18 votes

Anarchist Manifesto for a New World Freedom

When in the course of human history, it becomes time to free oneself from governmental tyranny, it is necessary to state the reasons for such liberation.
1) All taxation is theft and a violation of individual rights and self-ownership.
2) All laws are tools of enslavement designed to keep us in a mental prison.
3) Voting is a joke and gives no authority for one person or group of people to rule another group.
4) Statism, like all religions, is about submission to authority, not the elevation of one's own value as a human being.
5) Violence is a barbaric way to control people and should only be used in self-defense.

We are not sheep to be corralled, prodded, and slaughtered. We are free human beings with the rights to self-ownership, self-determination, and self-respect. We declare that we are the owners of this planet and shall treat it and each other with respect and love.

No more wars, no more disease, no more death, no more hatred. Only peace and voluntary cooperation. Amen.




Comment viewing options

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

Anarchism is the only solution.

Minarchism is simply the longer road to tyranny. Proof? The United States. Went from the Articles of Confederation to the far more centralized Constitution, to having a government that completely ignores the Rule of Law.

When will people stop trading one master for another? No man has any right to govern another.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com

The Founding Fathers

Rule of law is necessary, just as the US Constitution (which is a document of law) is necessary. Just laws exists solely to protect liberty from tyranny. But to advocate no laws necessarily means that individuals would have no legally guaranteed rights. The trick (which we have failed to accomplish) is keeping good laws, while eliminating the unjust ones.

The founders recognized that some minimal amount of government was necessary. Thomas Paine observed:

"...government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one"

It is tempting to think that no government is necessary at all. However, it only seems that way because our current government has grown from an necessary evil into an intolerable one.

Here is a compromise, let's strive to reduce the Federal government down to the size legally allowed by the US Constitution. If at that point it still seems too big, then we can discuss shrinking it further.

But please understand that if you go around claiming that libertarians are anarchists, then the cause of liberty will be harmed, not helped.

The British accused the American patriots of being anarchists. Of course it was done purely to discredit them. Quincy Adams responded:

"[T]here was no anarchy....[T]he people of the North American union, and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature, but not of anarchy."

This is why I'm unconvinced

of the anarchist philosophy. The great paradox of anarchism is most claim that the principles of non-aggression and volunteerism are to be of highest regard, yet how would you stop people from voluntary forming their own governements if done willfully and voluntarily? You would have to break your rules of non-aggression to stop people from voluntarily assembling; therefore a great paradox.

There is nothing wrong with taxation, as long as its voluntary. I agree that i voluntary/ compulsory taxation is immoral and should be abolished.

There is nothing wrong with laws, as long as they are justifyable to the ethics of liberty and are compatible praxeaologically; that is in accordance with human action.

This is why I'm far more convinced of the minarchist/ poly centrist philosophies.

Sorry but, AnCaps and

Sorry but, AnCaps and Voluntaryists believe that if a group of people want to setup their own government somewhere for themselves in a voluntary manner, then that is perfectly fine. However, if your government decides to try and force itself on other people then it is no longer voluntary and it is no longer legitimate.

Similar to if one Home Owner Association tries to expand by mandating that other people have to start paying them. This would not be tolerated by anybody and neither should government.

Also, as stated by others, if the tax is voluntary then it is no longer a tax. A tax by its very nature is not voluntary, but is mandated by some entity with great authority which can deprive individuals of their rights.

What do AnCaps say

about children consenting to that sort of voluntary government? Do their parents consent on their behalf, in a way that's binding on the child when the child is older?

If not then what obligations do these people have when they're older, living under rules they never personally consented to follow? They may not have any other options practically available to them, much like many people in the US were born here (they didn't personally consent to be governed) and have no real practical options for uprooting and going elsewhere. So are they obligated to follow rules they never consented to, in a system they disagree with but find themselves living under by birth?

Children are children and are

Children are children and are generally incapable of making adult decisions or entering into contracts on their own.

And that's straight from Ron Paul, the voluntarist.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com

But the question is

what happens when the children grow up and become adults if their parents have voluntarily placed the family under some form of government? When the children grow up they find themselves governed by rules they never consented to, and yet practically speaking there may not be a realistic option for them to disassociate themselves from the system they were born into.

What is their status, from an AnCap point of view? If you say that they cannot be forcibly expelled from the society in which they were born, but cannot be held to regulations that their parents voluntarily agreed to but that they the children did not consent to, then you have one set of problems. If you say that the parents were able to make those commitments on behalf of their minor children, in such a way that the children remain bound by those commitments without consent as adults (subject to whatever mechanisms, if any, are provided for changing their situation) then you have a different set of problems.

Unfortunately there are the

Unfortunately there are the obedient livestock like beatrixkiddo that are happy in their enslavement and love big brother. It is because of their belief that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength that allows the govt to thrive. Their new Neo, (Rand Paul) is just a bone thrown to them to give them false hope that he is the path to freedom.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it. . . There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with

http://www.working-minds.com/ARquotes.htm

Yes Greg

I only am capable of thinking what my masters force feed me. Seriously brother, quite thee ad hominum and red herring attack you threw at me. I never alluded to mindless compliance to authority, all I'm arguing is that there is quite the paradox within what I believe to be held in most anarchist theory; that government is inherently immoral, yet striving for a voluntary society and one that upholds the NAP.

Nothing Is wrong with the NAP or Voluntarism, I'm an avid supporter of both. However you can't at the same time hold those positions because people under such principles are validated in their actions to form a goverment instituted on voluntary measures, and with respect to the NAP. You would have to break your own rules of respecting peoples choices and non-aggression to break up the formation of governments.

As for the taxation claim, I suppose its a matter of semantics. Yes it would be more so a donation if given voluntary, I guess I've just always thought that if it was voluntary given towards a state/ governing function it should classify as a tax. But I'm open to disagreement with this argument.

actually, within an

actually, within an anarchical society, groups of people would have the right to voluntarily form their own "governments" with their own rules as long as they weren't violating other peoples rights outside of the group. The only issue would be that children born under those governmental societies would be subject to whatever rules were in place by that society. So, unfortunately there would still be violations of rights of the children in those societies but the good news is they would be able to escape at any time and come to the free, anarchical world where they would be treated with respect. Sort of the same idea as we can't go and invade and take over every country that has human rights abuses. Part of libertarianism is allowing people to make their own mistakes and learn from them and setting the example of how to live.

pgrady
f___ all forms of govt.

"There is nothing wrong with

"There is nothing wrong with taxation, as long as its voluntary."

???

Taxation that is voluntary, is no longer taxation. That would be charity or a service that you pay for.

"How would you stop people from voluntarily organizing"

Please reread that statement over and over until the logical fallacy clicks :)

Sounds like you are almost there... just gotta let go of that last little kernel of statist brainwashing. :)

minarchism is the first goal on the road to freedom

"how would you stop people from voluntary forming their own governements if done willfully and voluntarily?"

why would you stop them if they are not violating the NAP?

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

This is great

Is this original?

yes, i just thought of it

yes, i just thought of it today.

pgrady
f___ all forms of govt.

Please spread this message

Please spread this message far and wide.

pgrady
f___ all forms of govt.