Did the Creator bestow inalienable rights on anarchists?
Those who advise anarchists to "just leave" are not event trying to address the very legitimate question that anarchists pose. The Constitution that everyone is defending so vociferously is the best testimony against it self: "The government draws its just powers from the consent of the governed."
What about people who do not consent? There is no rational justification for expecting them to leave a piece of ground because some person claims that ground belongs to them. The squirrels do not consent to be governed by the US Constitution, do you expect them to leave, too?
Increasingly, I do not "fit in" with any political party, or with any segment of any "movement." Does that mean I give up my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I think not. Happiness for me is a big, fat steaming plate of anarchy.
To paraphrase Spooner, either the Constitution allowed GWB and Cheney to turn this into a corporate / fascist state and Obama to get elected without proving his eligibility, or it was powerless to prevent it.
I do not consent to ANY man's laws.
output
Thoughts
The just powers quote comes not from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence. If it actually were in the Constitution (which I favor), it would be a much different ballgame today.
To answer the post title question: The idea of a Creator bestowing rights was a term of art of the time used to appeal to the masses, who then just like now, are predominantly religious. The real answer is that the political creation of rights being bestowed by anyone is merely that--a political fiction created by man to justify their own rules to set them over others, in the same way that some governments take that claim in place of some Creator. Atheists claim the rights are bestowed by mere existence as individuals (long, different argument tangent there, leave it be), but even that is still a man-made creation of assumption of a man-made construct of the idea of "rights".
Just as no person has no real rights outside of a socio-political context, neither does any person have any authority or power to limit or unlimit them.
IOW, look past the political fictions and into the dog-eat-dog world of reality, and you'll find that rights are a construct of human and only human consciousness and ego. (Something the animal rights fools haven't figured out and probably never will) It's very easy to get wrapped up in the political dysfunctionality that surrounds and permeates life, but it is necessary to unravel it and step back from it to look at the basic premises from time to time.
Why yes he did,
anarchists have the same rights as we do.
But trolls, in my opinion are traitors.
FOR THE MILLIONITH TIME
IT'S NOT INALIENABLE it's UNALIENABLE. For the difference...
http://www.gemworld.com/U...
You ask your question, I will ask mine
I understand the difference, and I asked the question that I wanted people to consider. Your question would only be understood by a very few people. My question leads to the heart of the issue that raises your question.
OOPS my bad.
I get you. I thought you were trying to be sneaky with you're spelling of the word.
It's the flouride. lol.
yes
All an anarchist is is someone who supports the right to bear arms.
We get all the guns, and the president gets none.
You bet ya. Good people do
You bet ya.
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen
The inalienable rights of men...
exist beyond any form of, or the absence of, government. It's quite simple, consent is each man's (or woman's) weapon against the exterior world, free will is the method of deployment. Circumstances, what they may be, withstanding, what good is it to gain the whole world and in the process to lose one's own soul. Wiser words were never spoken and should press upon the hearts of all living souls.
Assert Your Authority
They have the right to die.
"There is no rational justification for expecting them to leave a piece of ground because some person claims that ground belongs to them."
And you need to add: UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE IT!
If someone knows that their property is truly theirs, will they walk away? No way!
The law protects against trespassers, and the stealing of someone's property.
There is governmental law and natural law. This is natural law, protecting what directly belongs to you.
Of course!
They are inalienable rights.
You have the right to be 100% sovereign, and make your property your own country.
Nobody is stopping you.
The question is, "Can you defend your inalienable rights, after you assert them?"
Because if you can't, you won't have them.
You live in an area claimed and defended by a currently existing entity, called the US.
The US is going to defend its claim as its jurisdiction, which was won over 200 years ago in a war, and has been defended since that time, or they wouldn't have it anymore.
So, anytime you're ready to win a war against them, go right ahead.
Hypotheticals stop when the rubber hits the road.
Talk is cheap.
If you can't back it up, it's nothing but hot air.
In answer to your headline post.
Of course unalienable rights are bestowed upon anarchists if not then they would not be unalienable.
Like the sun the shines in the sky, it's light is free, but difficult to reject, though you may try.
Perhaps you can be a creature of the dark, try coming out only at night, except you still have light since the Creator provides light for you from other stars and sunlight reflected by the moon. In this case, you may wish to reject all light, you may want to dig a hole in the ground and live in a cave, but that will of course lead to death. Total darkness is death. First the Creator created light, then he separated the darkness from the light, even Satan depends on the Creator for the light from which he was separated.
As per the second question of your post, do anarchists have unalienable rights under the Constitution? I have to agree with you that the Constitution provides nothing for free, unlike our Creator and requires participation in order to recieve something in return, so the answer is no, anarchist do not have rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution because the Constitution is a binding contract, giving government rights for which anarchist cannot trust to guarentee for them. I would suggest that anarchist think along the lines of minarchism, working together on the local level to bring down the Federal government which is a constructive way of building a society that eventually may achieve anarchy or individual government, whatever that may be.
Everyone has their role.
grant
If I wanted squirrels off of my property
i would fire a few warning shots at them or poison them. Just as I would do to someone who refused to seperate themselves from my property.
I enjoyed Nock's, Enemy of the State, but I do not agree with Henry George' belief of humanity owning all the land.
nock/henry george
Are all men created equal?
Do all have equal rights?
Well then, that includes equal right to the use of nature -- which no man created. (Notice: "equal," not "collective"!)
George -- just like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and the French Physiocrats -- made a distinction between usufruct ownership -- the freedom to live securely on one's land, use it and enjoy it -- and absolute ownership in which the land is a private asset, to be sold or rented for gain.
When most people refer to the sanctity of private property, they are saying they don't want the government or somebody else to be able to invade their privacy, take away their property, or boss them around about how to use it. All of this is fine -- that's usufruct.
The one thing usufruct does not include is the "right" to use land as a way to earn money for nothing.
Herbert Spencer observed that once one grants an absolute right to ownership of land as private money-making asset, then one man could own the entire earth and charge everyone else rent for the right to live on it.
George saw the evil in absolute private property in land and wanted to return land to the usufruct basis. The mechanism was a "tax" (strictly speaking, it's a user fee based on assessed market value) falling exclusively upon land, taxing away the rent -- the unearned gain which exists not due to any effort by the owner but due to the growth of the surrounding community, and the increasing demand for space to live and work.
* Note: this is different from the conventional property tax which actually, in most cases, hits real capital (buildings) much more heavily than land. However, the land value tax could be achieved by a simple shift in the property tax.
This local land tax would fund government, from the bottom up. (Note how this meshes with the original tax provisions in the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Articles of Confederation!)
Any revenue above that which the community deems necessary can be distributed as a citizens dividend, much like Alaska's oil dividend. This is not welfare, it is the collection and distribution of privilege.
In a Georgist system all other taxes would be abolished, since they are taxes on actual private property and productive activity.
Milton Friedman has said Henry George's land tax would be the "least bad" tax. In the opinion of many Georgists, it would actually be good. For one thing, land tax discourages speculation and actually frees up the land market, which because of speculation is currently not very free at all.
The Ultimate Tax Reform (short essay)
The Ultimate Tax Reform (different -- in-depth policy study)
Very important: Land tax, being by its nature local (except for state and federal land, fishing rights, radio spectrum and certain other state- and federally granted privileges), also lends itself to a return of power to local government.
George wrote:
One could even envision this principle working in an anarchist society. It really all depends on where and how it is implemented.
- dave
Henry George School/Chicago
by the way --
Private monopoly of land is not unlike private monopoly on money. Except it's worse: it's possible to live without money, yet it is impossible, so far as I can determine, to live without land and other natural resources. For that reason and others, I have come to believe geonomic tax reform is of higher priority than even monetary reform.
Forced taxation is theft
Forced taxation is theft period!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
"Taxes" are inevitable, if you want to live somewhere
Or rather, let's use the term "rent."
Face it, you want to live somewhere more or less permanently, you have to part with some portion of your earnings. When you sign a lease or a mortgage, the larger portion of what you're paying for is the location. The classical term for this is land rent. You pay land rent to a private landlord, who is authorized by the state by means of a "Title." A "Lord" with a "title" ... who knew feudalism was still in force?? Isn't this rent -- which you have to pay in order to live -- also a tax? In that sense, isn't a landlord a local government? But he is a rather autocratic, one-man local government who doesn't necessarily represent your best interest.
Rather than enriching an autocrat, this land rent should instead be appropriated by a local government which actually represents you, such as your village, township, or county. It should become the revenue source for the community. The community creates this value in the first place: by existing, by forming a local economy, a local government, infrastructure, public services.
Town or county too big for you? Fine, let's take this principle down to the level of a contractual community associations.
Collecting rent as revenue is the way to take away the profit of the privilege in owning land, and reclaim it for the community. Yet it still allows everyone the freedom and security to live where and how they wish. It is the nearest we're ever likely to come to the anarchist ideal of abolishing what's bad about private land ownership, while retaining the good parts.
This is a good discussion.
The fact that the Constitution allowed GWB and Cheney to turn this into a corporate/fascist state and Obama to get elected is irrelavant.
The Constitution is only a tool for building.
The Constitution is just as unlikely to provide Liberty and Freedom as is the bible for providing salvation. In both cases there is a necessity for individual action and proper action.
The Constitution can be changed in our favor if we manage to get control of the reigns. If not, then those who would use it to build for building walls to protect their castles, will do so, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Kings never build castles or walls, they invent schemes get ignorant peasants to willingly do it for them.
grant
Everyone wants to go to heaven; nobody wants to die!
HOGWASH! Place the blame
HOGWASH! Place the blame where it belongs instead of this Constitutional "scape-goatism" that seems to be prevalent at times on the DP. The Constitution allows nothing nor prevents anything and the Founders were well aware of that fact and warned us numerous times to be eternally vigilant in guarding our own Liberty. The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint to provide the People with the tools necessary, if they will use them, to protect themselves against those who would usurp the limited authority delegated to government. The People have not only failed, but have neglected the knowledge necessary to secure their own rights and to resist, with the utmost fervor, any and all attempts by government to breach the contract that was to bind it solely by the consent of the People.
It was not the Constitutional Republic that was a failure, but those who allowed it to fail. Their was a Putsch in 1861 which brought about a consolidation of the Republic of Republics into a centralized-nationalized government, from there the Constitutional Republic was toast.
As Franklin warned: "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it"
The Founders never had an illusion that the Constitution would or could restrain government. Read their quotes about the subject, like the quote of Adams below, it was left to the People to restrain government, by force if necessary. The Constitution was simply the framework provided to assist the People in that endeavor. You blame the Constitution, I place blame where it belongs.....on the People of subsequent generations who lost both the sight over their own government and the desire to educate themselves in such matters.
There are attempts to either place blame on the Constitution or the Constitutional Republic it founded, the fault is within ourselves as a People, not the document or the form of government that was created to assist us to protect ourselves. .
"A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal." Adams
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers." Adams
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Jefferson
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Jefferson
"On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?" Jefferson
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Madison
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." Madison
"No compact among men... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." Washington
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
Republicae
The constitution is how they do it!
Did you ever notice countries that don't have constitutions, we attack or send our minions and then help them establish"constitutions".
It's a blueprint for control.
The constitution laid a foundation of absolute control of taxation and law making by a ruling class.
They didn't give us a d@mn republic! That's a lie! They enacted a forced system! ONLY THEY CONTROLED. How is it a republic, when the people have no say? They control taxation, law making, and just to make sure they closed the loop...They put the Supreme Court in place, to have the final interpretation of what rights the slaves have.
You first must understand you are in a forced system, to fight against it!
So the constitution does not
Republicae,
With all due respect, so the constitution does not allow confiscatory taxation? Regulation of commerce?
You say it even has limited delegated authority so how could it not allow some things and prevent others with said authority?
Yeah the constitution would work great in a vacuum where everyone did their duty and was honest and protected liberty and freedom. But then if everyone did that what need is there for a constitution? I think history has proven man cannot be trusted even with limited delegated authority period!
I did not consent either!
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
paul I have 200 acres in a
paul I have 200 acres in a farm community.. so if i'm getting this right you can come and squat on it and I do not have the right to tell you to leave?
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
Of course!
And if you didn't like it, then you could choose from any number of competing "justice courts", because there's no "monopoly" on the courts. But, there are "rules" and the rules are made up as you go along.
So, she could pick the court that will rule in her favor, and you can pick the court that will rule in your favor.
Isn't that cool?
Then, since neither you nor the courts are going to agree, then you'll each have to get your own "private security forces" to enforce what your decision was on the other party. Then you can have a little "private security war" between your 2 competing "security forces", and everything will be so cool that way.
And when one side wins, they can "coerce" you to do as they say according to how they decided, whether you agree to it or not. Because they won, and thus their decision stands. And you have to knuckle whether you like it or not.
Unless you can pay for a really bigger security force to start up the war again.
See how all this anarchy works?
It's the coolest.
You wrote all that tripe when my reply was already posted
I am trying to bring a serious discussion to liberty minded people. What is your point in that nonsense?
Anarchy means without a ruler, not without rules. And rules ought to be made at the most local level possible and encompass the fewest number of people possible, so they do not impinge on the rights of those who have no stake in the matter being ruled on. And I do NOT need a government to tell me when I need to cooperate with my neighbors, nor how to do it.
Rules?
Made by who?
What if I don't agree to your rules? I'm my own person.
Am I not to be allowed to be free?
What kind of an anarchy are you trying to run here?
Rules are for collectivists.
Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that there's some kind of "enforcement" to ensure these rules are followed?
What kind of coercion game are you trying to pull?
My brother-in-law Vinny runs the Civil Court on Anarchy Island.
'Vinny the Kneecapper', they used to call him in the old neighborhood. Heh heh heh. He's a standup guy. Used to be a Teamster, before he found out about the unique opportunities for settling legal disputes in our anarcho-cap experimental community.
You can find Vinny's Court Chambers between the Red Leg Casino and Madame Buxom's House of Trollops, down on Spooner Street.
Vinny accepts Mastercard and Visa, by the way.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Exactly.
The really puzzling thing is that "anarchists" like Hans Hoppe and Murray Rothbard are so keen on the idea of absolute monarchy.
"I believe the true significance of the Gold Commission is that the politicians and central bankers were so alarmed at such a thing that they made sure it was packed by an array of Keynesians and monetarists." (Ron Paul 1985)
KevTuma -- That was funny
I too agree that a Minarchist solution is the only answer as we "transition" out of Corporatism.
But - RP's minarchism is very close to Anarchism -- IF (if) you measure anarchism by level of taxation and travel -- which, is a good way to measure.
Slavery would be 100% taxation and 100% Travel Control and 0% Business Ideation Control (Entrepreneurialism)
Corporatism (by my estimates) would be 80-90% Taxation (direct and indirect) with 5% Travel Control and 5% Business Ideation Control.
RPs Minarchism (by my estimates - go here: Paul) would be 7-12% Taxation (only direct central and state sales tax - plus, minor import-export tax) with 0% Travel Control and 0% Business Ideation Control.
Just some thoughts ~ Kevin
Octobox
We each have the right to try to live
If the best chances for my survival are to come squat on your land, I have the right to try. If the best chances for your survival are for you to come shoot me, you have the right to try. Now, that is put in a hypothetical extreme. The reality is, if I was that down and out, I would NOT squat on your land, but come to your door and ask if I could work around the place in exchange for a roof over my head in your barn. If you told me "No" I would go to your neighbor. In my effort to survive, it is to my advantage to try to develop symbiotic relationships with my fellow humans.
You can't just live your life. You must join a club.
Being a human means having lords and masters to bow to and serve. If you go off trying to be responsible for your own life, where does that leave the control freaks? C'mon don't they have a right to tell you what to do? So buck up and find a hero to worship, maybe one day he/she will allow you to serve them too. ;)
It's a tough, but inevitable philosophical leap. Awareness can take us past society sometimes.
Can I worship my navel?
I think it is a secret gateway to an alternate universe... ;)
Just Think About What You Are Saying
A little thought should open your eyes. According to the Declaration of Independence (and Bastiat's book, The Law), the reason we have government is to secure our God-given Rights. Without government, we have anarchy. When we have anarchy, every man makes his own law.
Let's carry this to it's logical conclusion. You are an anarchist. You do not consent of the governed. That doesn't matter. How are you going to defend your God-given rights? When you leave your house, what is going to stop someone from plundering it? And if they do, who are you going to turn to for help?
You may not fit in with any faction or group, but that's irrelevant. Most people understand that without any government, we don't have more freedoms, we have less. And because of this fact, you will be made to comply, whether or not you consent.
You may see this as a violation of your "rights", but your rights do not supersede those of the rest of us. What if your perceived rights conflict with my perceived rights? How do we resolve this? Or what if your perceived rights conflict with those of twelve other individuals?
Any rational person can see that we need some sort of basic understanding of what the rules are. Otherwise, we have continual conflict and very little true freedom.
Three misconceptions here.
First, the refusal to be governed by others is not the same as the refusal to be governed, Indeed, if you don't govern YOURSELF responsibly, there are consequences to pay.
Second, if you can't defend your rights all by yourself, you turn to the same resource we do today under government: PEOPLE with specialized training who make careers out of things like crime investigation, dispute resolution, etc. The big difference under anarchy is that you choose who those people are, entirely by yourself, from among all those available in the marketplace -- and if you don't like the service you get, you can change providers.
Third, nothing about anarchy implies that there isn't a basic shared understanding of what the rules are. The original post mentioned a key expression of such rules from the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution as stated ;-): we have rights that precede government, and those rights are to be respected and protected. Republican government happens to the the Founders' attempted means to that end, but it hasn't worked all that well -- primarily for lack of competition that entrenches incompetence, malfeasance, etc.
Anarchy eliminates the destructive monopoly of government and opens up the protection of rights to the free market.
i just looked out my window.....
and i didn't see any police officers waiting to escort me around today in order to protect my rights. maybe there are some bad people hiding in the bushes. we have government right now. so where is my protection? could it be that even under this scheme i am still my only protection?
good point
And I would like to add that if I do not want this so called "protection" where is my opt-out option?
I have gotten into a couple situations where I actually called the police for help. They made EVERY situation worse. I truly cannot imagine anything that would make me dial 9-1-1 any more. But if YOU want that protection, I have no desire to prevent you from participating. But why do you get to tax me for it?
You are Right
Anarchy is God in the individual.
Anarchy is not a bad word, they make all words bad like liberal (Jefferson was a liberal, Ron Paul is a liberal).
All people have to do is read William Godwin (Political Justice). Of course, the great "free market" / economic integration CATO guys don't have much about William Godwin in their "Libertarian Encyclopedia".
That's why CATO is bad..Economic Integration is against Natural Rights, and Political Justice explains this brilliantly.
They are not real anarchists. Most of them live on money...
...from Mommy and Daddy. It is easy to whine about how we should have no laws. If they were REAL anarchists there would be more news articles about the abductions and murders, the bombings, water supplies being poisoned etc., etc.
Trust me. I used to be the last person to believe in laws or rules. There are still a lot of those people around.
There are sheep, that is the majority of the population.
There are wolves, which I used to be. They live off of the sheep.
Then there are shepherds, people who know how to be a wolf, but have decided to dedicate their lives to protecting the sheep from the wolves.
These people are not real anarchists, and I question what their true motives are.
does Santa deliver presents to boys and girls who are naughty
does Santa deliver presents to boys and girls who are naughty or just the nice ones?
----------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
`Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life'- Aristophanes -
Precisely. It has always been up to the people to animate and
defend their own sovereign rights. But if they are dumbed down to such an extent, they don't know what it means to be a 'sovereign' king or queen, yet that is exactly what it means to be an American.
I'm not sure
what "Constitution" some of you are reading.
It is a limitation on gov't, not on the people.
As for the enforcement of these limitations, that falls on the people to do, or they have no protection from usurpation.
No document stands without the people to enforce the final checks and balances.
try giving the books
Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce a run through and then Spooners: The Constitution of No Authority, or Barnetts: Structure of Liberty.....
They all bring an argument to the table which is valid and in need of just this type of discussion...
Regarding Spooner
I think what gets "bandied about" is that Spooner "denies" the " Constitutional contract of government", when actually he didn't argue that.
He argued that there WAS a "Constitutional contract of government" but that it was voided by the UNION during the Civil War, because of violation of what he called "Natural Law" .
So, as far as I can tell, the claims that Spooner didn't think there was ever any contract there, is not accurate.
In fact, "The Constitution of No Authority" was written in 1870 in response to the Union's actions in the Civil War, and their coercive force against the South.
It is NOT written as a dismissal of the original Constitution, although some wish to try to construe it that way.
The rhetoric used was intended to give a philosophical illustration of how it could be argued that people no longer had to operate under the changed regime. But it is only a philosophical argument, and makes interesting reading, and that is all it is.
Furthermore, Spooner is just an author with an opinion.
His opinions are only important to those looking for a way to escape any boundaries, real or imagined, which of course can never happen, and I described that on the other anarchist post.
Because the anarchists themselves can never even agree, and there is need for a dispute process which WILL result in some form of coercion onto the party losing the dispute. And at that point a "coercive government" is in place, regardless of whether the anarchists want to call it that, or not.
Period.
It cannot be escaped. It's a fool's discussion.
The trick is to manage it, and that's what the founders attempted, and did VERY well at. The flaw came with US, the people who failed to maintain our checks and balances against the usurpations of it.
As Franklin said, "...if you can keep it". And that has been shown to be the key statement.
The "just leave" thing...
...hit a nerve, evidently. Too disarming?
My advice to "just leave" is not based on any jingoistic "America: Love or Leave It" mentality, but a practical approach to the issue. There probably aren't three members of this Forum who like the US government, feel any loyalty to it, or take pride in this nation--at least post-20th Century. But the majority are constitutionalists who hope to see, on one level or another, a political solution.
Anarchists are not interested in a political solution because they don't believe in government.
They should try an experiment in Liberty. Go elsewhere and start anew. Or live politically 'off the grid'. Start something concrete, or do something concrete. There are always choices out there, aside from just complaining.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
yeah I got that response form none
and then the well do you advocate government taking from me.. blah blah..
I told him he was free to leave.
Why should I be forced to leave the land of my birth?
I have ties here, deep ones. Family, friends, neighbors. I have every right to exist, and to exist HERE.
It is not so much that anyone "hit a nerve" with me, it is that I would like you to seriously look at your response. Do you honestly feel that I ought to leave, or that I HAVE to leave?
If governments rule by the consent of the governed, when did I give consent? (NOT coerced by entities who deliberately kept me ignorant.)
I'm just suggesting you consider or propose a solution.
Sorry if I was a little smug there. But it goes back to voluntary choices of association.
I've considered leaving, and I think it's always an option. What I would like to see anarchists do is propose a proactive solution of some sort. Anything.
We know the government is oppressive and out of control. I'm not convinced that all government is Satan, just because our current one has horns and a pitchfork. But if you are allergic to all forms of government, you should consider moving somewhere other than the biggest, most bloated empire in the history of the world.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
RonFan: Ron Paul is a Minarchist (Mini-Anarchist -- get it)
I could easily argue how he's an 88-93% Anarchist -- in fact I did a thread on it, smile.
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Octobox
And like most anarcho concepts...
...It amounts to playing games with words. "Most anarcho-cap philosophies are 65% Minarchist," I could respond. But it would be meaningless babble!
Dr. Paul is clearly a Minarchist-Constitutionalist. He has philosophical allies who are anarchists, and more power to him for that. But he's still not only a Minarchist, but a supporter of that "evil, nasty Constitution written by slave-owning aristocrats".
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
KevTuma: Nice Retort
I have studied Anarcho-Cap and the only area of "order" that they want is in contract law -- that's it.
The problem with their philosophy is they ignore the transition -- they have not meditated on it.
If we create a society from nothing with ZERO property ownership (day 1 on Mars or something) we could easily establish A-Cap philosophy.
However, in a situation of scarce resources communalism (relatively voluntary) is always the first starting point (all human history shows this, when people move into a new land) -- this might grow into a form of tribal-anarchy (for awhile) and once you have this established safety net in the surrounding land you could establish Anarcho-Cap. But this idealism is not based in reality. A-cap would not be feasible in a hostile land -- group effort (a temporary union "voluntarism" if the resources are easy to husband -- a more lasting union "involuntarism" if it is difficult).
Our present reality includes a "transition" from Corporatism first.
I think you and I agree on that.
Ron Paul supports the Constitution because he's an "oathkeeper" (he swore and oath) -- He has said many times the Constitution was flawed and needs to be either re-written are amended; but, even his later statement is based on his oath of office that states the constitution must not be ignored but amended.
The Constitution is like a stop-light -- without a Gov't Cop near by to pull you over you can blow right through it.
Octobox
You sure did, big boy,
and Republicae smacked your butt.
RonFan: I replied to his rebuttal -- it's in his court now.
Octobox