-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.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The ocean

I think the ocean is the only place still not entirely owned. And there are people mulling it over:

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

But it's pretty ridiculous that someone would have to go that far and be that inconvenienced to live somewhere libertarian.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

wolfe's picture

Agreed.

And I have considered it as well. Feasibility is virtually impossible for any but the wealthiest and logistically almost impossible as well.

A pipe dream. And yes, it is sad that the closest we could come is a pipe dream.

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

See, it begs the question of

See, it begs the question of what you can purchase. You can purchase some land from a Somalian crime lord...but you know he's just going to take your money and run.

You can also go to many remote places where there is de-facto no government. Often these places there is no real establishment of land ownership; you just live where you want to live.

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

wolfe's picture

Both statements are false.

Your first statement, if someone has claim to land, including a state, they can sell it, give it a way, etc.

Your second statement, there is no such place on earth. Name it. Show me a single acre anywhere in the world that doesn't have a government claiming taxes on it, or that it is willing to sell/give you to use as a non-taxed entity afterward.

Your claim, doesn't make it fact.

Lastly, if such a place did exist, it would cost you around 350K to purchase your freedom from the US.

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

"Your first statement, if

"Your first statement, if someone has claim to land, including a state, they can sell it, give it a way, etc."

What if someone else believes differently? What is a "claim" to land? Who is going to define what that is?

In terms of land, Monaco, Kuwait, Bermuda, British virgin islands, Andorra, Malta, Oman, Vanatua, Cayman Islands, Somalia, etc. has no taxes. Some of this land is incredibly expensive, but there are no taxes at all afterwards. Some of the above do have taxes in the form of taxes on any oil you sell from your property.

There are also nations like Hungary with no property taxes, but income/vice taxes.

FYI, it is just taxes you are concerned about, you can always be the ultimate moocher and live in parts of New Hampshire. No sales, income, or property tax. Just federal taxes.

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

wolfe's picture

You miss the point.

Taxes are an easy example. But the question is not whether there ARE taxes, but whether there is "authority" to levy taxes. There are numerous reasons that that distinction is important.

The idea that if I don't want to pay taxes that I am a mooch? Are you on the right site?

Murder = the taking of someone's life.
Theft = taking a portion of someone's life.
Slavery = taking a portion/all of someone's life.

Taxation = taking a portion/all of someone's life.
Imprisonment = taking a portion/all of someone's life.

These are all different degrees of the same crime when unprovoked. If someone makes a claim on any portion of my life, I have become a slave to them, either for a short duration (mugging), or long term (slavery, murder, taxation).

These things may be implemented as retaliatory. For instance, if someone steals $100, I have a right to reclaim that $100 and it would not be considered theft/wrong.

But to initiate any of those things without cause, other than by chance of their birth is wrong.

Further, every one of you defenders ignore my statement that it takes 350K to buy your release from the US. Are any of you paying attention to that?

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

wolfe even if we could point

wolfe even if we could point to such a place, it wouldn't guarantee anything. if you started producing wealth, neighboring states could just send armed forces to tax you. if you can't defend your sovereignty, you are not sovereign. that's why you need a government, even if only a republic established for the protection of individual rights, to stand up for you.

you keep dodging the point about protection agencies. if protection agencies are viable, than why can't they defend you from other states? if they can't do so now, why would they ever be able to?

wolfe's picture

Oh...

I think maybe you confused me with an ancap at some point. An ancap tries to "explain" what things could look like. I do not, and I don't care what they would look like so I don't concern myself with protection agencies or any of those theories.

Actually, a number of militarized, "hired gun" coups have taken place in history, and so theoretically and realistically is possible.

Your argument is equivalent to "without slavery who would do the work".

I have the right to delegate self defense, this right could be delegated to a third party. However, that third party does not then get the right to use force against me, or obtain any rights as a collective that I don't already have. That is the distinction between the security companies and a government.

In addition, I was raised to believe -lawful- meant not initiating force (of some variety). Everything else imposed are rules meant to favor one group over another, without exception.

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

"I think maybe you confused

"I think maybe you confused me with an ancap at some point. An ancap tries to "explain" what things could look like. I do not, and I don't care what they would look like so I don't concern myself with protection agencies or any of those theories."

You realize how much this discredits you right? You just want to burn society down and have no proposals to replace the current legal system?

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

No.

I acknowledge that I am not in any way intelligent enough to design society. That is all. I think understood personal inability is what all statists, ancaps, and minarchists lack.

I know that human interaction does not require forced mandate, and I know that I am not capable of designing society. I also have no interest in designing society.

How does acknowledging my human limitations discredit me more than those who claim understanding and intelligence that they clearly do not possess?

I am an anarchist. I do not believe a state is required for humans to function. It is not up to me to -design- a system that makes anyone happy. Society will form, as it always has, one way or another.

Further. Burn what down? The monstrous states that kill and destroy innocent lives daily? The monstrous states that steal from all? The states that demand you behave in private, as they see fit?

Yes, I would see that burn, with a vengeance.

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

So in other words, an

So in other words, an entirely faith-based initiative. Gotcha.

Ventura 2012

"the third party does not get

"the third party does not get the right to use force against me."

lol this sounds like those obama supporters talking about jobs or healthcare "we gosta get our rights."

the third party can do whatever it wants to do. you might not like it, but it can.

just because you want something doesn't mean it will happen.

wolfe's picture

Might makes right?

It's ok that they do it, because they can forcefully do it? THAT is chaos. Anarchism is order.

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

if you cant back your moral

if you cant back your moral claims up somehow, what good are they. wishing others won't harm you is a poor substitute for actually defending what you believe to be your rights. you might as well just leave the morality out of it. the only value of moralizing about it is to get others to back you up with force... i.e., to defend your rights from thugs, gangs, other states, etc. i.e., a government to defend you from more powerful people. so when you invoke morality you're either supporting government, or pissing in the wind.

wolfe's picture

I actually agreed with this statement...

Up until you said, I needed a government to defend me. The first part of your statement is valid. The last half is some strange connection that you seem to draw between what I believe to be right and the need for a government to enforce it.

Strange.

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

think about it. moral

think about it. moral arguments are arguments of persuasion. their only effect is to persuade others to band with you for the defense of your rights. to establish guarantees for your rights, political guarantees. it requires other people. it requires that some body be formed to protect those rights for external and internal enemies. that body has to be armed, provisioned.

investing a body with the power to protect the individual from groups means that that power can potentially be turned against the individual as well. so all the problems of government emerge in the effort to defend individual rights against other more powerful individuals and groups.

political facts are separate from moral assertions. the fact is your body and your property can be violated by others, many of whom won't take an interest in your moralizing (claiming rights). therefore, to claim rights is to cry out to others, defend my rights, our common rights. it is a cry for government. you need others to defend your rights.

wolfe's picture

You are confusing two topics.

The request of assistance by others is NOT the need for government.

A government/state obtains --special-- rights not afforded to individuals.

Requesting others to assist me in what I know is right, is not the same as conveying special powers to an entity to do what I know is wrong.

This IS the distinction between private/state.

I think you are secretly an anarchist... :)

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

These anarchists are no

These anarchists are no different than the communist fanatics that deny the laws of scarcity.

Ventura 2012

you make the conditions of

you make the conditions of your question impossible.

anywhere two or more people with guns lying in wait to take your stuff, you will call "the state."

if i pointed to a lawless anarchy of warring gangs without any real law or state structure, you would say its a state because gangs with guns are causing havoc.

if i pointed to an empty wilderness you would say some neighboring state would come tax you or regulate you.

if i pointed to a truly free anarchy zone no state would claim, you still wouldn't go. because if you did go, some band of soldiers of fortune or military adventurers from poor countries could go steal your wealth if you didn't have a state ready to defend yourselves.

everywhere with humans potentially using violence is a state in your definition. to you guys, human violence itself is "the state."

your utopian dream is to abolish the possibility of human violence.

of course, you know this is impossible. so you posit the "protection agency." ignoring that without a legal order to enforce contracts, you can't hire a protection agency.

the protection agency is supposed to protect you.

so hire it to protect you. go somewhere with a weak state and buy land.

no...

you will never admit that any possibility of your system could happen anywhere. the bogeyman of the state will always be there to point to, to justify you staying put. you CHOOSE the state.

you are utopians without even the courage of your convictions.

pilgrims crossed the seas for their beliefs and fought savages and the wilderness.

mormons trekked deserts and were willing to fight the US govt.

you guys make excuses. you don't believe in each other and don't really believe in your own crap.

its impossible to point to anywhere where the lone individual won't be molested and robbed by larger groups. that's why they form states and governments in the first place.

you are asking for the impossible, because your definition of a stateless place is outside of the potentialities of human nature. once people with property are present, some others will combine to violate their freedom and property. so they create states.

that is why you choose the state. its a wise decision.

wolfe's picture

I will show you where I stopped reading:

"you make the conditions of your question impossible."

Not true. You frame the question in an impossible way.

"anywhere two or more people with guns lying in wait to take your stuff, you will call "the state.""

I would not. That is you twisting the argument.

"if i pointed to a lawless anarchy of warring gangs without any real law or state structure, you would say its a state because gangs with guns are causing havoc."

No, I would not. Show me a single acre, just one acre of land, not owned by a state. Anywhere in the world (and btw, even the arctic/antarctic wastes are claimed by states).

I stopped reading at this point, not out of disrespect but simply because I assumed the rest of the arguments to be rehashing this same incorrect re-statement/misinterpretation of the anarchist argument.

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

wolfe's picture

That article is outright false.

Nutbush, Tennessee is a part of the US, the last time I checked which means Federal Taxes and Laws.

Belgium went almost two years without a government. While interesting and I will research, it currently does have a government. In addition, I suspect it was more likely similar to our "government shutdowns" than anything else.

Somalia does have a government. Just because a place is hell, and the government is brutal and evil, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Antarctica is claimed by several nations as territory.
Western Sahara is also claimed/owned by a state.

And as far as either of these two, who said dying is a part being free, even if you were correct (which the article is absolute garbage)?

Try something better than a garbage top 5 to make a point.

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

the article isn't false

the article isn't false because it doesn't claim that these places have no government.

and you did exactly what i said you would do. anywhere with a violent gang (somalia) is government according to you. a continental icecap is govt according to you, because a neighboring state might claim a part of it.

of course there are people in the world who will potentially use violence. that's human nature. if that's your definition of government, than obviously absence of it is not realistic.

besides, you guys are supposed to believe in protection agencies. why don't 100 of you hire a protection agency and settle in an uninhabited place. if some state or gang bothers you, your crack protection agency should have it covered. isn't that the magic of freedom?

wolfe's picture

Wow.

Are you really going to ignore logic/fact just to refuse to acknowledge being wrong? Look it up.

And yes, it claimed that there was no government, and then in some cases got mealy mouthed about it, half admitting it's own lies.

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

He's not wrong generally. Its

He's not wrong generally. Its true that every time there is chaos it automatically can't be anarchy to the ancaps. Early Feudalism WAS anarchy. Its a fact. Yet anarchists refuse to claim it as their own. I wonder why?

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

Here is the thing.

Most of human history has in some way been a form of anarchism, yes, even the parts with "states".

Because in most of human history, there has been an out clause from most of these states. Leave or fight.

The out clause is all that is required for anarchism, whether you want to call it a state or something else. So long as an out clause exists, then it is voluntary.

Feudalism is not technically anarchism in the sense that it does have a legal system and rulers in place. However, so long as all that was required to opt out of the system was to leave, in could be considered a form of anarchism, as was any other government that allowed you to leave it's borders for a region that was not controlled.

However, this is the first time in human history in which there is no choice, even by leaving.

This is the ultimate statist society at this point. There is no where to go, and all governments act in collusion to produce little benefit through any attempt at an out clause.

We (anarchists) are stuck in the past and not the ones hoping for a utopian future. That would be the statists.

Today:

Leaving = irrelevant.
Fighting = dying (there isn't even a hope of winning).
Staying = obedience.

The best example of anarchism in recent times was the United States prior to creation of a -strong- federal government. Didn't like the rules, chances, etc -- Go west young man!

I am pretty happy about our history. And despite the horribly inaccurate telling of our history by fictional movies and books, the US became the greatest country in history BECAUSE of that, and not despite it.

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

How is feudalism not

How is feudalism not anarchism because is has "a legal system"? Its funny seeing anarchist admit that here.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

Misquote much?

"legal system and rulers in place" is what I said.

You really should read the whole comment, because if you had kept reading, you would have had a different take, an I believe would not have been interested in misquoting me.

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

I just found it interesting

I just found it interesting that you used that word. It was voluntary to submit to a lord, so no rulers.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

Which I acknowledged...

As being a form of anarchism (if viewed at a high enough level) in the rest of the comment. As have many "governments" throughout history could also be said to be. Including/especially the early US.

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