-
I don’t need to recite the oath taken into office to you here thats a rediculous question to ask. In short it’s “I blah blah blah solomnley swear to uphold and protect the constitution”. They recite that before anything else. Proving this to you is like proving the sky is blue, I don’t need to waste my time.
-
It was a generalization yes but I’d bet a few bucks an acurate one. Let me better answer your question with a counter question. What was the last president we had that defender and upheld the constitution as a first priority?
-
You are correct. I too often consider Anarchy in my terms whicih means lack of government. Your understanding of anarchy is a fantasy based definition where meteors fall from the sky, men run around durranged with blood lust, or perhaps you have an equally obsured and also ficticious view of a mad max situation. At any rate your definition of Anarchy is a fantasy based that follows no reason or logic. The anarcy I speak of is one that lacks real government. For the colonists this was absolutely the case. In today’s day government is so overwhelming we don’t know when taxes fluctuate a small percent or care very little about it. Since things were much more transparent in the colonists era and there was much LESS in the way of taxation then the colonists were aware of every little thing the british tried to do. It’s amazing they went to war for a fraction of the government oppression we face today.
-
This is general history. The colony’s were colony’s. Some of them had no british occupation what so ever. Others had very little, others had alot. The british had to travel long distances to replenish army’s and their moral sucked terribly. I don’t need to argue general history with you. I don’t have to be too concerned with revisionism on this one. It’s widely accepted and explained the roles of the colonists and the british historically in new england.
and according to the definition of anarchy that I’ve provided you therefore need a ruler - somebody to rule over you which smacks of tyranny.
Which therefore the obvious question is why does somebody need to dictate/rule over you? It’s philosophically immature.
No, you are a slave to democracy.
And we don’t need your political pamphleteering for the state. You’re no closer to liberty than an Obama voter from our point of view.
Anarchy is not about no control. It is about voluntary control. Ron Paul also speaks about Lysander Spooner, the author of “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority”. I find it humourous that you are an ideologue who doesn’t understand his own ideology.
And lastly, no one is suggesting control in what is to be thought. You’re not for liberty. You are for statist reform. We’re simply asking you to be accurate with your labels.
Sir -
You do yourself no honor in debate to simply state your conclusion about an argument made without first responding to each point in the argument – the four points from which you drew conclusion with no premises.
So, for the sake of clarity… what are your specific counter points to items 1-4 above?
Upon reading your responses, then perhaps it will be found that one or the other of us has been unclear. Let the readers be the judge of that.
- Scott
nirgrahamUK: Clever ruse you throw, but not very clear when you state: “oh, that old chestnutt, that truth and right-thinking is a ‘mental straightjacket’”
That is because it is quite easy to see your implication that your viewpoint, sir, is “right-thinking.”
Too easy. Please try again.
- Scott
I can’t be embarrassed about being right.
one day you’ll look back and you’ll laugh at what you said when you first met other anarchists.
and you will say similar things to people that dont yet understand liberty, in your turn.
You bolded this, but apparently did not look up the definition. As wilderness pointed out, anarchy means “without leaders.”
You may say, “Society cannot be organized without leaders.” Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Or, if you’d like to know how society can be organized without leaders, read.
I’m sure there are those in communist russia or Nazi Germany who beleived they were also free. You should send your photo to Webster dictionary so they can post it next to “Coersion” since you are obviously the coerced.
At any rate I’m glad you think your free but I am not. 30% of my labor is done in slavery to a state I disagree with. My form of currency and protection is decided for me. What wars I chose are decided for me against my will Soon my healthcare and energy rights will be decided by another as well.
Are you here to tell us that you agree with everything the government does? And if not how can you justify paying those swine throught taxation(theft)?
IDK sometimes I thinkt he cavemend didn’t have it so bad. [:)] But to answer your question, yes. I am contending that life without government is grand. I’ve personally lived it outside of the US in unstable country’s. Most third world country’s governments have no presence in their rural regions which makes for great retirement locations. 
Some of the most peaceful, most productive times of my life were lived in those rural regions of third world country’s.
Well, that’s your problem - you really don’t fully grasp political philosophy and yet you act as if you did.
And if you are a subject of the american criminal government you certainly are not free. You sound as if not wholly in touch with reality ?
By the way, you are correct in that classical liberals supported government (and tyranny), but not all classical liberals were inconsistent. Here’s one consistent classical liberal : < The Production of Security
Liberty Student:
- The phrase “slave to democracy” is an oxymoron
- The phrase “voluntary control” is unclear because it assumes that one agrees with the control - can you cite examples of free people who agree to submit to control
- Your phrase “from our point of view” suggests that a group of anarchists who oppose control, have actually formed and subscribed to a mutual agreement for same, since your advocacy for one interpretive point of view represents an appeal for control. Again, illogical.
I am for Liberty via the reform of the State. I have no problem admitting that. What you are for, remains unclear, illogical and not based on any historical examples. Run free in the fields? A fantasy. Is there anyone here who can cite real world examples of what you preach?
So far there is noone here that seems to choose, or be capable of honorable debate, point by point, in the best spirit of education. Let me know when you wish to try your hand at it.
Or maybe your mind is already made up, and now your objective is forcing others to agree. So much for your work as a “moderator”.
In Liberty -
Scott
you can find the real world examples… but as to your fantasy mention think of it this way, those stinking founding fathers fantasized about a republic and to be rid of England’s rule. I mean they had no real world examples of a U.S. republic. They really believed in fairy tales didn’t they?
You can ignore the definition of anarchy or you can go on believing in your statist version of liberty. First - define liberty. I’ll wait for your response.
As if you didn’t come in here posting looking for others to critique your ‘book’ and now the critique has started and you whine. oh well.
Liberty Student,
I think it’s just that “elders” over here run into similar situations often. I was a Ron Paul supporter, now leaning towards anarcho-capitalism. I do appreciate what Ron Paul and that movement have done to attract people to sites like Mises Institute.
So yeah, stick around and continue debating because you have everything to gain 
As nirUK said, you probably will be laughing at your old posts, all in good fun!
Guys - I think there is a need to clean up the act in interacting with newcomers.
And is it really essential to be absolute sticklers for voluntary society?
Yes, personally, I am a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist, however there are people who are close to these positions and just need nudging in our direction, instead of repulsion.
Juan Wrote: “…you really don’t fully grasp political philosophy and yet you act as if you did.”
Sir, the implication, that you DO grasp political philosophy remains unproven. Simply because you hang out with some peers who subscribe to your interpretation of political theory is no evidence of either political acumen, or clear thinking.
For the record, I still have much to learn, but from what I have seen here – not much from you.
I wish you the best in the circular oxymorons which you continually present without logical premise, and without confining your debate to the specific points at hand.
In Liberty (where logical, honest, and just organization is for the good of all)
- Scott
You presuppose that I must swear allegiance to anything or anyone beyond my ideals and my reason.
Conservatism is a reactionary movement based on military aggrandizement, complusory social norms and nationalistic blindness.
Your views of anarchism are sorely out-dated.
If people want to advance liberty in even the smallest ways, interacting nicely with newcomers is highly recommended.
Of course I started from small and showed you the definition of anarchy. Then I asked you to define liberty. But if that’s not confining the debate then I guess I don’t know what is.
Wilderness wrote: “First - define liberty. I’ll wait for your response.”
I am first waiting for a respectful response to the four points above, which were specific responses to one of the first posts here. Why? Because that is what those who are following a chronological order in a debate, and have specific and logical replies, do when they choose to debate with honor.
Who should go first? Maybe it is in your anarchist creed that you will impose the order, but I will instead wait for your reply in the chronology set by this forum.
Hmmmm… neither the chronology of the forum structure, nor your attempt to impose arbitrary order that serves only yourself, seems to have very much to do with “anarchy” does it? That is unless you are attempting to be an anarchy unto yourself. Must be frustrating for you.
In Liberty -
Scott