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.
As long as no one is directly instigating violence against me, I have no right under natural law to commit violence against them.
While the State itself is inherently violent, individual agents are not culpable unless they commit violence on behalf of the State.
Ok now we making some progress. That means no more calling people murderers when they don't agree the state should be abolished(you may not have been doing this), you wanna trash concrete government actions, fine with me, I'd probably agree with you 99% of the time.
FWIW this to me is a reasonable position to hold. The only thing I'd probably clarify is that violence on behalf of the state can still be justified assuming said violence is still a response in accordance with the NAP. just because the state did it does not make it inherently evil, rather each action must be judged in context with no regard to the executor of the action. Who or what did it is really irrelevant to the moral judgement of the action itself.
The state can execute both just and injust actions, as can individuals, companies, corporations, affiliations, anything. The action itself must be judged.
Ok now we making some progress. That means no more calling people murderers when they don't agree the state should be abolished(you may not have been doing this), you wanna trash concrete government actions, fine with me, I'd probably agree with you 99% of the time.
FWIW this to me is a reasonable position to hold. The only thing I'd probably clarify is that violence on behalf of the state can still be justified assuming said violence is still a response in accordance with the NAP. just because the state did it does not make it inherently evil, rather each action must be judged in context with no regard to the executor of the action. Who or what did it is really irrelevant to the moral judgement of the action itself.
Hmm true, clarify it that the combination of individual actions from the human actors following the framework of the state, that eventually become broad overarching actions of the direction of power of the state must be judged.
It really does always boil down to humans or combinations thereof. Which is why simply changing the way those humans socialize and are organized will never create some mythic utopia. Back to the practical balancing act i was talking about earlier of trying to find the best way to minimize harm while still being able to function.
I always think like a possible anything as long as a good enough argument can be made for it, and that is to say a good argument by my own judgement.
Right now to convince me that your way is they way to go, you need to make it:
Practical/workable - no pie in the sky, concrete defined mechanisms of how to make it happen
Non circular, non self defeating
And your delivery sucks, not insanely relevant for me if the argument is good enough, most people are not as tolerant of being called cowards and murderers just for waking up in the morning and going about their day to day however. And when you are as small of a minority as ancaps, you gonna need every advantage you can get if you want to be effective at invoking change.
Question is, are you a true believer/crusader or do you just like being on the trolly fringe so you can throw shade at everyone?
Making it workable/practical is up to the individual. Slavery was once workable/practical. So was raping your wife and the State saying that was ok because she owed it to you.
The delivery is a personal flaw if you're taking it that way. You'll run into a lot of flawed individuals in AnCapistan. I'll be one of the more ornery ones but with no State to force us to associate we should be in the clear.
Sure I'm a true believer. Let's be clear on this: even though you're a Statist you aren't evil. You're just wrong. That's not a judgement on you (unless you directly initiate force on me then you are actively wrong and I have to defend myself). Nobody has the right to involuntarily rule over another human being. I didn't make that up. It just is.
The thing is us anarchists aren't crazy bearded guys living in the mountains of Montana. We live and work among you statists. We pay our taxes. We follow laws. I used to work in law enforcement. I'm still friendly with cops when I see them or if they pull me over. There's no need to escalate to violence for the sake of being right.
I would rather you examine your beliefs to see if you are truly applying them consistently across the board. Is that important to you? Do you care? Some do. Some don't.
Watch the video. It explains a little about self-preservation in the face of possible violence.
I was trying to get Snorlaxx to see the difference between self-preservation when not being directly attacked (walking up to a cop and punching him out is foolish) and being directly attacked therefore in imminent danger (when the government aims a Tomahawk at innocents in Damascus...it's about to go down...so can they move out of the way and can they retaliate?)
Hmm true, clarify it that the combination of individual actions from the human actors following the framework of the state, that eventually become broad overarching actions of the direction of power of the state must be judged.
It really does always boil down to humans or combinations thereof. Which is why simply changing the way those humans socialize and are organized will never create some mythic utopia. Back to the practical balancing act i was talking about earlier of trying to find the best way to minimize harm while still being able to function.
For the state to be considered rightfully among human laws it would need to exist by its own definition. The state, as far as its concerned is a Representative of the American society and its people.
Being as it does not derive its power from the people, only its authority, it cannot be seen as a body ruling under the people but over them.
For any state system to work it needs a bottom up approach to power and such a system cannot be implemented in a central system.
I always make a distinction between direct and indirect violence.
As Larken Rose says..."if all else fails".
That's also natural law. Chipmunks don't go up to bears in the woods and say "What's up b-itch?"
You exhaust the non-violent means at your cognitive disposal. Sadly, I'd say bears and chipmunks do a better job of keeping that natural law close to their heart.
First sign of trouble us humans go all John Bolton on anything that moves.
Ok now we making some progress. That means no more calling people murderers when they don't agree the state should be abolished(you may not have been doing this), you wanna trash concrete government actions, fine with me, I'd probably agree with you 99% of the time.
FWIW this to me is a reasonable position to hold. The only thing I'd probably clarify is that violence on behalf of the state can still be justified assuming said violence is still a response in accordance with the NAP. just because the state did it does not make it inherently evil, rather each action must be judged in context with no regard to the executor of the action. Who or what did it is really irrelevant to the moral judgement of the action itself.
The state can execute both just and injust actions, as can individuals, companies, corporations, affiliations, anything. The action itself must be judged.
The thing is, all State violence is evil, since the State has no rights.
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.