Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it that I very often feel like you're saying, "You can't get there from here?"
I'm not asking for a master plan.
You asked what would be done, and I didn't want to say don't know, don't care. I mostly included it in case anyone else was reading, so it wasn't anything personal. I imagine people reading it and saying "see, he doesn't have an answer" and dismissing it when that's not the case.
No, the government basically owns it and tells everyone that it's owned by everyone..their money pays for it, but the state controls it, so really they're just using our money to pay for property that they have full say over. Anyway, you have to establish a rightful owner before the dispute can be resolved. It's hard to accuse anyone of trespassing if nobody owns the property. You have to have a rightful owner in order for it to be trespassing in the first place.
Without a state you mean? Again, that's missing the point. I can't tell you who, because I'm not going to be deciding who. People always want a master plan, but that's the problem...you either force a plan on everyone, or you let them decide themselves. Most likely they'd have a third party do it. Maybe a private court system, but maybe they don't like that idea and come up with something else. No_Recess mentioned David Friedman who has a book called the Machinery of Freedom and I think there's a chapter in there dedicated to dispute resolution. It's free online somewhere. Either way, it would be pretty easy to solve because somebody would definitively own the land, or neither would own it. No mushy-thinking statist "everyone owns it but the government can decide whether you're allowed in or not" type of "property". That doesn't even make sense.
It's a violation of property rights, which is connected to aggression. Really everything comes down to property rights, including the NAP. Any initiation of force against you is a violation of your property rights because your body is your property. It's all about resolving conflicts over scarce resources. The philosophy behind it can be complicated, but that's why we just say "don't hit and don't steal".
If you trespass on private property and refuse to leave, force is justified to remove you...that's why a private bar can have the bouncer kick you out.
You asked what would be done, and I didn't want to say don't know, don't care. I mostly included it in case anyone else was reading, so it wasn't anything personal. I imagine people reading it and saying "see, he doesn't have an answer" and dismissing it when that's not the case.
You don't suffer from megalomania.
Those infected with it can't imagine another human not having it.
You asked what would be done, and I didn't want to say don't know, don't care. I mostly included it in case anyone else was reading, so it wasn't anything personal. I imagine people reading it and saying "see, he doesn't have an answer" and dismissing it when that's not the case.
Thanks for answering. I consider your responses & take them seriously. I do not summarily dismiss them.
Maybe you'll permit me to explain the 'method to my madness,' so to speak? I asked you to demonstrate your ideology by considering the current anti-American militia group's recent occupation of a bird sanctuary in Oregon. I agreed to use your definition of government as "the person or group that has societal permission to initiate force within specific a geographic area."
I wanted to see how 'you get there from here' so to speak.
Sidebar: I grew up & went to school on Long Island in NY. We learned Native American history, mostly focusing on the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy comprises six nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, and Seneca, whose historical territory is Upstate New York. We learned about their culture, government, & laws, including the Great Law of the Iroquois - the 'Seventh Generation.'
The following is clipped from a presentation by Oren Lyons, Chief and Faithkeeper, Onondaga Nation, "Looking Toward the Seventh Generation," American Indian Studies Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, April 17, 2008:
...‘Prepare yourself for the work that’s in front of you.’ He gave us a lot of instructions. Some of them I’ll tell you about. He said, ‘You as leaders will now have to have skin seven spans thick, seven spans like the bark of a tree,’ he said, ‘to withstand the abuse you’re going to take as leaders. And it won’t be from your enemies, it’s going to be from your family and your friends.’ He said, ‘And don’t wait for any thanks because that’ll be slow in coming.’ He said, ‘Move on.’ He said, ‘When people are angry and they speak in a loud voice, you have to listen to what they’re saying because they’re saying something.’ He said, ‘Try to hear the message through the anger.’ And he said, ‘You cannot respond in kind. Listen. Hear what they’re saying.’ And he said, ‘When you sit and you council for the welfare of the people, think not of yourself nor of your family nor even your generation.’ He said, ‘Make your decisions on behalf of the seventh generation coming. Those faces looking up from the earth,’ he said, ‘layer upon layer waiting their time.’ He said, ‘Defend them, protect them, they’re helpless, they’re in your hands. That’s your duty, your responsibility. You do that, you yourself will have peace.’ ...
The Iroquois have a land rights movement & demonstrate their belief system, culture & philosophy by their actions. They walk like they talk. One example:
Quote:
...In 2005, the Onondaga filed a lawsuit against New York State, the city of Syracuse, Onondaga County, and five corporations, claiming that the state had illegally seized the tribe's land and that the corporations had been destroying the environment in the area. At the time, The New York Times reported that the tribe was using the land claim as leverage to force environmental cleanup--they had no intention of taking back the land by evicting people currently living on it. Rather, one of the key issues was that the company Honeywell International, among others, had for decades been dumping chemical waste into Onondaga Lake, a sacred site. ...
...To an outsider, the fight might look futile. When the chiefs and most of the Iroquois were asked what keeps them fighting for their people in the face of so few victories, they responded: 'the children.' "I'm concerned for the seventh generation coming," said Faithkeeper and Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons. In Iroquois culture every chief is expected to take into account seven generations forward with every decision he makes. "That's why we're still here," said Tia Oros Peters, Executive Director of the Seventh Generation Fund. "If someone hadn't put out prayers for me five hundred years ago, I wouldn't be talking to you today." ...
I consider your responses, take them seriously & do not summarily dismiss them. The Iroquois people have not given up & neither should you.
From an earlier post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
...When I talk about government, I mean "the person or group that has societal permission to initiate force within specific a geographic area", but if I say we shouldn't have a government, someone might think I mean "no cooperation, no organization, no rules, every man for himself" because they don't have a clear idea of what government is, or have a differing definition. We have to establish the same definition first. ...
I don't think you should be surprised when people have questions about 'how it would work?'
What 'shape' would the cooperation take?
Does it make sense? Is it plausible? Is it sustainable? Et cetera.
& if, as you've noted, "everything comes down to property rights, including the NAP," there are many large questions looming.
As the oldest living participatory democracy on Earth, The Six Nations are internally & logically consistent in their efforts to rationally persuade. I think it makes sense to consider the 'seventh generation,' don't you?
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 02-14-2016 at 06:39 AM..
Is it morally legitimate for me to personally steal your car? If not, why is it wrong? Because it's your property and you haven't given me your consent to take it. It's no different if I get a bunch of people together and we write on a fancy document that says we're allowed to take your car. If an act is wrong, making it legal doesn't make that same action suddenly acceptable.
So you're obligated to do what you think is wrong? If the law says that you need to kill one toddler a month, you have to do it because it's the law? I would disobey that law because I think it's immoral, even if the society I live in thinks it's fine. Should I go against my conscience and do it, or should I conform to the law because those are the rules?
"We" as in who? I'm one of many who never agreed to that deal. Also, they aren't my representative if their job is to make rules that I must follow and take my money to fund what they want to do. It's basically calling my boss my servant, and being able to choose my boss doesn't make them my servant either.
It seems that you contradicted yourself here, but you can clarify if you want. You say we're called upon to defy laws we deem as unjust, but we should do so in a lawful manner? If you do everything in a lawful manner, you aren't defying the law. Maybe it was just worded incorrectly.
If you're in charge, you won't be very threatened if you know everyone will play by your rules. They won't really fight back, they're essentially just asking you for permission, or asking nicely for you to change your mind. Then you can act like you care, but you probably have no intention of doing anything. Maybe just enough to shut people up.
I won't spend time explaining why wrong is wrong. Most reasonable people generally agree as to what is right or wrong, and most will also agree that what one person views as right or wrong may not be viewed in the same way by another. Again, these strike me as obvious truths that don't justify much more discussion. Same is true as we consider the views or opinions of one person versus the views or opinions of a group.
Also, of course, we are referring to humans here. No person can truly be kept from doing or not doing as they wish. Even laws can't do that or we would have no crime. What reasonable people do, however, is accept and abide by a system of laws that, in this country, are legislated through a democratic process to account for the various issues and concerns that ultimately require legal purview.
By living as a citizen in your country, yes, you are obligated to abide by those rules that have been made legitimate by the government/legal system of that country. Your choices are very simply to remain a citizen of the country or leave the country, but no matter where you go, you also have the choice of living in accordance with the laws of that country or not. Those who choose to break the law for whatever reason must also expect to suffer the consequences of those actions according to the laws of the land.
I trust we are agreed to this point, because none of what I have just explained means that anyone MUST necessarily abide by the law. There seems to be some confusion in this regard, that just because someone believes a law is unjust or not right, that we as citizens are not obligated to abide by the law regardless. That sort of rationale is something akin to advocating anarchy. Of course we are all expected to abide by the law, and we know what consequences to expect if we don't. To make the point in extreme, how is a society to function if instead of generally abiding by the law, the approach were instead for each person to decide what they will or will not do based on what they believe above all else to be right or wrong, regardless what anyone else thinks, regardless what a larger group of people thinks, regardless what the government thinks? If that isn't anarchy, it's just simply ridiculous.
Of course no society can function in that way, so..., we abide by the laws and rules as established in the manner set out by the government. No, not necessarily by choice, but more because that is by definition what it means to be a citizen, at least one that doesn't live behind bars...
Now, again, this does not mean that if you don't want to issue a marriage license to gays, that you have to. For that matter, it doesn't mean that if you want to steal someone's car, that you can't. We are all most certainly able to live within or outside the dictates of the law, but again whether you agree or don't, as a society we accept that those who don't abide by the law will pay the consequences of those actions as also dictated by the law.
What you also don't understand is what I mean by objecting or protesting a law in a lawful manner. This can take many forms, for example by organizing enough people to draw attention to the problem, maybe force a change of law to be considered. You can lobby your representative to suggest new legislation to change the law, or you can break that law in protest, though again you must suffer the consequences. This too all really need not be explained, I don't think, because who doesn't know of the many cases laws have been changed in these ways, many times after violent actions have even been taken by protesters? Very simply, this is how it works, whether you agree or not, whether you are Libertarian or not.
Again, I always continue to feel I am missing something, because this is pretty fundamental stuff, Civics 101 if you will, but if anyone can peg where our beliefs or understanding in these regards differs, or perhaps more importantly what better way there may be to function as a society, as individuals and as a people, I'm interested to learn anything along those lines.
Thanks for answering. I consider your responses & take them seriously. I do not summarily dismiss them.
Maybe you'll permit me to explain the 'method to my madness,' so to speak? I asked you to demonstrate your ideology by considering the current anti-American militia group's recent occupation of a bird sanctuary in Oregon. I agreed to use your definition of government as "the person or group that has societal permission to initiate force within specific a geographic area."
I wanted to see how 'you get there from here' so to speak.
I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking for as far as the militia goes...
Quote:
Sidebar: I grew up & went to school on Long Island in NY. We learned Native American history, mostly focusing on the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy comprises six nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, and Seneca, whose historical territory is Upstate New York. We learned about their culture, government, & laws, including the Great Law of the Iroquois - the 'Seventh Generation.'
The following is clipped from a presentation by Oren Lyons, Chief and Faithkeeper, Onondaga Nation, "Looking Toward the Seventh Generation," American Indian Studies Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, April 17, 2008:
...‘Prepare yourself for the work that’s in front of you.’ He gave us a lot of instructions. Some of them I’ll tell you about. He said, ‘You as leaders will now have to have skin seven spans thick, seven spans like the bark of a tree,’ he said, ‘to withstand the abuse you’re going to take as leaders. And it won’t be from your enemies, it’s going to be from your family and your friends.’ He said, ‘And don’t wait for any thanks because that’ll be slow in coming.’ He said, ‘Move on.’ He said, ‘When people are angry and they speak in a loud voice, you have to listen to what they’re saying because they’re saying something.’ He said, ‘Try to hear the message through the anger.’ And he said, ‘You cannot respond in kind. Listen. Hear what they’re saying.’ And he said, ‘When you sit and you council for the welfare of the people, think not of yourself nor of your family nor even your generation.’ He said, ‘Make your decisions on behalf of the seventh generation coming. Those faces looking up from the earth,’ he said, ‘layer upon layer waiting their time.’ He said, ‘Defend them, protect them, they’re helpless, they’re in your hands. That’s your duty, your responsibility. You do that, you yourself will have peace.’ ...
The Iroquois have a land rights movement & demonstrate their belief system, culture & philosophy by their actions. They walk like they talk. One example:
I consider your responses, take them seriously & do not summarily dismiss them. The Iroquois people have not given up & neither should you.
Thanks, and I like that quote. I remember a more well-known anarchist/libertarian saying not to get caught up in the slow progress, or people ignoring your ideas simply because they're not popular yet, and if we're logically consistent and speak the truth, future generations will thank us...whether they know us by name or not.
I think he used the example of a heliocentric solar system. People believed the Earth was the center of the universe, and that everything moved in a perfect circle because God wouldn't create something less than perfect. That's what they were told by the King and by the church, but the math and measurements didn't add up. You had Copernicus and Galileo thinking it out for themselves and realizing that things lined up more logically if the sun was at the center, but people obviously didn't like that because of the implications on their society. Luckily they stood their ground and we can thank them for it.
Quote:
From an earlier post:
I don't think you should be surprised when people have questions about 'how it would work?'
What 'shape' would the cooperation take?
Does it make sense? Is it plausible? Is it sustainable? Et cetera.
& if, as you've noted, "everything comes down to property rights, including the NAP," there are many large questions looming.
As the oldest living participatory democracy on Earth, The Six Nations are internally & logically consistent in their efforts to rationally persuade. I think it makes sense to consider the 'seventh generation,' don't you?
Tell me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that I'm not worried about whether it could work or be sustainable for future generations? Either way, of course I am. The problem is that there's no way to know for sure, but I'm very confident that a stateless society will be better for humanity. I definitely understand the concerns, and I do try to explain things to people who are truly interested in what I'm saying, rather than what I run into most of the time...I learned awhile back not to get sucked into discussions where the other person just throws out as many objections as possible, even after I repeatedly explain it. That's why I keep talking to you, actually. I don't think it's a waste of my time to discuss it with you because you're giving it a chance.
The difficult part is when you see a solution as very plausible, but someone else just disagrees with it. If I have a business plan, I can't prove that it's going to work, and many might not share my vision. If Steve Jobs pitched the iPhone years and years ago, people could easily just say "I don't see how that would work", but that's the exact reason why they didn't end up making a fortune on the iPhone.
I'm not saying I'm anything like Steve Jobs, btw just that I become more and more confident in the idea of a stateless society the more I learn about it, which is every day. It's hard to transfer that knowledge to you efficiently. It's taken me almost 3 years of daily video watching, podcasts, reading, and discussions like this...maybe I'll figure out a better way to communicate it in the future.
That's one of the main reasons I focus on the moral argument. It's like "What's the best use of money for society after we take it from everyone by force?"
I don't know, but I do know that the first step is fundamentally wrong, and we should start by not stealing everybody's money to implement our personal plan. Then you allow people to come up with their own solutions and work out problems, however simple or complicated they might be. Over time, those solutions will be refined more and more as well. I'm sure there would be a transition period.
I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking for as far as the militia goes...
I guess I didn't make that part clear enough & in any event, it's a very large order! I was hoping for something along the lines of what the Onondaga people did in filing a lawsuit against New York State, but Libertarian styled. Anyway, thanks for the response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Thanks, and I like that quote. I remember a more well-known anarchist/libertarian saying not to get caught up in the slow progress, or people ignoring your ideas simply because they're not popular yet, and if we're logically consistent and speak the truth, future generations will thank us...whether they know us by name or not.
I think he used the example of a heliocentric solar system. People believed the Earth was the center of the universe, and that everything moved in a perfect circle because God wouldn't create something less than perfect. That's what they were told by the King and by the church, but the math and measurements didn't add up. You had Copernicus and Galileo thinking it out for themselves and realizing that things lined up more logically if the sun was at the center, but people obviously didn't like that because of the implications on their society. Luckily they stood their ground and we can thank them for it.
Yes! I like the example of Galileo! & I think it demonstrates the importance of being able & willing to navigate between the concrete & the abstract. In the 17th century, the science of physics became more mathematical & that is NOT to say that it became more concrete (or evident to the senses) but rather the opposite game was in play. In Galileo's time, the average person could see (through the evidences of their senses) the Sun go around the Earth.
The average person today accepts the Earth goes round the Sun although it is NOT by the evidences of one's senses but by faith in the demonstration of ideas & concepts that are abstract, theoretical, conceptual & sometimes even abstruse. & so it goes.
Changing the 'same level of awareness' which created the problems in the first place just might involve thinking on a level of awareness which recognizes (& maybe even focuses on) the inter-relatedness of the parts. This way of thinking (or seeing) may seem a bit counter intuitive to some because of the many successes of the Cartesian method of reducing the whole to parts in order to solve. It just might involve a flexibility of mind & a willingness to see the world in a way you may not be accustomed to viewing - sortof like looking at something from different perspectives is more likely to provide a more complete picture - or like a panoramic view but with more dimensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Tell me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that I'm not worried about whether it could work or be sustainable for future generations?
Definitely not suggesting that. & glad you continue to clarify your ideas, thank & respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Either way, of course I am. The problem is that there's no way to know for sure, but I'm very confident that a stateless society will be better for humanity. I definitely understand the concerns, and I do try to explain things to people who are truly interested in what I'm saying, rather than what I run into most of the time...I learned awhile back not to get sucked into discussions where the other person just throws out as many objections as possible, even after I repeatedly explain it. That's why I keep talking to you, actually. I don't think it's a waste of my time to discuss it with you because you're giving it a chance.
The difficult part is when you see a solution as very plausible, but someone else just disagrees with it. If I have a business plan, I can't prove that it's going to work, and many might not share my vision. If Steve Jobs pitched the iPhone years and years ago, people could easily just say "I don't see how that would work", but that's the exact reason why they didn't end up making a fortune on the iPhone.
I'm not saying I'm anything like Steve Jobs, btw just that I become more and more confident in the idea of a stateless society the more I learn about it, which is every day. It's hard to transfer that knowledge to you efficiently. It's taken me almost 3 years of daily video watching, podcasts, reading, and discussions like this...maybe I'll figure out a better way to communicate it in the future.
That's one of the main reasons I focus on the moral argument. It's like "What's the best use of money for society after we take it from everyone by force?"
I don't know, but I do know that the first step is fundamentally wrong, and we should start by not stealing everybody's money to implement our personal plan. Then you allow people to come up with their own solutions and work out problems, however simple or complicated they might be. Over time, those solutions will be refined more and more as well. I'm sure there would be a transition period.
I gotta take off soon so cannot give this the time it demands to respond. I leave you with this though which may or may not clarify?
It's been said these words are inscribed on his grave. I don't know that for sure but they do come from his Eleven Theses on Feuerbach
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
- Karl Marx
I won't spend time explaining why wrong is wrong. Most reasonable people generally agree as to what is right or wrong, and most will also agree that what one person views as right or wrong may not be viewed in the same way by another. Again, these strike me as obvious truths that don't justify much more discussion. Same is true as we consider the views or opinions of one person versus the views or opinions of a group.
What I'm arguing is that people are going against their own idea of right and wrong. There are a very small percentage of true sociopaths out there who don't care about harming others (and the smart ones find their way into positions of power), but everyone else already abides by the non-aggression principle and respects property rights. They don't initiate force to get their way, and they don't steal what belongs to others in their daily lives. Those same good and decent people will then advocate that those things be done by way of government, because they're told that voting for somebody to tax their neighbor isn't the same thing as taking the money themselves, and that it's no longer wrong.
Quote:
Also, of course, we are referring to humans here. No person can truly be kept from doing or not doing as they wish. Even laws can't do that or we would have no crime. What reasonable people do, however, is accept and abide by a system of laws that, in this country, are legislated through a democratic process to account for the various issues and concerns that ultimately require legal purview.
Yes, I agree with the first 2 sentences, and halfway agree with the rest. I'm not saying there should be no rules. I'm saying that the rules should be "don't initiate force or violate property rights" and we should be consistent on that. However, that rules out "rulers", as in some authority figure with special moral rights that don't apply to the average person. We should enforce those rules side to side as equals rather than top-down, if that makes sense.
Government as it exists right now is top-down, and they are "in charge" of society like a farmer is in charge of the farm. I'm saying that no person has the right to be the farmer, where everyone else is the livestock being herded, controlled, or managed. You can have leaders who people voluntarily follow and take advice from, but those leaders shouldn't be given permission to lock you in a cage for disobeying them, or even kill you. If someone decides they want to steal, or they want to initiate force, people can organize against them, or even develop ways to prevent it in the first place. Maybe people will start developing better security systems instead of looking to the "authorities" to take care of them.
Quote:
By living as a citizen in your country, yes, you are obligated to abide by those rules that have been made legitimate by the government/legal system of that country. Your choices are very simply to remain a citizen of the country or leave the country, but no matter where you go, you also have the choice of living in accordance with the laws of that country or not. Those who choose to break the law for whatever reason must also expect to suffer the consequences of those actions according to the laws of the land.
That's what I disproved earlier. It isn't legitimate to force somebody to do what you say just because they live near you. You can't do it personally, and telling someone else to do it on your behalf doesn't make it any better. The social contract argument - you agree by living here - is not valid either. It's like being a slave, saying you don't consent to being a slave, and having someone tell you "Well if you don't like it here, you can ask to be sold to a different plantation. If you stay here, you agree to be a slave. If you go there, you agree to be a slave there." There is no anti-slavery option in that scenario. Also, telling the slave to escape society and live in the woods isn't the same as letting him/her be free.
Quote:
I trust we are agreed to this point, because none of what I have just explained means that anyone MUST necessarily abide by the law. There seems to be some confusion in this regard, that just because someone believes a law is unjust or not right, that we as citizens are not obligated to abide by the law regardless. That sort of rationale is something akin to advocating anarchy. Of course we are all expected to abide by the law, and we know what consequences to expect if we don't. To make the point in extreme, how is a society to function if instead of generally abiding by the law, the approach were instead for each person to decide what they will or will not do based on what they believe above all else to be right or wrong, regardless what anyone else thinks, regardless what a larger group of people thinks, regardless what the government thinks? If that isn't anarchy, it's just simply ridiculous.
Yes, it would be a form of anarchy, as in no rulers, not no rules..as I mentioned above. I know it's an unusual idea, but it's the only way to be consistent if you agree that theft and aggression against innocent people is wrong. It took me some time to accept, but I couldn't argue with the logic, and I can't live with myself holding contradictory ideas in my head and pretending they aren't consistent with each other.
Quote:
Of course no society can function in that way, so..., we abide by the laws and rules as established in the manner set out by the government. No, not necessarily by choice, but more because that is by definition what it means to be a citizen, at least one that doesn't live behind bars...
Now, again, this does not mean that if you don't want to issue a marriage license to gays, that you have to. For that matter, it doesn't mean that if you want to steal someone's car, that you can't. We are all most certainly able to live within or outside the dictates of the law, but again whether you agree or don't, as a society we accept that those who don't abide by the law will pay the consequences of those actions as also dictated by the law.
What you also don't understand is what I mean by objecting or protesting a law in a lawful manner. This can take many forms, for example by organizing enough people to draw attention to the problem, maybe force a change of law to be considered. You can lobby your representative to suggest new legislation to change the law, or you can break that law in protest, though again you must suffer the consequences. This too all really need not be explained, I don't think, because who doesn't know of the many cases laws have been changed in these ways, many times after violent actions have even been taken by protesters? Very simply, this is how it works, whether you agree or not, whether you are Libertarian or not.
Yes, that's how it works now. I'm just arguing that people are unknowingly going against their own values by supporting it.
Quote:
Again, I always continue to feel I am missing something, because this is pretty fundamental stuff, Civics 101 if you will, but if anyone can peg where our beliefs or understanding in these regards differs, or perhaps more importantly what better way there may be to function as a society, as individuals and as a people, I'm interested to learn anything along those lines.
It is fundamental stuff, but fundamentally wrong, IMO. We're taught civics, and representative democracy, etc. but there are inconsistencies that people don't address, so that's what I'm trying to do here. I honestly never planned on being a libertarian "anarchist" or voluntaryist, or ever wanted to be, but I couldn't argue against it.
If you really are interested, here's the guy who really got me thinking about these things a few years ago...
I guess I didn't make that part clear enough & in any event, it's a very large order! I was hoping for something along the lines of what the Onondaga people did in filing a lawsuit against New York State, but Libertarian styled. Anyway, thanks for the response.
I think the Onondaga people have the right to the land, but I don't think going to government courts and expecting them to rule against themselves will work that well, and it seemed like they didn't expect it either. It's tough if you're technically correct, but you're outnumbered. It reminds me of nations that want to secede from the government they're under, but they aren't allowed to. I think anyone who wanted to secede and form their own group, on their own land, has the right to do it. It's just a matter of getting enough people to agree, and then the numbers will be more in their favor to try and change things. I'm not sure if I really answered what you wanted, but those are just some thoughts.
Quote:
Yes! I like the example of Galileo! & I think it demonstrates the importance of being able & willing to navigate between the concrete & the abstract. In the 17th century, the science of physics became more mathematical & that is NOT to say that it became more concrete (or evident to the senses) but rather the opposite game was in play. In Galileo's time, the average person could see (through the evidences of their senses) the Sun go around the Earth.
The average person today accepts the Earth goes round the Sun although it is NOT by the evidences of one's senses but by faith in the demonstration of ideas & concepts that are abstract, theoretical, conceptual & sometimes even abstruse. & so it goes.
Changing the 'same level of awareness' which created the problems in the first place just might involve thinking on a level of awareness which recognizes (& maybe even focuses on) the inter-relatedness of the parts. This way of thinking (or seeing) may seem a bit counter intuitive to some because of the many successes of the Cartesian method of reducing the whole to parts in order to solve. It just might involve a flexibility of mind & a willingness to see the world in a way you may not be accustomed to viewing - sortof like looking at something from different perspectives is more likely to provide a more complete picture - or like a panoramic view but with more dimensions.
Definitely not suggesting that. & glad you continue to clarify your ideas, thank & respect.
I gotta take off soon so cannot give this the time it demands to respond. I leave you with this though which may or may not clarify?
It's been said these words are inscribed on his grave. I don't know that for sure but they do come from his Eleven Theses on Feuerbach
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
- Karl Marx
Yep, that's fine. I think it's been a good conversation. To address the last quote, I'd say that philosophy is the beginning of change. Philosophy, reason, science, etc. is what guides people in the right direction, and what shapes society. When people's ideas change, their actions usually follow. I guess that's my goal...to help people be consistent and challenge widely accepted ideas that seem to clash with each other, but are taken for granted as truth. I like that we're both interested in getting it right, rather than being right.
I'm saying that no person has the right to be the farmer, where everyone else is the livestock being herded, controlled, or managed.
You are right no one has the "right" to the leader, which is why this nation abjured from from the prevailing practice of the time, placing the nation under the leadership of a hereditary monarch. Leaders in this are granted the privilege of leadership by the people. And unlike hereditary monarchs even our leaders do not have "permission" to lock up a citizen, or kill them absent very constricted circumstances.
So your argument fails even on this basic level.
Quote:
If someone decides they want to steal, or they want to initiate force, people can organize against them, or even develop ways to prevent it in the first place. Maybe people will start developing better security systems instead of looking to the "authorities" to take care of them.
It is precisely because of the abject failure of ad hoc efforts to provide protection and administer justice that citizens of every nation on earth have established police departments and courts.
In short, through our collective experience we have tried the anarcho-libertarian vision of society and have found to be so lacking that we prefer the worst sorts of governments rather than to return to a state of chaos.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why, why, why...
just that I become more and more confident in the idea of a stateless society the more I learn about it, which is every day. It's hard to transfer that knowledge to you efficiently. It's taken me almost 3 years of daily video watching, podcasts, reading, and discussions like this...maybe I'll figure out a better way to communicate it in the future.
