In my opinion, anarchy is a great ideal to strive for but is as unattainable as visiting Neverland for the summer.
Why? ...because of people like me. I will force my will upon you, your family, and anyone in my way. I will beat your elderly grandmother for a laugh and eat your dog, all while I force you to watch. My friends and I are large, well-trained, armed, and most importantly we do not subscribe to the non-agression principle. Only the strong should survive! Libertarianism is for those too weak to take what they want, a philosophical dance to camoflauge their own impotence. What are you going to do about it? Anarchy means I can do whatever I want, right?
Oh... Laws? It has been said that anarchy doesn't mean that laws won't exist. Okay, so who is going to enforce them? Before you even try to answer... Aren't we right back around to some form of limited government? We're defining what individuals can and can't do and then enforcing those definitions. What if I don't agree with those definitions? Sounds like I'll be out protesting my governing body.
Anarchy vs. Limited Government... It all boils down to semantics. If I earnestly and logically try to hash out a practical version of anarchy it seems to take the form of a voluntaristic, limited government that is striking similar to the way our government was intended to function.
On a side note, there seems to be a lot of anarchists on a forum that displays, "DEDICATED TO RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" at the top of every page.
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.
be forced to defend myself against you, instead of people who use assault rifles, prevent me from having my own, have an endless supply of new "jackboots", and will see to my demise if I resist, one way or another.
You, I shoot you, or am shot... But it ends, with me having had a fighting chance. With them, if I fight, I have already lost. That simple.
That is why government doesn't work.
And you would be less likely to commit your acts of aggression if you knew your victim had a fighting chance to kill you. Instead, you pass laws, using the majority to eliminate my fighting chance.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
I am a cupcake entitled to get my welfare voucher when I am at work on disability and on strike.
Because that's the new terms of the law IAC.123-SXZ.456 that will be voted on April 1st, 2020.
I love how you eloquently made most of the same point as I tried to do below, in "I'm with Ron Paul".
The tragedy is that even in this era of potentially ubiquituous, global information sharing for the Peoples, too few of them care to pay attention to the evergreen old trick of the tyrants:
Proliferation and perversion of laws, and usages of laws thru language subversion, and betrayal.
With illegitimate and irrational arbitrary abstractions made by the body which has already got into power and only serving itself to stay and grow: government.
It is time the peoples now care for, and protect language for the long run, and broadly, now that science and technology has enabled them to do so, whenever and wherever they'll need.
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
They didn't stop making guns when they made yours.
In a society where people in general were well armed, those folks like that you describe would be shot on site. What do suppose the life expectancy was of people like that in the early American West?
Even brutal dictatorships only survive by the complacency of the governed. Why else do you suppose that Hitler thought it a good idea to develop propaganda?
If a people couldn't be controlled and looted by the biggest most powerful gang in the world, how do you suppose your band of thugs would fair?
You're rehashing your same wild west arguments from earlier in the thread but when challenged you didn't defend your position.
I looked through the comments but didn't find what you're talking about.
If you're speaking of the comment where you suggested I read some pro-Machiavellian literature, I don't find it necessary. I've read The Prince. I don't need a rehash.
But, if you stand with Machiavelli, you're in good company. It was bedtime reading for Hitler. It certainly sheds light on your political philosophy.
you wouldn't have to look very far, i referred directly to the comment you made about how violence would be dealt with by libertarian quick draw gun slingers.
as for the machievellians, the term refers to a group of political theorists in the realist tradition. pareto, mosca, michels, sorel, etc.
but nice sidestep. and cool argument ad hitlerum. and your trite provincialism wrt to machievelli is cute.
aside from just being lame to resort to argument via hitler, there is no evidence hitler was influenced by machievelli. it should beneath you to resort to such ploys.
In the seventeenth century it was in England that Machiavelli's ideas were most substantially developed and adapted, and that republicanism came once more to life; and out of seventeenth-century English republicanism there were to emerge in the next century not only a theme of English political and historical reflection - of the writings of the Bolingbroke circle and of Gibbon and of early parliamentary radicals - but a stimulus to the Enlightenment in Scotland, on the Continent, and in America.
Scholars have argued that Machiavelli was a major indirect and direct influence upon the political thinking of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson followed Machiavelli's republicanism when they opposed what they saw as the emerging aristocracy that they feared Alexander Hamilton was creating with the Federalist Party....
In his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, John Adams praised Machiavelli, with Algernon Sidney and Montesquieu, as a philosophic defender of mixed government. For Adams, Machiavelli restored empirical reason to politics, while his analysis of factions was commendable. Adams likewise agreed with the Florentine that human nature was immutable and driven by passions.
from the review of the book i reco'd
Best introduction to scientific politcs ever written March 18, 2000
By Greg Nyquist VINE VOICE
It is scandalous that this book should be out of print, for it is without a doubt the best primer on political science ever written. If you are going to read only one book on politics, this should be it. Burnham is no ideologue with an axe to grind. He merely seeks to describe how politics works in the real world of fact. In pursuit of this aim, he discusses five of the most scientifically rigorous of all political thinkers: Machiavelli, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, and Georges Sorel. Together, these thinkers represent, according to Burnham, the Machiavellian tradition in political thought. Machiavellians, Burnham tells us, regard politics as a science devoted to describing facts as they really are, not as one may wish them to be.
In a certain sense, I can understand why this book is out of print. Realism in politics is hardly popular. What most people seek for in political theory is not reality but a rationalization for their own wishful thinking.
He's just trolling for upvotes. Look at his history. He's about as Anarchist as Spineless Chicken is libertarian.
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown
ya i called it as satire. and that's the only reason it was worthy of an upvote. the rest of yall got trolld.
He lost many more votes for the two posts that were revisited(This site is not libertarian, and marijuana should be illegal) then he gained for this one.
I guess I saw things sort of developing in a way where maybe it might be real, although I haven't seen him respond to anything yet, so it all just remains to be seen.
Anyway, I just read a few dozen of his posts and comments. He seems like a kid whose suffered from years of indoctrination trying desperately to figure things out. He is angry and his posts are immature, but alot if what he writes are questions, or statements about things he knows he doesn't yet understand.
This post may well be an attempt to get some upvotes, but I think it's because this is the community he has chosen, and he doesn't seem to be very well accepted.
ya but it was still funny to see everyone get taken in so easily by an obvious troll. the OP was ludicrous, using native Americans as an example of anarchy at all, let alone successful, non violent anarchy. the mindless upvoting and supporting comments reveal more about the gullibility and credulousness of those voters/commenters.
the purpose of a troll post is to draw out those who are either senseless or humorless, for example my recent foray into hardcore conspira-comedy w/ the Zimmerman looks different post.
here, like anywhere else, only a minority are not credulous or humorless.
Actually the Comanche Empire was an anarchist empire based on rigid social customs (of course you probably think anarchy means no law). David Friedman is the one who pointed out that the Comanche indian Anarcho defense kept Texans from expanding west for a generation. So, some of the indians were actually a great example, but not all.
good read on the Comanche "empire"
"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
thanks, this looks cool
i wasn't going to dispute you, but ya had to quote a clown like david friedman...
while the Comanche were certainly awesome, fierce and majestic expression of humanity, they were definitely not imaginary anarchists. just some wiki snippets...
Historically, the Comanches were hunter-gatherers with a horse culture. There may have been as many as 45,000 Comanches in the late 18th century. They were the dominant tribe on the Plains and often took captives from weaker tribes during warfare, selling them as slaves to the Spanish and later Mexican settlers.
... their population increased dramatically because of the abundance of buffalo, an influx of Shoshone migrants, and the adoption of significant numbers of women and children taken captive from rival groups.
...The Comanche had stolen many of the horses from other tribes and settlers; they earned their reputation as formidable horse, and later, cattle thieves. Their stealing of livestock from Spanish and American settlers, as well as the other Plains tribes, often led to war.
...they were, at one time or another, at war with virtually every other Native American group living in the Great Plains, leaving opportunities for political maneuvering by European colonial powers and the United States.
...In times of war, the band selected a war chief. To be chosen for this position, a man had to prove he was a brave fighter. He also had to have the respect of all the other warriors in the band. While the band was at war, the war chief was in charge, and all the warriors had to obey him.
but thanks, you've re-sparked my interest in reading more about American indians, even though none of them were anarcho-anything. the reason you might think they are anarcho-something was because they lived in a culture that had not yet adopted private property or capital production, and so did not have any need for government in the sense settled agricultural and urban cultures had. but they were organized for hunting and warfare, and behaved in no way in accord with principles of political anarchism.
lmao this guy just called David Friedman, Miltons son, a joke. This guy has some ego. He doesnt even understand anarchy lmao.
So you believe in anarchy but you want marijuana illegal? hmm. AND you complain this site is not 'libertarian'. I can't seem to find the connections.
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.
There will always be force. Government is just accepted use of force. Native Americans had a system of authorized use of force in most cases, thus they had governments. Every man is his own master. We are all anarchists.
We all make decisions based on the risks we assume. It is still our autonomy that governs our actions. Most decisions are made based on self interest, to include possibility of threat of force. When we dont agree with actions taken toward us by a large group of people that dominate a geographic area, we suffer from oppression. that is the long and short of it.
We generally chose to allow ourselves to be oppressed because the alternative would be a worse outcome for our self interest. For example, we may choose not to use illicit drugs because we may be threatened with force. It maybe in our self interest to use illicit drugs, but more so not to go to jail. As soon as we no longer agree with the monopoly of force(nation state) we cease to be apart of it voluntarily.
Thus, if our personal choice would be to use illicit drugs, except for the threat of the state, we are no longer citizens of the state but slaves of it. When you look at it in those terms, than because every action of government is to use force or threaten force, every action of the government is the act of enslavement.
Now, the same conclusion must be drawn from the following case. If some one wants to aggress against his neighbor than no one man has the authority to determine his own best interest. He has autonomy over himself and thus he is free to make what ever choice he wants to. He is also free to live with(or die due to) the consequences. If he is prevented from using force, then he is in fact a slave to society.
I am not saying we shouldn't have government, and I am not saying that We dont have an obligation to honor a common law, the non-aggression principle. I am just simplifying the problem.
There is force and threat of force, and there is non aggression.
There is submission to force and threat of force, and there is non-compliance.
There is only the individual serving his self interest. whether it be to die or to thrive. This is dependent on his autonomy over his mind and the circumstances surrounding his decisions.
Only when we discuss natural rights in these terms can we have a meaningful discussion about the role of government
I'm with Ron Paul:
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
Two choices are available.
1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
what is killing America is the same thing which has been doing killings every-THE-FREAKING-where-else, on this same planet :
politics done to the acme of the absurd, and even more importantly, more outrageously :
legions of "-isms" - but there's only one*** at the root of the evil. Our friend Frederic Bastiat pointed it out 150 years ago, even before Ron Paul :
No More ‘isms’
The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.
So, restore the LITERAL English language supposed to be in use to express and to honor the rule of (just) law, once chosen for your FOUNDATIONS, that is, liberty, peace, and justice, and you'll have your Republic back.
The destruction of the USA is being done thru treason against the American English language, before anything else.
That's how this is being turned, by your traitors, into (so they wish) a derisory, laughable artifact of the past :
And that's sad.
Very, very sad.
Disgusting, infuriating, actually.
I hate to break it to you folks, but I'm afraid you won't "fix it" with yet another "-ism".
Again, and again, and again, and again :
To The Youth
*** On AntagonISMS :
For literal language.
For sound money.
For law as justice, and only justice.
If your basis for deciding to become an anarchist is that Native Americans were anarchists, I'm a little confused. Even if you were correct in determining what the hundreds of tribes and tribal families were, you wouldn't have much room to stand. The Natives Americans lost their battle, both on the field and in the treaty room.
But, from what I know of Indian organization, they most definitely did have government. In fact, they had a complex web of interconnected tribal families and met regularly to decide tribal-wide issues. Leaders were chosen on both the basis of linage and on individual merit.
As I understand it, we don't know what the Indians of the Americas would have done, with their formidable numbers and governmental structures, had their numbers not been decimated by disease even prior to to the Pilgrim and Jamestown periods. When Europeans confronted the Indians in mass, the Indians were nothing like they had been. Their population, their fighting power, their government structures were in shambles because of diseases that wiped out 80 to 90 percent of them.
Feel free to become a philosophical anarchist; I don't think you can use Native Americans as your guide. Criminy, you can't read even Chief Joesph or Chief Seattle or Crazy Horse -- the most published Indian leaders -- and have any pretense that anarchy reined among First Americans.
You do realize that government only means a system set in place by leaders? You do realize that leaders are simply those people who step forward with an idea and a plan to which others assent?
Sure they can assent by tucking their tails, but that doesn't negate that a leader stepped forward and no one had anything better. That's the genesis of leadership.
Before anyone goes all anarchy, I challenge them to just not be a tail-tucker. You got a better idea? Step forward and shout it out. Put your ideas before your fellows. Bad leaders -- i.e. government -- hold their heads above water on the backs of fearful people.
Frankly, anarchist types remind me of those chimps who can't tackle the group leader and, rather than observing and training, climb up to some limb and screech, about how bad off people are under the current leader. I'm afeared anarchy is the limb on which losers sit and pine. Other losers, hone their skills, their strengths, and attack again when they've done their work.
Even apes seek and need leaders. In the human realm, leadership is more complex and becomes government. Sure go through a bachelor-group phase, where you develop and gain, and try again. But don't confuse that with anarchy. You'll just doom yourself to being forever outside, bitching and moaning. You'll doom society to never knowing your talents and skills.
I've been in numerous "anarchist" groups -- usually their a group of women who don't feel good with assigning hierarchical status. What happens? Two or three women can't stand the endless airing of personal needs. They try to get things moving. Half of the tribe is thankful and pursues the leader's thought train, moving the goal along; the other half is pissed and talks behind their backs. Whether the "leaders" get anything moving is all about the personal power of the half-and-halfs. It's less about the leaders than about the folks who don't have ideas, and don't put out the work effort and comfort their inadequacy with griping about those who do.
Humans are social creatures. Social creatures establish hierarchy. Even chickens establish hierarchy. Even chickens have leaders and subleaders -- i.e. government. Social creatures do this for a reason. It helps them survive. If you want to be part of the government of humans, prove yourself worthy. If you don't think you're worthy, take some time to become so. Anarchy, as a strategy for leading/changing anything, is for whiners who know they couldn't lead if a sharp stick were shoved into their backs, but what to bitch about it.
Quite inaccurate, David Friedman speaks of anarcho tribes in Native America. Apparently, the fact that the white man came with guns and horses means nothing to a statist.
I don't know David Friedman, but I think you are right in calling him inaccurate in speaking of American Indians as living under anarchy. The Plains Indians certainly had plenty of horses by the time the white guys started shooting at them. In fact, they had far more horses and were far more skilled riders. I'm not sure of your point. David is "quite inaccurate" according to you. Acquiring resources like horses and weapons has nothing to do with how a people chooses to organize themselves.
that is quite the awesome comment. you Sir win first prize.
We all make decisions based on the risks we assume. It is still our autonomy that governs our actions. Most decisions are made based on threat of force. When we dont agree with actions taken toward us by a large group of people that dominate a geographic area, we suffer from oppression. that is the long and short of it.
We generally chose to allow ourselves to be oppressed because the alternative would be a worse outcome for our self interest, but as soon as we no longer agree with the monopoly of force(nation state) we cease to be apart of it.
Human beings are not apes, chickens, ants or bee's, we as far as I know are the only creatures that can conceptualize.
Conceptualize the idea that you were raised to respect authority and that you don't have to
I don't need a leader, I lead myself.
You're right. Humans aren't apes. You're right that, as far as we know, homo sapiens are the only creatures that can conceive of leadership beyond instinct.
That does not mean that we do not deal with that instinctual level. That doesn't meant that some homo sapiens, when rebuffed in their attempts to control others by shouting about the beauty of anarchy, don't climb to some high limb and twitterpate rather than deal out of the more shallow end and use their minds to train themselves for another go at what they want.
I'm not saying anarchy isn't effective. In fact, I think the term is a pretty good descriptor for most of how our relations with each other go down. Anarchy, in fact, does reign as the dominate way in which we relate to each other.
People seek to formalize and choose leaders for when those individual contracts break down to the detriment of non-contractual players (children were likely one of the first non-contractual players) and for when they've got big plans that require a large and disparate group of participants.
I'm not sure where you're going with your encouragement that I conceptualize I was raised to respect authority and that I don't need to. I'm not sure how that leads to not needing a leader.
Frankly, it all sounds a bit like someone who doesn't feel like a leader -- even of himself. Frankly, being raised to respect authority is a nice place to start. Being raised to understand that you and your whims are not all that, is a good place to start. Of course, I don't have to. I always judge, as anyone who is taught to respect authority is. That is inherent in the very definition of respect. Respect means that one discerns and judges that authority. Methinks you confuse being a toady with respect; nothing could be farther from the truth.
When it comes to needing leaders, I can only say that leading oneself is a big job and if that's the end your desires, good on you. Lead yourself well. Lots of other people want to do things that require at least one other, which kinda means we've got to contend with who's better at this part and who's better at that part. Leadership evolves from that. I seek out leaders when I want something I'm not skilled at creating. I think it's the bees knees to find those people and to nurture them to lead me toward my objectives.
but but but.... who will build the roads??
No, wait! I'll bet you meant you just RETURNED to anarchy. After all, we're all born anarchist and atheist and otherwise devoid of predispositions. Generally we are introduced to mysticism and have the anarchy beaten out of us. Fortunately some of us are a little more resistant to the persistent inculcations.
dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america
yes, very bright comment. people are born devoid of predispositions. they can become fish, birds, plants. tabula rasa ad absurdum. you're a smart cookie.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: