U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-19-2019, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Planet earth
3,317 posts, read 1,317,806 times
Reputation: 1115

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Understanding? Intellectual honesty?

I didn't start this thread. I responded to it. Once more into the breach and all that, because once again, someone just had to axe grind on those of us who do not accept the legitimacy of the state. So I type what I type in an attempt to foster understanding and intellectual honesty.

I reference much better thinkers than myself, I quote others who say things better than I can, and I try to help those in the cave understand the shadows on the wall. If one more person out there "sees" for themselves, then my mission is accomplished. If you do not see, that's cool...I will keep trying.

Also, there is something in it for me. The more people who see means more people who are content to leave me alone and not hire out agents of state tyranny to harm me. Less people seeking to actively harm me is a good thing.

I want to thank you for an earlier comment you made. Milton Friedman initially piqued my interest via his "Free To Choose" book and program. Then by watching him, I learned about Frédéric Bastiat via some of the ideas Friedman gave credit to the original author, so I started to read Bastiat's works then found myself unable to put it down. His thoughts and ideas made so much sense. I tried to rationalize differing views and found myself incapable.

I believe it boils down to most people demand a right to have a say in what others can and cannot do, seeking to impose THEIR will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon others. They make these demands not realizing they are simply being statists, just statists of a different flavor. When confronted about their demands to impose THEIR will, beliefs, morality and dictates I always get the same reaction from the folks. They justify their demands. They refuse to accept that their demands are statism, then dig their heels in deeper as their emotional or religious driven beliefs are challenged.

All that said, I have recommended reading Frédéric Bastiat's works, even providing a link to Mises.org's printed or .pdf version and as far as I know, not a single person I've attempted to get to read his works has. I suspect it's because by the time I've recommended it I already laid out that some of it will challenge deeply held views and I've met very few people who are sincerely willing to have their deeply held views challenged much less changed.


Thanks again for the comments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2019, 12:40 PM
 
3,042 posts, read 3,054,530 times
Reputation: 3634
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee View Post
I want to thank you for an earlier comment you made. Milton Friedman initially piqued my interest via his "Free To Choose" book and program. Then by watching him, I learned about Frédéric Bastiat via some of the ideas Friedman gave credit to the original author, so I started to read Bastiat's works then found myself unable to put it down. His thoughts and ideas made so much sense. I tried to rationalize differing views and found myself incapable.

I believe it boils down to most people demand a right to have a say in what others can and cannot do, seeking to impose THEIR will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon others. They make these demands not realizing they are simply being statists, just statists of a different flavor. When confronted about their demands to impose THEIR will, beliefs, morality and dictates I always get the same reaction from the folks. They justify their demands. They refuse to accept that their demands are statism, then dig their heels in deeper as their emotional or religious driven beliefs are challenged.

All that said, I have recommended reading Frédéric Bastiat's works, even providing a link to Mises.org's printed or .pdf version and as far as I know, not a single person I've attempted to get to read his works has. I suspect it's because by the time I've recommended it I already laid out that some of it will challenge deeply held views and I've met very few people who are sincerely willing to have their deeply held views challenged much less changed.


Thanks again for the comments.
Again, what is the point of all this study and proselytizing? If I declare that I am a statist by default, because I believe that reality trumps ideology, then what? Are you wanting to continue on to the point of converting so many to your beliefs that there is enough critical mass to have another societal revolution? If not, then what?

I would also like to know what cultural group in the last 10,000 years or so was able to sustain itself without some semblance of a state? Or do you mean that society will somehow evolve to a stateless state?

What demands are you saying that the statists make who won't concede their statism?

I do hope you realize that I am sincere in my questions. I understand your argument. I just think its not practical or likely to have our society change to statelessness. I can't see how events would unfold that would bring it to pass. Please enlighten me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 12:49 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,869 posts, read 10,564,737 times
Reputation: 9528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boer View Post
you have the freedom to move to another island and build your OWN shelter
No I don't. No such island exists. Otherwise I'd be there.

And just for the record, you entire post could have "plantation slavery" inserted for "taxpayer" and your arguments would be just as valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 04:21 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,766 posts, read 9,650,976 times
Reputation: 9717
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
Again, what is the point of all this study and proselytizing? If I declare that I am a statist by default, because I believe that reality trumps ideology, then what? Are you wanting to continue on to the point of converting so many to your beliefs that there is enough critical mass to have another societal revolution? If not, then what?
Uh, we just said that is the goal, more or less. I prefer not to be a slave. The problem is that your preference for slavery is infringing on my right not to be one with you. If you could keep your slavery to yourself...have at it. Not my cup of tea but the individual has the right to freely choose that.

Interesting use of the word "reality" because your ideology isn't real. It's fictional. A social construct. It's the Easter Bunny meets Mickey Mouse.

Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

There is no social contract. There is only legitimate consent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
I would also like to know what cultural group in the last 10,000 years or so was able to sustain itself without some semblance of a state? Or do you mean that society will somehow evolve to a stateless state?
Stateless societies and quasi-stateless areas/actions are plentiful. Craigslist, Buy/Sell/Trade, you asking your significant other to do the dishes without a gun to their head (although I wonder about you statists sometimes), etc.

HOAs, personal contracts for employment, buying tickets to a ballgame off a guy on the street...it never ends. Perfectly consensual interactions free from coercion with only willing parties involved.

The sad part of this entire debate is that most statists are anarchists in every aspect of their life except for when it comes to the government that rules over their geographic area. Then armed robbery becomes "taxation" and killing becomes "collateral damage".

Just come out of the closet. It won't be the end of the world.

What has been claimed by the State calling itself Ireland had a run of nearly pure statelessness too.

https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpre...cient-ireland/

Anyway, to how statelessness is achieved: I'm for either way - gradual or I wake up tomorrow morning and it's over. Freedom will be just as sweet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
What demands are you saying that the statists make who won't concede their statism?
This is where it gets interesting.

Mens rea.

It's Latin and a core tenet in the State's legal system (make believe) but also an important tenet in natural law (real law).

It means "guilty mind".

Right now, most if not all anarchists are sympathetic to the plight of the statists because we understand that your mens rea is clean. That means you don't sincerely believe that you're condoning and promoting rape, robbery, and killing like it's a bodily function even though in reality...you clearly are.

We can't legitimately fault you because our principles are solid: the NAP and respect for private property rights. Right now, most if not all of you don't have that guilty mind and are then proceeding to support the State.

It's a credit to us for being compassionate...to be honest. I know the statists will explode at this part but it truly says a lot about us anarchists that we don't do what natural law perfectly allows us to do: self-defense and the defense of innocents in the face of violent unprovoked attacks regardless of intent.

Now the flip side to that coin is the fact that you have the State to protect you and your interests (which, shockingly...are in support of the State's interests...funny how that works).

We don't have suicide missions. And for the most part any move against the State would be certain death though there is something to be said about an uprising en masse to see if the State's agents (known as cops, armed services) would raise their arms against the people.

It's hard to tell what would happen. Maybe some of the other anarchists can give their two cents here. Part of me thinks they wouldn't, knowing that we are morally and logically just, but the statist mindset is a sad and sickened mind. A dark mind. A nearly (hopefully only nearly and not completely) lost cause. We truly sympathize with you folks first and foremost because we know what it was like to be lost in the darkness. Nearly all of us, if not all, were statists at one point. We simply didn't know better or it didn't "click'.

We don't desire violence. We only believe in self-defense. We also love life and people...not a perverted sense of "law and order" where collateral damage is the price of doing business.

So in a nutshell, to answer your question, if you knowingly support the State in conjunction with a dirty mens rea that means you are happy to support the initiation of violence we ask you to stop at once. That's all we can do because while you have no rights if you fall into this category and can be rightfully killed we would prefer it if everyone unlocks their own shackles. The key has been right there in your mind all this time.

Last edited by No_Recess; 06-19-2019 at 04:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 05:34 PM
 
3,042 posts, read 3,054,530 times
Reputation: 3634
So if you can convert enough to attempt an uprising, and it succeeds, then what? You don't think that once again the stronger of the parties will attempt to coerce the weaker ones? That's one of the reasons that we have theses laws that originated from the Age of Enlightenment.

I take a long view. In that view, very few individuals incite a major change in the status quo. Most individuals who choose to do things that in their view will improve the state of things do so quietly causing small incremental changes.

Personally, I have never been subjected to violent action from the state, although I am regularly in an environment where I could be subject to violence on the part of non-state-sponsored criminals. I hope that the police would be able to help if I needed it, but I certainly wouldn't depend on it.

I will say that I see a bit of hypocrisy when you mention Craiglist as an example of anti-statist activity. In my opinion, being dependent on any part of society, i. e. the utilities, the government-issued currency, etc., undermines the credibility you seek. By taking part in commerce, you are consenting to pay the associated taxes. Just as when you use a website, you agree to its terms of service. To me, Franklin's advice to go live with the savages if you don't want to pay the fare to ride the social bus.

We'll probably disagree, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I hope you don't get your door beaten down by the agents of the state that you seek to undermine. That would really suck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
4,809 posts, read 1,630,383 times
Reputation: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
Again, what is the point of all this study and proselytizing? If I declare that I am a statist by default, because I believe that reality trumps ideology, then what? Are you wanting to continue on to the point of converting so many to your beliefs that there is enough critical mass to have another societal revolution? If not, then what?

I would also like to know what cultural group in the last 10,000 years or so was able to sustain itself without some semblance of a state? Or do you mean that society will somehow evolve to a stateless state?

What demands are you saying that the statists make who won't concede their statism?

I do hope you realize that I am sincere in my questions. I understand your argument. I just think its not practical or likely to have our society change to statelessness. I can't see how events would unfold that would bring it to pass. Please enlighten me.
I'll give you my personal take on the step by step...

1. Change hearts and minds. Spread the ideas, point out that people aren't being consistent with their own values, same types of things that lead to me changing my mind.

A subpoint I'd make is that you don't even need to go around changing the minds of every person in your society. Most people don't even think about politics or philosophy in depth, or have the time for it. They have people whose opinion they respect, and they go to those people for what to think, to put it bluntly. Those are the people whose ideas need to change the most...the influencers in society...much smaller number to deal with.

2. Once you have a critical mass, you don't revolt or overthrow anyone...totally unneccessary. You simply ignore the politicians and remaining statist types. The only reason they have power is because people believe their authority is legitimate. Once that illusion is gone, it's over for them. They'll just be some crazy entitled people whining that they should be obeyed, while the rest of society is moving on with their lives.

Not sure how long that will take, but I think it's inevitable. It's logically correct, and the legitimacy of statism is logically impossible, so people have to accept reality at some point...same way they finally accepted that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun. You still get the crazy flat-earther types, but they're insignificant. The only force needed is to defend against them if they're stupid enough to use force first.

EDIT: Last thing... the funny part is that we're not even imposing any system on anyone. We're saying "go organize with like-minded people however you want, just don't force anyone else into it". The framework is "don't initiate force and don't violate property rights" and you can have whatever system you want within that framework, because it'll be voluntary.

Last edited by T0103E; 06-19-2019 at 05:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 10:08 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,766 posts, read 9,650,976 times
Reputation: 9717
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
So if you can convert enough to attempt an uprising, and it succeeds, then what?
I eat a bowl of ice cream and run head first into a wall?

Excuse the bluntness, but what do you care what an individual does as long as they aren't initiating force on you or another innocent?

After I run into the wall I smoke a joint, pay a woman for sex, then eat a block of cheese. Again, what's it to ya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
You don't think that once again the stronger of the parties will attempt to coerce the weaker ones? That's one of the reasons that we have theses laws that originated from the Age of Enlightenment.
Freedom requires work. That's why statism is the path of least resistance. Cue Yoda training Luke at Dagobah. It's much easier to accept the fictional social contract and let the State do the dirty work.

Yes, bad people do and will exist but under anarchy the risk for violence is not certain (the State is guaranteed violence preordained in the social contract). I would argue the weak would have more protection now because without the monopoly of force by the State the strong who are moral can care for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
Personally, I have never been subjected to violent action from the state, although I am regularly in an environment where I could be subject to violence on the part of non-state-sponsored criminals. I hope that the police would be able to help if I needed it, but I certainly wouldn't depend on it.
You have been a victim of violent action from the State but you just don't recognize it because you have special rules for the government. "Taxation" is theft. "Border security" is kidnapping/human trafficking. Releasing toxic chemicals over St. Louis ghettos to study the impact on children is "collateral damage" in the pursuit to beat the Russians in the Cold War.

Definitions change. Words are twisted. Excuses made.

Why?

Because the man who gave the final order was wearing a government badge. That's why. If you or I attempt such actions, without a proper kickback I might add, we will be caged in the blink of an eye.

Also, where is this place that "non-State" sponsored criminals are on the prowl?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
I will say that I see a bit of hypocrisy when you mention Craiglist as an example of anti-statist activity. In my opinion, being dependent on any part of society, i. e. the utilities, the government-issued currency, etc., undermines the credibility you seek. By taking part in commerce, you are consenting to pay the associated taxes. Just as when you use a website, you agree to its terms of service. To me, Franklin's advice to go live with the savages if you don't want to pay the fare to ride the social bus.
You went off the deep end here. I would say you were starting to do well but not really.

We've been over this a million times. *sigh*

1. Craigslist was created by individuals. It could and would exist in anarchy if the market demand was there. Remember, government is just people. Evil people but people nonetheless.

2. Currency. You have to use Sammy's greenbacks to pay property taxes. It's that simple or you'll face the cage. I have mentioned numerous times the story of my anarchist friends in Vermont down to property taxes as their lone association with the State (they make their own soap and toilet paper for God's sake). If they do not pay Sammy his tribute using his greenbacks...to the cage they go.

3. Franklin, the government employee and slave holder, was a sub-human POS. Just throwing that out there before I get to his point.

4. Who are the savages?

I say an 8-year-old girl living in Yemen is a human being who should not have violence initiated against her. Your system says she is "collateral damage".

I say a man growing a plant in his home is practicing his right to property. Your system says he's a criminal and cages him.

I say a man living off the coast of what is known as Japan who wishes to be left alone should have his wishes respected. Your system says he's a vagrant or a health risk and kidnaps then imprisons him.

I say if two people wish to exchange compensation for sex that is their right under freedom of association. Your system says they are criminals and again...cages them.

Frankly, with the track record of statism I would take a look in the mirror on who is calling for civilized behavior and who is promoting uncivilized behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
We'll probably disagree, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I hope you don't get your door beaten down by the agents of the state that you seek to undermine. That would really suck.
It would help my cause if you choose not to empower them. Just saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 04:50 AM
 
846 posts, read 128,460 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
the State's legal system (make believe) but also an important tenet in natural law (real law).
Why do you get to decide that 'natural law' (or your interpretation of natural law) is 'real law'? Why should I accept your interpretation of it, what if I have a different interpretation?

I think that taking some wild berries from a piece of land you claim as yours if I'm hungry and have no food is just, you think it gives you the right to kill me for infringing your property rights. If you act on what you think is your right you are infringing on what I believe my rights to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 04:52 AM
 
Location: USA
17,671 posts, read 8,854,347 times
Reputation: 13200
Don't pay your Property and Real Estate Taxes on YOUR home. Guys with GUNS will show up to physically EVICT YOU. So yes, you will literally have a GUN TO YOUR HEAD if you don't pay your taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 06:12 AM
 
Location: *
8,094 posts, read 2,413,946 times
Reputation: 2215
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
I don't know what any of this means but Rand Paul and Ayn Rand are/were hardcore statists...not anarchists.
You don't know what this means?

Quote:
Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. They're desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity. Their irreverence and their opposition to “political correctness” is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience to—for all their protests against the “political elite”—the real elite.

...The denial of the collective interest and communal bond, as much as libertarians like to pose as trailblazers, is not the road less traveled, but the highway in gridlock. Competitive individualism, and the perversion of personal responsibility to mean social irresponsibility, is what allows for America to limp behind the rest of the developed world in providing for the poor and creating social services for the general population.

...Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of America’s most dominant and harmful dogmas. In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style.

...Who then are the libertarians rebelling against? The most powerful sector of the society is corporate America, and it profits and benefits most from the deregulatory and anti-tax measures libertarians champion. That sector of society also happens to own the federal government. Through large campaign donations and aggressive lobbying – the very corruption that libertarians help enable by defending Citizens United and opposing campaign finance reform – they have institutionalized bribery, transforming the legislative process into an auction. Libertarians proclaim an anti-government position, but they are only opposing the last measures of protection that remain in place to prevent the government from full mutation into an aristocracy. By advocating for the removal of all social programs, libertarians are not rebelling, as much as they are reinforcing the prevailing ethos of “bootstrap” capitalism. The poor are responsible for their plight, and therefore deserve no sympathy or assistance.
Libertarianism is for petulant children: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and the movement's sad "rebellion"

Libertarians fancy themselves radicals, and yet their rallying cry can be reduced to "You're not the boss of me!"

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/01/lib...llion_partner/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top