Political Crossfire Forums

[Dr. Wojtyla]

For the record, the disorder in Diluvian New Orleans wasn't due to lack of authority -- since most civilians left and a huge number of police came in, followed by federal agents, there were actually MORE authority figures per citizen than usual. The reason for the chaos was because the true cohesive entity of society -- the community itself -- had mostly left. Well, that and all the water.

[JeffS]

FinnMacCool wrote: I just wish JEffs would post a rebuttal because he really pissed me of with his patronizing "criticism" of anarchism.

I will. Life is very busy and I haven't had the time. However, I will.

[Anaximander_]

We need laws. We need laws that limit some freedom to protect the rest. We should not have the freedom to kill another man at will, because it destroys the freedom of that man to live at will. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, provided it does not severely impede another's freedom. I say severely because pretty much everything we do partially impedes someone else's freedom. If we decide to buy a house at a certain price, then we destroy the freedom of another to buy that same house for the same price. If we decide to stand in a certain place, another person cannot stand in that place until we move. And taxes... well, thats definitely an impingement on freedom to. The founding fathers had it right. You can do whatever you want, provided it does not impede another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

[Cyro]

Anaximander_ wrote: We need laws. We need laws that limit some freedom to protect the rest. We should not have the freedom to kill another man at will, because it destroys the freedom of that man to live at will. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, provided it does not severely impede another's freedom. I say severely because pretty much everything we do partially impedes someone else's freedom. If we decide to buy a house at a certain price, then we destroy the freedom of another to buy that same house for the same price. If we decide to stand in a certain place, another person cannot stand in that place until we move. And taxes... well, thats definitely an impingement on freedom to. The founding fathers had it right. You can do whatever you want, provided it does not impede another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I can arrange for my own protection of my rights and freedoms, thank you. I do not need to lose some of these in order to have them protected. Certainly not at the behest of a majority I do not agree with, and government officials who seem more interested in removing more and more of my freedoms for 'security'.

Some-one does not have the freedom to stand on another individuals property without their permission. In an anarchist society there would be no such thing as 'public property' thus you could not violate someones freedom to stand in a particular area as one your property you set the rules, and on someone elses, they do.

Of course you can't violate someone elses rights, you think that you could get away with that in anarchy? There would still be justices systems, just not ones of government control. If the market demands justice, someone will supply it, on a volentary basis. The govern has no more president to violate my rights than anyone else.

[lovebush]

Cyro wrote: Anaximander_ wrote: We need laws. We need laws that limit some freedom to protect the rest. We should not have the freedom to kill another man at will, because it destroys the freedom of that man to live at will. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, provided it does not severely impede another's freedom. I say severely because pretty much everything we do partially impedes someone else's freedom. If we decide to buy a house at a certain price, then we destroy the freedom of another to buy that same house for the same price. If we decide to stand in a certain place, another person cannot stand in that place until we move. And taxes... well, thats definitely an impingement on freedom to. The founding fathers had it right. You can do whatever you want, provided it does not impede another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I can arrange for my own protection of my rights and freedoms, thank you. I do not need to lose some of these in order to have them protected. Certainly not at the behest of a majority I do not agree with, and government officials who seem more interested in removing more and more of my freedoms for 'security'.

Some-one does not have the freedom to stand on another individuals property without their permission. In an anarchist society there would be no such thing as 'public property' thus you could not violate someones freedom to stand in a particular area as one your property you set the rules, and on someone elses, they do.

Of course you can't violate someone elses rights, you think that you could get away with that in anarchy? There would still be justices systems, just not ones of government control. If the market demands justice, someone will supply it, on a voluntary basis. The govern has no more president to violate my rights than anyone else.

what if the one who violates your rights is much more powerful than you? If there is no public property then all property is privately owned? I have been curious about how an anarchist society would look, could you direct me to a good concise source?

[Cyro]

lovebush wrote: Cyro wrote: Anaximander_ wrote: We need laws. We need laws that limit some freedom to protect the rest. We should not have the freedom to kill another man at will, because it destroys the freedom of that man to live at will. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, provided it does not severely impede another's freedom. I say severely because pretty much everything we do partially impedes someone else's freedom. If we decide to buy a house at a certain price, then we destroy the freedom of another to buy that same house for the same price. If we decide to stand in a certain place, another person cannot stand in that place until we move. And taxes... well, thats definitely an impingement on freedom to. The founding fathers had it right. You can do whatever you want, provided it does not impede another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I can arrange for my own protection of my rights and freedoms, thank you. I do not need to lose some of these in order to have them protected. Certainly not at the behest of a majority I do not agree with, and government officials who seem more interested in removing more and more of my freedoms for 'security'.

Some-one does not have the freedom to stand on another individuals property without their permission. In an anarchist society there would be no such thing as 'public property' thus you could not violate someones freedom to stand in a particular area as one your property you set the rules, and on someone elses, they do.

Of course you can't violate someone elses rights, you think that you could get away with that in anarchy? There would still be justices systems, just not ones of government control. If the market demands justice, someone will supply it, on a voluntary basis. The govern has no more president to violate my rights than anyone else.

what if the one who violates your rights is much more powerful than you? If there is no public property then all property is privately owned? I have been curious about how an anarchist society would look, could you direct me to a good concise source?

Insurance agencies could fill the role. An agency dedicated to securing my well-being would do well to protect me from such abuse, lest their own name be sullied. In a free market where insurance agencies aren't getting government subsidies they would have to rely on income from their clients and thus be more responsible if their clients are mistreated.

But that's just one idea. The market could probably create a thousand ideas better than mine. I'd certainly trust them to protect me better than the government, who basically are not doing so, and are crushing civil rights at the same time.

[lovebush]

Cyro wrote: lovebush wrote: Cyro wrote: Anaximander_ wrote: We need laws. We need laws that limit some freedom to protect the rest. We should not have the freedom to kill another man at will, because it destroys the freedom of that man to live at will. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, provided it does not severely impede another's freedom. I say severely because pretty much everything we do partially impedes someone else's freedom. If we decide to buy a house at a certain price, then we destroy the freedom of another to buy that same house for the same price. If we decide to stand in a certain place, another person cannot stand in that place until we move. And taxes... well, thats definitely an impingement on freedom to. The founding fathers had it right. You can do whatever you want, provided it does not impede another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I can arrange for my own protection of my rights and freedoms, thank you. I do not need to lose some of these in order to have them protected. Certainly not at the behest of a majority I do not agree with, and government officials who seem more interested in removing more and more of my freedoms for 'security'.

Some-one does not have the freedom to stand on another individuals property without their permission. In an anarchist society there would be no such thing as 'public property' thus you could not violate someones freedom to stand in a particular area as one your property you set the rules, and on someone elses, they do.

Of course you can't violate someone elses rights, you think that you could get away with that in anarchy? There would still be justices systems, just not ones of government control. If the market demands justice, someone will supply it, on a voluntary basis. The govern has no more president to violate my rights than anyone else.

what if the one who violates your rights is much more powerful than you? If there is no public property then all property is privately owned? I have been curious about how an anarchist society would look, could you direct me to a good concise source?

Insurance agencies could fill the role. An agency dedicated to securing my well-being would do well to protect me from such abuse, lest their own name be sullied. In a free market where insurance agencies aren't getting government subsidies they would have to rely on income from their clients and thus be more responsible if their clients are mistreated.

But that's just one idea. The market could probably create a thousand ideas better than mine. I'd certainly trust them to protect me better than the government, who basically are not doing so, and are crushing civil rights at the same time.

so you would pay for protection? what tactics would the protectors use?

[Cyro]

lovebush wrote: Cyro wrote: lovebush wrote: Cyro wrote: Anaximander_ wrote: We need laws. We need laws that limit some freedom to protect the rest. We should not have the freedom to kill another man at will, because it destroys the freedom of that man to live at will. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, provided it does not severely impede another's freedom. I say severely because pretty much everything we do partially impedes someone else's freedom. If we decide to buy a house at a certain price, then we destroy the freedom of another to buy that same house for the same price. If we decide to stand in a certain place, another person cannot stand in that place until we move. And taxes... well, thats definitely an impingement on freedom to. The founding fathers had it right. You can do whatever you want, provided it does not impede another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I can arrange for my own protection of my rights and freedoms, thank you. I do not need to lose some of these in order to have them protected. Certainly not at the behest of a majority I do not agree with, and government officials who seem more interested in removing more and more of my freedoms for 'security'.

Some-one does not have the freedom to stand on another individuals property without their permission. In an anarchist society there would be no such thing as 'public property' thus you could not violate someones freedom to stand in a particular area as one your property you set the rules, and on someone elses, they do.

Of course you can't violate someone elses rights, you think that you could get away with that in anarchy? There would still be justices systems, just not ones of government control. If the market demands justice, someone will supply it, on a voluntary basis. The govern has no more president to violate my rights than anyone else.

what if the one who violates your rights is much more powerful than you? If there is no public property then all property is privately owned? I have been curious about how an anarchist society would look, could you direct me to a good concise source?

Insurance agencies could fill the role. An agency dedicated to securing my well-being would do well to protect me from such abuse, lest their own name be sullied. In a free market where insurance agencies aren't getting government subsidies they would have to rely on income from their clients and thus be more responsible if their clients are mistreated.

But that's just one idea. The market could probably create a thousand ideas better than mine. I'd certainly trust them to protect me better than the government, who basically are not doing so, and are crushing civil rights at the same time.

so you would pay for protection? what tactics would the protectors use?

I'm paying for protection now, abeit redundently, not that I have much of a choice whether to or not. As of tactics, personally I would imagine it would depend on the sevarity of the offence with reperations required to be paid, if they don't pay then they'd lose their insurance policy and would likely have trouble getting a job/house/car/etc.

[Green]

If we said, "Hey, screw having a government. Lets chuck it.", Then the wealthy would abbuse the poor. Complete anarchy does not work today.

The poor being abbused by the rich and criminals is not freedom.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Green wrote: If we said, "Hey, screw having a government. Lets chuck it.", Then the wealthy would abbuse the poor. Complete anarchy does not work today.

The welfare poor of today definitely don't want anarchy. Who else besides the government is going to steal money for them and relieve them of all individual responsibility?

[SeamushMacEoghain]

Quote: The welfare poor of today definitely don't want anarchy. Who else besides the government is going to steal money for them and relieve them of all individual responsibility?


In a lot of ways you are correct...the biggest problem with anarchy is the responsibility....

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

SeamushMacEoghain wrote: Quote: The welfare poor of today definitely don't want anarchy. Who else besides the government is going to steal money for them and relieve them of all individual responsibility?


In a lot of ways you are correct...the biggest problem with anarchy is the responsibility....

People fear anarchy because it is the highest form of personal resonsibility.

[mojo]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: SeamushMacEoghain wrote: Quote: The welfare poor of today definitely don't want anarchy. Who else besides the government is going to steal money for them and relieve them of all individual responsibility?


In a lot of ways you are correct...the biggest problem with anarchy is the responsibility....

People fear anarchy because it is the highest form of personal resonsibility.

Your right a responsiblity that carries little or no consequences. An anarchy not only dissolves organized power but dissolves the social construct as well.

[lovebush]

I cant imagine how anyone would want anarchy. I admit I must not understand the big picture of what its adherents think it would be like. Im not willing to believe they are all idiots that would be, contempt prior to investigation. To me as I currently understand it, there would be no government. government serves many purposes that individuals cant do for themselves. freedom is more than not having someone tell me what not to do. in some ways an unemployed homeless person has more freedom than I do. he has no schedule to keep, he can drink all day, he need not shower or shave. I on the other hand have my schedule dictated to me. my employer prefers I dont stink and they insist I show up to work sober. I at any time could choose to give up all my bondage in favor of the "freedom" that the homeless guy enjoys. why dont I? because I would give up the freedom to to go places in my car, I give up the freedom from worrying about being killed in my sleep because Im not locked safe in my home.
I seems to me that gov in some ways takes some freedoms away, but a good representative gov. that is accountable to the population. will insure more freedom than it takes away.

[Cyro]

lovebush wrote: I cant imagine how anyone would want anarchy. I admit I must not understand the big picture of what its adherents think it would be like. Im not willing to believe they are all idiots that would be, contempt prior to investigation. To me as I currently understand it, there would be no government. government serves many purposes that individuals cant do for themselves. freedom is more than not having someone tell me what not to do. in some ways an unemployed homeless person has more freedom than I do. he has no schedule to keep, he can drink all day, he need not shower or shave. I on the other hand have my schedule dictated to me. my employer prefers I dont stink and they insist I show up to work sober. I at any time could choose to give up all my bondage in favor of the "freedom" that the homeless guy enjoys. why dont I? because I would give up the freedom to to go places in my car, I give up the freedom from worrying about being killed in my sleep because Im not locked safe in my home.
I seems to me that gov in some ways takes some freedoms away, but a good representative gov. that is accountable to the population. will insure more freedom than it takes away.

You are correct freedom is more than not have someone tell us what to do.

The primary principle of Freedom is that the individual owns themself. If you own yourself then you own your labour, and the fruits there-of (aka. money and goods/services/property purchased with said money). As such if the government is taxing me it means on of 2 things:

1) I don't (fully) own myself and I am their slave to the level of taxation.
2) They're just stealing my money.

I personally believe I am no-ones slave to any level and as a government can't exist without gaining a income from taxing the people, it has no right to make me a slave, nor to steal my money.

[anselfir]

Quote:
thehollowman wrote: The American Revolution is one of the largest anarchist movements in all of history. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of it, English and American. And yet today almost everyone, including me, looks upon it as something as "good" and morally just. Not only did the revolution birth an empire, but it lit the forest with the fires of the word "Freedom" which lead to the eventual downfall of almost all monarchies in the post modern world.

The American Revolution is the only war that can be justified in American history. It is the only American war in which the people themselves fought, instead of the government telling the people to fight. wars and such things are never justified.

but in any case, to answer the question. anarchy is the absence of coercion of any form, and i would say the higher anarchy is the absence of any conflict. of course this is a pure freedom.

[FinnMacCool]

Cyro wrote: lovebush wrote: Cyro wrote: Anaximander_ wrote: We need laws. We need laws that limit some freedom to protect the rest. We should not have the freedom to kill another man at will, because it destroys the freedom of that man to live at will. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, provided it does not severely impede another's freedom. I say severely because pretty much everything we do partially impedes someone else's freedom. If we decide to buy a house at a certain price, then we destroy the freedom of another to buy that same house for the same price. If we decide to stand in a certain place, another person cannot stand in that place until we move. And taxes... well, thats definitely an impingement on freedom to. The founding fathers had it right. You can do whatever you want, provided it does not impede another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I can arrange for my own protection of my rights and freedoms, thank you. I do not need to lose some of these in order to have them protected. Certainly not at the behest of a majority I do not agree with, and government officials who seem more interested in removing more and more of my freedoms for 'security'.

Some-one does not have the freedom to stand on another individuals property without their permission. In an anarchist society there would be no such thing as 'public property' thus you could not violate someones freedom to stand in a particular area as one your property you set the rules, and on someone elses, they do.

Of course you can't violate someone elses rights, you think that you could get away with that in anarchy? There would still be justices systems, just not ones of government control. If the market demands justice, someone will supply it, on a voluntary basis. The govern has no more president to violate my rights than anyone else.

what if the one who violates your rights is much more powerful than you? If there is no public property then all property is privately owned? I have been curious about how an anarchist society would look, could you direct me to a good concise source?

Insurance agencies could fill the role. An agency dedicated to securing my well-being would do well to protect me from such abuse, lest their own name be sullied. In a free market where insurance agencies aren't getting government subsidies they would have to rely on income from their clients and thus be more responsible if their clients are mistreated.

But that's just one idea. The market could probably create a thousand ideas better than mine. I'd certainly trust them to protect me better than the government, who basically are not doing so, and are crushing civil rights at the same time.

OMG an english anarcho-capitalist! I'm gonna cry. . .I thought there were no anarcho-capitalists there.

[FinnMacCool]

Green wrote: If we said, "Hey, screw having a government. Lets chuck it.", Then the wealthy would abbuse the poor. Complete anarchy does not work today.

The poor being abbused by the rich and criminals is not freedom.

Have you heard of something called an ak-47?

[FinnMacCool]

SeamushMacEoghain wrote: Quote: The welfare poor of today definitely don't want anarchy. Who else besides the government is going to steal money for them and relieve them of all individual responsibility?


In a lot of ways you are correct...the biggest problem with anarchy is the responsibility....

We are talking about poor who have limited class conciousness and who have been subject to government propaganda? In other words, right wing poor.

And just for the record, the lazy welfare check guy is a myth. Most are off welfare in a matter of months.

[Feslin]

Everyone is either a farmer, or a thug.

Anarchy is the purest form of democracy.

I hate democracy.