Comment: TY Tman2000

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Good Questions (see in situ)

TY Tman2000

//Anarchism suffers from a lack of good articulation. It seems to take the form of hatred of the state, and doesn't offer a good actual alternative.//

It's not just the state that anarchism takes the "form" of hatred. It spills over to people, it's blames, which I'll elaborate below, which is why to ma, anarchism is "angry defeatism".

//We have the non-aggression principle on one hand. But, the state exists because without a 'gang' going around enforcing 'rules' people initiate violence against each other. The state generally emerges because the productive non-violent people see it as a way to prevent the wholesale initiation of violence in society.//

The non-agression principle is like a goal, one never achieved, because it's inhuman, in that it deny's the fact agression is human. Rather than deny a human condition like aggression, I find it is better to acccept the condition and witness it as a fuel, and energy, that when harnessed constructively can take one places. For example, petrol, when stored, a spark can ignite it and it's blows. Where if it is put in a car engine, you can spend it going someplace. So agreesion, spent as a fuel, writing contracts, what legislation is, is a non-agressive principle, and when backed by a defensive force (police) in theory, there would be a peaceful society. It is when contractds fail and the state becomes offensive in the name of defense, we have the problems and confusion we wirness today.

//People from Bastiat to Rand have asked why the productive continue to work when the state that robs from them would be broke without their support? The answer is a tangible fear of being robbed worse in the alternative. Sometimes the state creates the illusion of this menace, but at times - particularly when states are first formed - the menace is quite real. Feudal lords protecting against marauders and gothic tribes is a perfect example. Of course, they end up fighting each other.//

I don't think so. I think it's because people have children and children change everything. There is a need to provide for them, and people will do what they have to. The state has controlled people with this for a long time.

//People like Stefan Molyneaux I think seem to believe that we just need to embrace non-violence religiously, and this will solve the problem.//

While SM may be physically non-violent, I find his ranting very violent, blaming, accusing, threatening, hostile and bitter.

//This is an intellectual thing, this set of laws requires wisdom, experience, careful thought and consideration. The ideas, in other words, are concrete, fixed, in a given context.//

I think the one word very lacking is RESPECT, without it, the rest is like a ship without a rudder.

I am always amazed by what I don't know, as it seems the more I know, is actually knowing that I have a lot more to learn.