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.
Thanks, but I think we're missing each other's points. I'm not so concerned with theory as I am with practicality. Somebody's going to make the rules and enforce them, be that a gang leader, head of household or the democratic process. I just don't see how a society can be based on a principle of non-aggression when humans are a naturally aggressive species.
What it would take is for the majority to realize that we all own ourselves and we don't need anyone to have special rights or exemptions (the right to rule), and then we just organize to protect ourselves from the minority of people who would try to violently enforce their rules on us. If everyone just ignored politicians, for example, they would have no power.
If you're worried about one group being bigger or stronger than us and taking over, that could happen with or without government. If it's in our interest to organize and protect ourselves, we will. This might be a bad example, but look at Lord of the Rings. Different groups worked together voluntarily to fight against a common enemy. I don't think we'd refuse to organize just because we don't have a ruler telling us we have to.
What it would take is for the majority to realize that we all own ourselves and we don't need anyone to have special rights or exemptions (the right to rule), and then we just organize to protect ourselves from the minority of people who would try to violently enforce their rules on us. If everyone just ignored politicians, for example, they would have no power.
If you're worried about one group being bigger or stronger than us and taking over, that could happen with or without government. If it's in our interest to organize and protect ourselves, we will. This might be a bad example, but look at Lord of the Rings. Different groups worked together voluntarily to fight against a common enemy. I don't think we'd refuse to organize just because we don't have a ruler telling us we have to.
Very utopian, which is good. We need utopian thinkers. I'm just not sure it's possible.
It's possible that you just misunderstand what I'm saying, because it's extremely consistent. Your rights end where another's begin. You should be free to live how you want unless it harms somebody else. No victim, no crime.
Of course it's possible I have misunderstood you as attempting to understand the practical implementation of highly axiomatic thought patterns is challenging for a pragmatic anarchist (as I've been called). For example, being consistent does not mean the same thing as being logical.
For another example of consistent illogic, take a look at this:
I just dont accept that it's okay to initiate force against peaceful people.
This, again, is the false dilemma or dichotomy. Libertarians as victims where there are groups stating the complete opposite, as in 'we think it's ok to initiate force.'
The United States of America spends more on defense than the next few Countries combined! & have initiated force resulting in engaging continuous wars around the world! Why not concentrate on this aspect & less on the other rhetoric?
American Conservatives do not recognize the rights of the individual. In fact, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. Gay marriage, drugs, and abortion that don't violate anybodies life liberty or property. We can debate abortion but I am just trying to use it as an example. Not to mention the bills such as the Patriot Act that has done little to provide safety and security, but it has put our right to privacy into question. You can't pick and chose what parts of the Bill of Rights you like and don't like.
What rock did you crawl from under.
Conservatism, is all about individual rights.
Sure beats the freedom turned into a privilege by the collective.
Gay marriage, drugs and abortion are not rights. If they were rights, you would need an amendment to change them, not some arbitrary statutory law.
So having individuals decide who they are going to live with, what drugs they might want to use or abuse and to control their own bodies are not individual rights? IMHO these are the very definition of individual rights. These rights are not enumerated by a document written by a few elite property owners but are there when a person is born. The basis of conservatism is all male successful property owners are created equal. Everyone else are lesser beings condemned to support the owners.
In our system Liberals tend to want to control what people do with their money like earn it instead of stealing it and conservatives want to control what individuals do with themselves or others. Conservative are all about controlling individual behavior to reinforce and protect a male dominated society while Liberals are about letting individuals alone to do what they want.
Hitler was elected and had great support of the German citizens.
He had support but not great support. He won his election by a little over 34% of the vote. Germany had several political parties, 16 I think at the time. His rise only came about when, here in the States, Wall street took a dump, plunged the world in a depression. It was German misery that swayed its people to boost its support for the Nazi party. In a way one can place some blame on Wall Street for Hitler's rise. I'll say I have a hunch Wall Street financed many ventures in Nazi Germany, just don't know the details.
Of course it's possible I have misunderstood you as attempting to understand the practical implementation of highly axiomatic thought patterns is challenging for a pragmatic anarchist (as I've been called). For example, being consistent does not mean the same thing as being logical.
For another example of consistent illogic, take a look at this:
So you're saying that even though what I'm saying is consistent, it isnt logical? I think the definition of logical is being rational and consistent, as opposed to irrational, emotional, or contradicting.
Quote:
This, again, is the false dilemma or dichotomy. Libertarians as victims where there are groups stating the complete opposite, as in 'we think it's ok to initiate force.'
The United States of America spends more on defense than the next few Countries combined! & have initiated force resulting in engaging continuous wars around the world! Why not concentrate on this aspect & less on the other rhetoric?
The first paragraph confused me a bit. Are you saying that people who advocate government aren't advocating the initiation of force? I just didn't follow what you were saying.
I agree that the U.S. initiates force around the world, and I have a problem with that. The U.S. also initiates force against its own citizens every day. I'm saying that we should stop acting like ANY initiation of force is okay, which would solve both problems. If people give a free pass to military, police, politicians, etc. to do things that are wrong for the rest of us to do, they can get away with evil (like attacking other nations for their own benefit).
I'm focused on the underlying, fundamental issues that lead to these problems. I want to treat the disease, not just the symptoms.
@Dane_in_LA: Pollution is one of the more difficult topics, but I just try to apply my principles. Would it be self-defense if you forcefully stopped your neighbor from burning tires? I think if your health was legitimately affected by it then yes, and that would be ok. There could always be court systems with a neutral judge and jury that are voluntarily funded...if both parties decide to go that route. If the neighbor refuses to stop or to settle the dispute in court, I think it would be your right to stop them forcefully. It's a complicated topic that needs a lot more explanation than I'm giving, but I think it can be done. I'll see if I can read up on it a bit more.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. The pollution example is essentially just putting the idea of externalities in a tangible form, and I don't think I've yet come across a libertarian/anarchist philosophy who could quite crack that nut.
He had support but not great support. He won his election by a little over 34% of the vote. Germany had several political parties, 16 I think at the time. His rise only came about when, here in the States, Wall street took a dump, plunged the world in a depression. It was German misery that swayed its people to boost its support for the Nazi party.
Good post, although in the interest of accuracy I must point out that he actually lost that election - he was going for the post of President, and didn't get it. He ascended to power when the actual winner (Hindenburg) appointed him chancellor. (And Hindenburg got elected essentially on a "He may not be great, but he's not Hitler" platform.)
That being said, a huge part of the Nazi success was their willingness to mix violence and politics - not that they were alone, the Communists of the day didn't have clean hands. Once you establish a situation where taking part in a political meeting or writing a political column can get you beaten to a pulp, you have effectively chased off every moderate. Mr. & Mrs. Norman Normal had been chased out of politics and just wanted peace and quiet and some sense of order to return. So when the SA (who were the Nazi thugs) were squelched in 1934, and the Communists were imprisoned, well - order was restored.
As Krupp said after the war, they just wanted some peace and quiet to get on with things, which is why he and other industrialists supported the Nazis. (And hey, free labor. And no unions to deal with.)
Conservatism is all about rights, as long as you get to define what those rights are, apparently.
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.
