.

but we aren't slaves, we are

but we aren't slaves, we are free to leave. if we choose not to do so, it is probably because we can't secure our interests or liberty better on our own.

as for your question about slaves. yes in a sense, slaves made a value judgement that slavery was better than death. slavery appeared on earth with economic surplus from agriculture, when defeated enemies could be more valuable as labor than dead. instead of simply slaughtering (and eating, often enough) the vanquished, they were captured and put to work or sold.

the "value" of butchering them and consuming their blood or sacrificing them to your tribes god was subordinated to their value as property or capital on agricultural land. this was, in a sense, an advancement toward civilization and away from savagery, like it or not.

those who submitted rather than resist made a decision that forced labor for was preferable to death. over the course of the institution, the slave, by not revolting, chose slavery to the other option - escape or death. some slaves rose in society, some were freed, some loved their owners and were loved in turn by them. it was a social arrangement between individual liberty and tribal savagery. the institution seemed perfectly normal to the authors of the Bible all the way to Aristotle. even the early christian church did not make a moral prohibition on slavery.

perhaps that fact itself provides some Hope. in the potential for real change in our morality, despite our nature, in the long run.

why?

why should I leave when you/they are the ones who suck?

Well, I live here and I do

Well, I live here and I do not consent. True enough, I would go somewhere more free, but I can't do that without jeopardizing my family. I ignore the state as much as possible, and do my best to sure better it any way I can.

As to your comment of hope to humanity increasing it's mortality; I agree!

Jesus was mute to the slaves plight and we have risen to the near universal moral condemnation of the practice.

Consent is a tricky thing.

Consent is a tricky thing. How about the anarcho-communist being born within ancapistan? He being steeped in communist literature and hostile to private property, he certainly didn’t consent to everyone around him owning private property.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

No so tricky.

It's not up to him to consent to the choices others. As long as they are not using force against him, what those around him believe shouldn't be an issue.

Furthermore an An-Com is free to form a non property acknowledging society/town within 'Ancapistan'. For example, are there not hippy communes in America? I'd imagine it'd be like that, only bigger and not forced to pay taxes. They may not even have to 'buy' the land initially if there is enough of it for homesteading.

Well, but you see, he’s a

Well, but you see, he’s a communist living in an ancap society. He sees private property as theft and aggression, and has not consented to this social arrangement. Either he respects the norms and rules of his environment, or he will be aggressed against, or he could leave, which is the point that anarchists are missing. The issue here is that the mere absence of consent to some social arrangement is no argument against it at all.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Yeeehaw, Bang Bang Bang!

The issue here is that the mere absence of consent to some social arrangement is no argument against it at all.

^ I'm sure there are slaves that might disagree with you there. :P

I get what you're saying in your example though, and likewise the ancap cannot live in ancomstanbul for the exact inverse. To speak to the example: No one comes from nowhere; there will be transitions and many different laboratories of living in a stateless society. If Mr. AnCom must stay, why not rely on mutual agreements with your neighbors and live as communally as you can. At least until you can change your situation or the minds of those around you. IMO, working out the consensual agreements from a place of no centralized authority would be a cakewalk compared to the challenges the current state provides.

You see, in your example, you really only list respect authority and be aggressed against or leave. But there are so many more options! There's protesting, creating relationships + networking, teaching, creating media and changing the minds where he's at - and since he's being aggressed against anyway there's always civil disobedience, too! At the heart of it, this dressed up 'love it or leave it' argument is really just a ploy to get people to shut up about what they believe.

In real life it's not like libertarians/anarchist don't see the value of leaving a place they don't consent to. But if we look at the current situation, the lands on this globe are all claimed by one gang or another (see: governments). Realistically people are in an inescapable government system; perhaps sea-steading is an option for some, but for most they'll just have to keep trying to live as free as they can where they are. So... sorry if being reminded of the violence inherent in the state system is something that bothers you.

Ultimately, for me, the burden of moral justification is not on the victim, but instead on the aggressors. If that hypothetical AnCom has a grievance hopefully he'll be met with a damn good moral justification for property rights; but this 'magical' implicit consent by random-chance-of-location justification - see social contract - didn't cut it with Spooner and doesn't cut it with me.

First: I don’t support the

First: I don’t support the social contract; in fact that is my whole argument!

My main contention here is to show a certain specious argumentation that because one hasn’t consented to a social arrangement means anything substantively. The analog to my example is the hackneyed exclamation by present day anarchists that the rules presently established have no bearing on them because they haven’t consented. But people don’t enter into social arrangements by contract; rather they are born into pre-established arrangements with rules, norms, and traditions. Either these rules are enforced, to the malcontents despair, or no order could be possible. Of course, the malcontent has recourse, much like today, and that is to depart. That this may be an issue practically misses the point that it’s an option. If it is not an option, it should be!

As to your point that other possibilities exist, is not unimportant, but it says nothing about consent. For if a person born within a society he has come to detest, like the communist, breaks the rules within the social arrangement of, for example, ancapistan, like, say, walks into someone’s house and eats their food, on the basis that food and property are communal, he will be punished. That he could say, “I haven’t consented” would mean nothing.

This of course says nothing about the rules, which could be amended, but shows that consent is a specious reason to oppose the rules. For I never consented to my neighbors owning their property, but if I were to break into their house, I would be punished, despite me claiming, “I never consented!”

As for aggression, this would depend on one’s conception of property rights. Even the communist is against aggression, he just thinks private property is aggression, which would run up against the ancaps conception.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

I'm unsure about the way

I'm unsure about the way you're using some terms. Specifically, what type of consent (implied, expressed, informed, tentative) vs what type of social arrangements (law, social mores, moral arrangements, etc). I would like to discuss this more in-depth with you in case I'm not understanding your point fully. If you could give me your point using more concise terms, like those above, that would be appreciated.

Overall, I would say this consent argument you bring up is more of the anarchist's retort to someone making a case for government laws being justified by the consent of the governed. Sure there are other governmental systems that don't adhere to a cosignatory principal, but assuming you're in a western democracy, it's probably the argument you're going to hear.

Thanks!

I'm not an anarchist.

But I think you are falsely asserting that government protects liberty. All man made governments reduce liberty, only some more than others. You are correct in that anarchism cannot work because there will always be those who want to form a group and control other people through force. Anarchism is always overrun by some sort of organized government even when that government proposes to protect the liberties that they ultimately take away.

Your argument would be more clearly expressed in "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know". The fact is there has to be law and where there is law there has to be an entity to enforce that law therefore anarchism isn't viable. So the best we can do is seek the government that upholds the laws that align closest to our own sense of justice and liberty.

That is the problem with the concept of a one world government under which we have no choice at all.

First off, there is nothing

First off, there is nothing in anarchism that says people can't form a collective. It's just about being voluntary. With that understanding, anarchism would work because the people who voluntarily have a mutual collective to protect their local liberties (what is also known as a militia) would be much greater in number than some criminal band that goes around trying to rape and pillage. The case against anarchism assumes that every individual would just become some violent isolationist and that people no longer cooperate in any fashion. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

There are more good than bad. If there wasn't we would truly not have any sort of society. Society already regulates itself, and not out of fear of police or military. It's because normal people want to live a good life and create a good world for their heirs to inherit. Normal people don't go around speeding like idiots because they are logical and don't want to get in an accident and potentially harm other people.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

This post puts the cart before the horse...

It suggests that liberty does not exist without state protection - without government.

However, the only reason for a state to be instituted is to protect liberty. Therefore the proposition is false. Liberty exists in the absence of government.

i cower in fear of a life without thugs in gov. issued costumes

Or you know maybe there are a million other reasons people value living their lives in a certain place.

The state isn't something to get that exasperated about...plus aren't there like a record number of people renouncing their citizenship anyway?

I would do it in a heartbeat, but I like the people around me too much...not just loved ones; nice people everywhere. Many things the tribe can provide the soul.

All value is subjective my friend. And if you need me to start list off the things I value more than what immoral corrupt joke I live under we'll be here for a while.

This is why the

This is why the communists(anarchists) believed they could not have anarchy until every world state was eliminated.

Ventura 2012

Communism != anarchism

Communism != anarchism. You should figure out what these long words mean before you look like a fool in public.

.

No doubt! Those two ideologies are diametrically opposed on the Real political spectrum.

http://youtu.be/rxDwT55rmIw

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Here imbecile:

Marx and Engels shared essentially the same goal. In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs.

Lenin divided communism, the period following the overthrow of capitalism, into two stages: first socialism, and then later, once the last vestiges of the old capitalist ways have withered away, stateless communism or pure communism.[5] Lenin based his 1917 work, The State and Revolution, on a thorough study of the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx uses the terms the "first phase" of communism and the "higher phase" of communism, but Lenin points to later remarks of Engels which suggest that what people commonly think of as socialism equates to Marx's "first phase" of communism.

Ventura 2012

Engel's anarchism =

Engel's anarchism = socialism.

Anarchism: Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

In other words, voluntary interaction. Certainly small socialist "groups" can form under anarchy, if the members of the group join into a voluntary contract, but these groups do not define the broad term "anarchism".

How do you avoid privatized production in Engel's anarchistic state without force? You cannot... you must rely on some authority with the right to initiate force to compel everyone to comply, therefore it is not anarchism.

They thought they could

They thought they could change the wickedness of human nature(social class, among others) with stage of communism which would then lead to an anarchy that would produce anarcho-communism, not capitalism. There is evidence for this, some anarchist communities were totally communistic.

Anarchy, no ruler, no government; Anarchy.

Ventura 2012

So they can change

So they can change (brainwash) people to their ideology with communism (force) which would lead to a society of puppets (anarcho-communism) who will do what they want?

So the leader is obfuscated, but still present. Who is doing this guiding? Someone who rules by deception is still a ruler, no matter what this society believes. Not anarchy.

They believed the

They believed the brainwashing was done by capitalism and they were returning people to their true nature.

I'm not a communist, but if you deny that communism is anarchy(with a transition period that you ancaps don't even have the foresight to suggest) you are simply dead wrong. Anarchy means no state, that was the goal.

Ventura 2012