Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
By this logic we should just give up on any idea of limited, Constitutional government as well since history has proven that limited government is impossible.  We might as well just roll over and accept tyranny, Corporatism, central banking and military empire because that is what States inevitably devolve into.

It's rather quite the opposite, history has proven to us that limited government is possible if certain factors are met, such as i.e a moral religious people. History has also proven that it is possible to have a very huge state even with limited government sectors, and it is also quite simple. Little to nothing regulations, privatize what can be private, simple tax code and make it uncomfortable to be poor/unemployed so people have an incentive to work/better themselves. There will always be poor people, there will always be corruption and there will always be some form of misery but Republican government like the early Roman Empire and early American Empire is good enough and gives the citizens the most freedom compared to other tried systems. The problem is prosperity breeds cultural degradation and loss of virtue which ultimately ends in tyranny.

There is no such thing as a perfect society, and the ones that say it exist will kill you.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
If aggression is immoral and cannot be justified, then we should oppose aggression and therefore oppose the existence of the State.

I never bought this "the state is inherently immoral because it uses force" argument, you do have the option to opt out and become stateless, why haven't you?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
If you have a cancerous tumor, you don't say "you know, I was going to remove this tumor surgically, but since there is a possibility that the cancer could return in the future, I'll just leave the tumor there!"  That would be a ridiculous position to take.  You would remove the tumor and then take ever possible precaution to make it unlikely that the cancer would return. 

If centralization of power and growth of the State are truly inevitable and there is nothing we can do about it, why not just start advocating for a one world dictatorship?  That is the logical implication of your reasoning.

The growth of the state is inevitable as society itself grow and become prosperous, the problem is when the tax base shrinks the government instead of cutting spending increase taxes instead, the reasons for this lie with socialism and unionization of public sector worker and a democratic legislature/judiciary that disregards the laws and enables increase in taxes.

Blaming conservatism for the faults of socialism is not intellectually honest.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
Anarcho-capitalism is really only fifty years old or so, at least as a coherent and developed political ideology and philosophy.  We have means of communication that were never before seen in human history.  It is always a fallacious argument to say that since something hasn't existed before in history, it can't exist in the future.

With technology and the internet, we are in a new paradigm in human history.  I would argue that the internet itself is the greatest experiment in anarchy that has ever existed.  Technology advances at such a blistering rate, that the slow moving behemoths called "States" can't keep up to regulate and control it. 

That is not an argument against conservatism, that's an argument against socialist regulation.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
The internet is a model of the self organizing power of individuals. 

Please clarify this statement as 99% of the internet consist of porn, lolcats and asinine entertainment.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
If sufficient numbers of people educate themselves on market anarchism, read Rothbard and Hoppe, and learn about the moral arguments in favor of non aggression, then not only is anarchy possible, I believe it is inevitable.  Human beings can and will make States obsolete in the near future. 

Whats the time frame for this inevitability? 10,000 years? Most human beings don't care about politics/philosophy and even the ones that does often fall for fallacious theories.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
It would be wise to get on the right side of history.  You don't want to have people look back and see you as one of the last defenders of slavery.  Or the last defender of Statism.

Funny you would say that as the only ones that have a problem with the Republican Party eliminating slavery on this forum is the neo-confederates and libertarians. Where are the anarchists that supposedly freed the slaves?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
Every new idea has previously been untested.  If you can persuasively argue against the principle of self ownership, or you can somehow justify the use of aggression, then you can logically hold a view I consider entirely untenable.

Otherwise, you should join us and work to remove parasitic States from the human experience.

Aggression is justified in eliminating evil, Aggression is justified in pursuit of justice and the State is a necessary institution that can protect private property and rule of law in conjunction with right to arms and liberty bla bla bla read the constitution and the federal papers and you catch the drift.

Edit: Most of the time individualism is the answer, but some of the time collectivism is the answer. The government is not inherently evil.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 10:10:31 PM
Again with the human nature argument against libertarianism.  That line of argumentation really is not persuasive.  I've already stated the reasons why in a previous post.

I am not a product of "liberal" education, by which I assume you mean public schooling.  When I was very young I was home schooled, then I attended private schools.  I probably had no more than a year of public schooling my entire K-12 education.

Actually, no, I was referencing college, anyone can get a bad education anywhere, but it's higher learning institutions where the Marxists reside, destroying free thinking, critical thinking, by turning kids against our Republican form of govt.

QuoteAnd, believe me, I have heard all these conservative arguments about how the "muslims" are our enemy, how we need to fight this "war on terror" and promote democracy and all the rest of it.  I never fully bought into it but once I actually read something about it, like the aforementioned book by Robert Pape as well as works by Michael Scheuer and others, I fully rejected that view.

You think Conservatives want to Democratize the M/E?

QuoteThere are interests within our government and in the military industrial complex that stand to profit greatly from fomenting conflict and taking us to war.  The reasons given by their media mouthpieces are scarcely ever consistent with reality.

Well... something we agree upon.

QuoteIt is not that I think all the problems in the middle east are the fault of the United States.  Far from it.  I think we have exacerbated the already existing conflict, but we should simply stay out of it.  The dysfunction in that part of the world would remain an internal problem from the Muslim world to deal with on their own.  We don't have to incite them and incure the wrath of the jihadists who otherwise would not be able to garner the popular support to target us and our allies.

You've heard the term, "keep your friends, but keep you enemy closer", right?
Well, unfortunately the M/E is a jewel to be sought after, (again, I refer to human nature) because they have the life blood of the planet, and he who controls the energy, controls the planet.
Had Carter not fucked up in Iran so badly, we wouldn't be in the mess were in now.
Yes, all this can be traced back to Carter and his total ineptness in all of this.

You see, we aren't the only ones interested in their oil, but better us than that of our enemies Hell bent on controlling the planet, again, human nature, there's no denying it.

QuoteUnless a bin Laden character can point to actual grievances, destroyed families, corpses piled up due to US sanctions or bombing campaigns and the like, then he could never have gained so many new recruits.

You think tons of young Arabs would be willing to lose their life because we have women in the workplace?  Because we have liberal views and are Christians?  Contrary to what you may have heard, they don't "hate us for our freedom". 

With all due respect, I'd rather trust the informed, expert opinions of people like Scheuer and Pape over your generalizations and stereotypes.

Where do you learn this bull shit? As I stated earlier, look up Wahhabi, what it is, where it started, and what their goals are, once you've educated yourself, we can talk.
Something you really need to do, is quit reading shit that affirms your prejudices, do a search to the contrary of your belief system, don't be afraid to search outside the box.

The belief system of the idiots is one of war and conquering, taking of slaves, killing of Joos, those that practice Islum learn that the world is theirs for the taking, it is their duty to expand their religion at the point of the sword, assimilate and pay a tax or die.
If you're going to argue against something, you really should learn about the other side of the argument.

You see, this is why I dumped Libertarianism, it slaps in the face of human nature, it completely ignores the fact that there is evil in the world, ignores the violent side of human nature, the idea that man can live in peace, if only he treats his neighbors nicely.
Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. Here in the US, we live an extremely privileged Christian styled life, a culture that teaches us law and order, the Golden Rule, which has worked quite well for us, but the rest of the world doesn't share our belief system, which is why we have a military.

If you understood anything, you'd realize America brought peace to the world, we were a cornerstone of stability for decades, the envy of totalitarian govts around the globe.
Yeah, sucks, but that my friend is human nature, and if you think pulling our forces home will stabilize the world, think again, there are Nations just waiting for the opportunity to take control, leaving us with no way of protecting our interests.
Isolationism will not make us safe, or allow us to prosper. It's dog eat dog son, that's life, and the sooner you learn it, the better off you'll be.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 01, 2014, 02:31:39 PM
No I won't lol.

I was not referring to you.

Perhaps libertarian anarchists should find a country more conforming to their political beliefs and move there.  Perhaps libertarian anarchists who would like to oust our Constitution and who scoff at our Declaration of Independence should be considered the "aggressors".

American patriots have sacrificed their lives for this country. Those in our military are putting their lives on the line for our freedom. I am one who firmly believes that it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its CONSTITUTION; to obey its LAWS, to respect is flag; and to DEFEND it against ALL enemies.

Quote from: Darth Fife on August 01, 2014, 10:53:53 PM
You're dealing is semantics, but even so, even non-violent resistance, to be effective will need to be organized. There will be leaders and there will be followers and not all of the followers will approve of who gets to be the leaders.

Discussing the differences between voluntary and vertical associations is not semantics. It is a very real distinction.

The second you are compelled to follow a leader whom you do not wish to be lead by, he is no longer a leader, and you no longer have a voluntary association.

That is a government, of some form.

Quote

If the leaders are elected democratically, it is unlikely their election will be unanimous. Will the ones who did not vote for the chosen leaders of the resistance be free not to participate in the resistance against the state?

They would have to be free to if the group in question harbors any commitment to voluntarism.

Quote

And if they are, is it fair for them to share in whatever benefits that the fall of the state might bring to those who opposed it and took action to bring it down?

-Darth

Well, no, if we are speaking about payment for participating, or recognition for a role played, but if we are talking external and indirect benefits, then yes.

Quote from: RightEdge on August 01, 2014, 11:27:53 PM
Obviously youve never had to deal with rape, robbery, murder...  the childish nature of anarchists and the left is that they imagine real problems away...  I had to deal with an "anarchist" who cut off the finger of an 80+ year woman to get the ring for pawn.  So... how exactly would you handle this?  You cannot imagine it, or them, away.  GROW UP.

This is a non-problem for anarchists can point to the system of customary law, private arbitration, defense insurance and social ostracism.

There will always be people around who have no respect for others and their rights.

Anarchists are not caught off guard by that. The idea is not to have lawlessness, but to have private law, and the private provision of justice.

Just as the state fails to efficiently deliver the mail, provide a safety net or adequate national defense, it fails to produce legal services in an efficient and just manner.

Quote from: suzziY on August 02, 2014, 05:27:04 AM
Perhaps libertarian anarchists should find a country more conforming to their political beliefs and move there.  Perhaps libertarian anarchists who would like to oust our Constitution and who scoff at our Declaration of Independence should be considered the "aggressors".

American patriots have sacrificed their lives for this country. Those in our military are putting their lives on the line for our freedom. I am one who firmly believes that it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its CONSTITUTION; to obey its LAWS, to respect is flag; and to DEFEND it against ALL enemies.

The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.

It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz

You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.

And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 02, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.

It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz

You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.

And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.

The lack of basic common sense belongs to you on this one. 

I, along with over 90% of this forum, share  Suzi's respect for our Constitution.

The very Constitution you would like to see dumped is the same piece of paper allowing you to speak your opinion on this forum.   

Quote from: keyboarder on August 02, 2014, 10:00:42 AM
The lack of basic common sense belongs to you on this one. 

I, along with over 90% of this forum, share  Suzi's respect for our Constitution.

The very Constitution you would like to see dumped is the same piece of paper allowing you to speak your opinion on this forum.

I do not trace my rights back to a mere piece of paper, nor to any government.

If anything, the biggest threat to my freedom and liberty, not to mention to Western civilization, is the entity that was created by that document.

I would remind you that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were sent there by their principles, the respective states, to AMEND the Articles of Confederation.

They ended up scraping the Articles and forming a new government, which superseded the previously sovereign states, but in doing so, they acted outside the bounds of their charge, and ceased being representatives, and instead became usurpers.

Quote from: RightEdge on August 01, 2014, 11:27:53 PM
Obviously youve never had to deal with rape, robbery, murder...  the childish nature of anarchists and the left is that they imagine real problems away...  I had to deal with an "anarchist" who cut off the finger of an 80+ year woman to get the ring for pawn.  So... how exactly would you handle this?  You cannot imagine it, or them, away.  GROW UP.

Have you actually read my arguments thus far?  I explicitly said that the use of force and violence is perfectly fine in self defense and to punish those that commit aggression against others.  In this case, the aggressor should be convicted in a court of law and put in prison for a long time.  It is not about "imagining" problems away.  That is a strawman of your own invention.

So I'll repeat myself for your benefit.  If you choose to use aggression against the person or property of another, then you abdicate your right to be left alone.  Others are now allowed to use violence in self defense, to provide restitution to the victim or to physically remove you from society based on the degree of the offense.

Anarchism simply means that all members of society should be held to the same moral standard, and that none should have the right to initiate force against anyone or their property.

Understand?

OK jrod,
You have posted 22X on this thread re, your
theme of libertarian market anarchist.
Hopefully you agree that you are not an original
mind as were Aristotle, Euclid, Shakespeare etc.
As such, who are your intellectual mentors and
idea catalysts who nurtured you on your journey
to the present???

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 12:36:54 PM
Have you actually read my arguments thus far?  I explicitly said that the use of force and violence is perfectly fine in self defense and to punish those that commit aggression against others.  In this case, the aggressor should be convicted in a court of law and put in prison for a long time.  It is not about "imagining" problems away.  That is a strawman of your own invention.

So I'll repeat myself for your benefit.  If you choose to use aggression against the person or property of another, then you abdicate your right to be left alone.  Others are now allowed to use violence in self defense, to provide restitution to the victim or to physically remove you from society based on the degree of the offense.

Anarchism simply means that all members of society should be held to the same moral standard, and that none should have the right to initiate force against anyone or their property.

Understand?

In this passive anarchist world you envision, one where we turn the other cheek unless physically attacked, whether personally as an individual, or a nation.
What happens when an aggressor on the National stage refuses to grant you access to to your interests, as say, a blockade.
They never fired a shot,  they refuse you passage, and you have no other options, diplomacy is fruitless. Do you fire the first shot?

Quote from: suzziY on August 02, 2014, 05:27:04 AM
Perhaps libertarian anarchists should find a country more conforming to their political beliefs and move there.  Perhaps libertarian anarchists who would like to oust our Constitution and who scoff at our Declaration of Independence should be considered the "aggressors".

American patriots have sacrificed their lives for this country. Those in our military are putting their lives on the line for our freedom. I am one who firmly believes that it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its CONSTITUTION; to obey its LAWS, to respect is flag; and to DEFEND it against ALL enemies.

This is just mind numbing patriotism propaganda.  It is your "duty" to your country to love it?  To obey its laws?  To respect its flag?  Are you serious? 

I would argue that it is your duty to behave ethically.  It is your duty to care about what is right, what is philosophically sound.  If you seek out moral rules for ethical behavior and strive to attain virtue, you will no doubt see that the State you currently hold so much allegiance to behaves contrary to any defensible, universal system of ethics. 

The "Law" is merely an opinion with a gun.  Just because some politicians scribble some text on a piece of paper does not mean that you are morally obligated to comply with clearly immoral edicts.  I would highly recommend "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat which elaborates on the proper role of law in any just society.  The law is merely a convenient excuse for petty tyrants to stick guns in peoples faces and push them around. 

There are indeed some legitimate laws on the books, primarily dealing with acts of aggression and contract, but they are not even 1% of the legal code we are expected to comply with.

I'm sorry, but US soldiers and not fighting for our freedom.  General Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine in US history, explained that war is a racket.  The excuses given for armed conflict are hardly ever the real reasons for the war.  The real reasons for US military conflict:  war profiteering, imperialist aggression, and capturing natural resources or valuable land.

Murray Rothbard wrote that there were only two wars in American history that were legitimate.  The Revolutionary War and the War for Southern Independence.  The second one is no doubt controversial, because surely no person has any right to enslave anyone else.  That is true, but the Constitution as drafted was quite clear that any State that no longer wished to remain part of the Union had the right to secede.  To violently prevent secession was therefore unconstitutional.

Lysander Spooner, a noted abolitionist and anarchist, supported the right of the South to secede.  But at the same time he supported a slave revolt, aided by abolitionists in the North, aided by those running the underground railroad.  Every slave had the right to rise up and kill their master and justly acquire the land they were forced to work on.  After emancipation, every single slave owner should have had his property taken from him and given to the slaves whose labor he stole.  The enslaved Africans legitimately homesteaded that land by mixing their labor with it, and thus that property was legitimately theirs. 


I'm getting off topic here, but the point is that out of dozens of wars and military conflicts, Rothbard argues that only two could be justified.

And "respecting the flag" is just asinine.  These sorts of symbols are just meaningless.  They are really tools of statist propaganda.  I'm sure your "rulers" just love for you to get all choked up when you hear the national anthem, or say the pledge of allegiance.  I submit that you should have allegiance to ethics and philosophy.  You should try to determine moral rules for conduct and apply them to your life as consistently as possible.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 02, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.

It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz

You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.

And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.

I am reminded of a quote from Lysander Spooner:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist."

Quote from: Walter Josh on August 02, 2014, 01:14:27 PM
OK jrod,
You have posted 22X on this thread re, your
theme of libertarian market anarchist.
Hopefully you agree that you are not an original
mind as were Aristotle, Euclid, Shakespeare etc.
As such, who are your intellectual mentors and
idea catalysts who nurtured you on your journey
to the present???

Okay, I'll list some of my intellectual influences.  Not all of these people are equal in their influence of course but all played their part:

Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Henry Hazlitt, Stephen Kinsella, Ron Paul, Stefan Molyneux, Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Walter Block, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Benjamin Tucker

There are plenty of others but that is a good sampling.