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.
The statist likes to hide his bad behavior behind the curtain of government.
Those who favored anti-Black laws have the exact same mindset as those that believe in affirmative action/protected classes/quotas/etc.
It's all social engineering done by the State to get what I want and punish those that I hate. And I have no accountability because I'm just following orders sent down by my master...daddy government.
Damn I hate socialism. Now I'm fired up. Some Statist should subsidize me some peace of mind.
I'd recommend some 90s hip hop. It's what gets me through the day sometimes.
I agree on the bold. What I think is missing is the distinction between a leader and a ruler. It's natural for people to have leaders who they defer to, or who they choose to follow. I even think it's a good thing, because not everyone is equal in ability or knowledge.
The libertarian anarchist idea is that those leaders should not be given permission to initiate force or violate property rights. Right and wrong applies equally to everyone, with no exceptions.
I actually think that's people's natural instinct, and that the belief in political authority is something that people are conditioned to believe, and therefore can be removed. The belief that one person or group can have the right to rule over others - you could say, to boss them around and take their stuff - is what needs to go. (Divine right of kings is a good example of this.)
A leader can lead without any special right to be the initiator of force. A ruler is given permission to forcefully control their "subjects", regardless of consent.
That these ideas go to the core of humanity is no doubt why they draw you. I am not in the least religious and know nothing of the Bible but in reading this Adam and Eve and the discovery of sin in the Garden of Eden and the role of the commandments and the law of Israel came to mind.
Earlier in the thread in response to criticisms about practicality, you wrote that there needed to be a certain commonality of understanding in society (which I took to mean numbers) before anarchism-libertarianism could come into being. That parents, teachers, religious leaders take on the role of socializing children into a belief structure of what is right and wrong demonstrates that such beliefs are not instinctual and certainly there can be wide divergences among and within populations.
That these divergences are so powerful have led to thousands of years of societal control through religion and government.
My concern is that anarchism-libertarianism could not come into being without some commonality of belief. And of what it would require to bring about that commonality. This (my) is an instinctive response and so not necessarily one that is subject to rational argument. But I fear an "entity" labelling my thoughts as wrong although I'm willing to concede that my actions are subject to laws.
The statist likes to hide his bad behavior behind the curtain of government.
Those who favored anti-Black laws have the exact same mindset as those that believe in affirmative action/protected classes/quotas/etc.
It's all social engineering done by the State to get what I want and punish those that I hate. And I have no accountability because I'm just following orders sent down by my master...daddy government.
Damn I hate socialism. Now I'm fired up. Some Statist should subsidize me some peace of mind.
Not all socialism is the same.
definition as pertained to it origins: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
It is neither a statement on state run capitalism nor is it a promoter of vast government welfare programs or state control. That is a misconception built over time by authoritarians who subjected the meaning to change.
It encompasses a wide swath of ideologies and while yes, some versions involve state regulation others advocate for individual work place control free from state hand and only organized at a higher level by non-central federations.
It offers more freedom for a person to do as they want with their life than corporate authoritarianism the subjugates workers to a non-democratic environment where they are forced to offer their labor for the benefit of another.
An areas that the state and the private capital controllers leave you see workers taking the power themselves and producing based off of communal desires while at the same time being independent from one another. That is what is happening to run down factories in the rust belt.
Statist want the government to control your lives, capitalists want the employers to.
That these ideas go to the core of humanity is no doubt why they draw you. I am not in the least religious and know nothing of the Bible but in reading this Adam and Eve and the discovery of sin in the Garden of Eden and the role of the commandments and the law of Israel came to mind.
Earlier in the thread in response to criticisms about practicality, you wrote that there needed to be a certain commonality of understanding in society (which I took to mean numbers) before anarchism-libertarianism could come into being. That parents, teachers, religious leaders take on the role of socializing children into a belief structure of what is right and wrong demonstrates that such beliefs are not instinctual and certainly there can be wide divergences among and within populations.
That these divergences are so powerful have led to thousands of years of societal control through religion and government.
My concern is that anarchism-libertarianism could not come into being without some commonality of belief. And of what it would require to bring about that commonality. This (my) is an instinctive response and so not necessarily one that is subject to rational argument. But I fear an "entity" labelling my thoughts as wrong although I'm willing to concede that my actions are subject to laws.
On the 2nd paragraph, I think it's a good question. I do think that if you dropped a bunch of people on a desert island, removed from their current environment, starting from scratch, that they would not appoint someone from the group to be their ruler. There may be leaders with expertise, and some may voluntarily defer to the group, etc. but they wouldn't give someone permission to rule over everyone else.
There's actually a guy named Larken Rose who ran something called "the island" where he didn't mention politics or anarchism once, but laid out the scenario I basically just described and asked what they would do. He said that in all of the sessions he's done, not one person ever suggested anything that government does, and when he stopped them and said "ok, what do you think about this idea..." and laid out the government solution to things, people would actually laugh.
It wasn't until later that he pointed that out, and also asked them "were any of you able to tell who was a Democrat or a Republican during this session?" Some were more interested in helping the sick and feeding everyone, etc. and some were more concerned with building shelter and handling criminal behavior, etc., but they really couldn't tell.
I think it was a very interesting experiment, and is part of the reason I think we're conditioned to believe that a top-down ruler and subject relationship is necessary for society to exist...whether it's overtly being pushed, or just something humans have done for so long that it's hard to imagine an alternative, I'm not sure...probably plenty of both.
We already had the "libertarian" revolution in this country. People who would, by most rights, be tilted left went far right (they prefer guns to pot) and helped push Trump over the edge.
So now we have the admin that Libertarians helped install. Or at least a taste of it. It's all about lack of responsibility....
We already had the "libertarian" revolution in this country. People who would, by most rights, be tilted left went far right (they prefer guns to pot) and helped push Trump over the edge.
So now we have the admin that Libertarians helped install. Or at least a taste of it. It's all about lack of responsibility....
Trump is as libertarian as Nancy Pelosi.
Pro tip--libertarianism is neither right nor left.
We already had the "libertarian" revolution in this country. People who would, by most rights, be tilted left went far right (they prefer guns to pot) and helped push Trump over the edge.
So now we have the admin that Libertarians helped install. Or at least a taste of it. It's all about lack of responsibility....
Libertarians used to be a workers movement that was against corporate and state rule over the individual. Sadly, the right wing capitalists turned into into another laissez-faire corporate run state that they call 'freedom'.
On the 2nd paragraph, I think it's a good question. I do think that if you dropped a bunch of people on a desert island, removed from their current environment, starting from scratch, that they would not appoint someone from the group to be their ruler. There may be leaders with expertise, and some may voluntarily defer to the group, etc. but they wouldn't give someone permission to rule over everyone else.
There's actually a guy named Larken Rose who ran something called "the island" where he didn't mention politics or anarchism once, but laid out the scenario I basically just described and asked what they would do. He said that in all of the sessions he's done, not one person ever suggested anything that government does, and when he stopped them and said "ok, what do you think about this idea..." and laid out the government solution to things, people would actually laugh.
It wasn't until later that he pointed that out, and also asked them "were any of you able to tell who was a Democrat or a Republican during this session?" Some were more interested in helping the sick and feeding everyone, etc. and some were more concerned with building shelter and handling criminal behavior, etc., but they really couldn't tell.
I think it was a very interesting experiment, and is part of the reason I think we're conditioned to believe that a top-down ruler and subject relationship is necessary for society to exist...whether it's overtly being pushed, or just something humans have done for so long that it's hard to imagine an alternative, I'm not sure...probably plenty of both.
Rose isn't very bright or he would have realized this is not a useful experiment because he was in the middle of it, observing, and people are always going to be on their "best behavior" because they think they are being measured against a moral or legal standard. Even when told they are not, its very hard for them to break conditioning.
Haven't you ever read Lord of the Flies? That's a more realistic outcome.
If Rose only saw cooperation its because there were no bad actors, or the experiment didn't run long enough for them to assess and weigh their opportunities. Which is what ALL people will rationally do. They will try to cooperate because they don't know if confrontation is advisable until they know more about the capabilities and resources of others, or how the "politics" or "allegiances" will shake out.
I hate reality TV as much as I can possibly detest any human invention, and yet, if you watch any of these format of shows (Big Brother, Survivor, Housemates etc), you will see exactly that same dynamic.
Once the bad actors feel comfortable, they will start to do what they always do.
Wow, a whole thread devoted to denouncing libertarianism.
I guess since the board is up to 6-7 anarchists the statists are feeling threatened.
Not sure why though. If we get to be too much of a "problem" they'll just kill us like they do to everyone else.
I've actually been thinking that I want to learn more about this thing you and Rebeldor feel so strongly about.
From what little I know, it just seems like something that can never happen here.
What are some good sources to learn more from?
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I survived a Catholic upbringing too.
First Nazi (according to the statists) that just happened to have dark skin and was raised Catholic (not exactly high on Hitler's list of friends).
You can't just drop the "in training" part when you choose to. That's up to me, and unfortunately? You have not progressed much. Actually in danger if bring dropped from the program entirely.
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.
