I was starting from your original post. The book is titled “Liberty Manifesto”. What does liberty mean? It’s also the first word in your composite name. I’m starting way back there. If need be I’ll go to those four, but it seems to be jumping ahead of ourselves. Do you differ on that point?
No it isn’t. Read the Founders on democracy.
Nonsensical.
It is only illogical because you continue to promote an ignorant and incorrect view of anarchy, even when being corrected here. Anarchy is voluntarism. You are for involuntary control view a blanket social contract that does not have universal agreement, enforced with the barrel of a gun.
The state is anathema to liberty. The purpose of the state, is to protect individual liberty. It delivers this service, by violating individual liberty.
It is perfectly clear. You simply will not take liberty to its logical and rational conclusion. It’s you who are being illogical, and historical examples undermine your position, I don’t need to provide proof of anarchy in action, voluntarism occurs everyday where the state is not involved.
No one is forcing you to do anything. You came here and asked for debate. You got it, and now you are crying about it. Well, you should have researched who you were promoting propaganda to. Playing the victim of the big bad moderator is just lame. I am moderating a discussion, one in which you have displayed a lack of knowledge and promoted half-truths, although dozens of members here with or without moderator status are capable of pointing out the inaccuracy and hypocrisy of your position.
Lets use a popular example i’ve seen before. Democracy is like 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Once the ballets are in how free do you think the sheep will be? In other words freedom has nothing to do with Democracy. America is great at doublespeech/doubletalk, a term Orwell coined. War is Peace, Hate is Love, Pain is Pleasure, Democracy is Peace, ect…
It’s completly clear. No one has any right to my property or my productivity without my prior consent. I can use you as an example. Did you vote in the elections? If you did then you yourself are proof of a supposed man who consented and granted control to his government to reign over his person. Now I’m willing to bet your unhappy with Obamah and with the strong intervention of the state over our lives in the past several years. Do you truely feel free in our current state of affairs? It’s ironic that you call yourself a free man yet you are not content with the current political arrangement that YOU voted in.
Has democracy has served you well politically over the past 100 years? Have your needs been met? If so why are you trying to push all this conservative political crap if you were already happy as a free man? 
No your misunderstanding and are incapable of fathoming life without someone granitng you the permission to live it. Let me ask you this. Does the state grant you the permission to live? By what right do you have to live on this earth? By what right are you to own your own productivity and property?
Now that my friend is the first true oxymoron stated here on this thread.
By very definition the state cannot exist without first taking from it’s citizenry. The state producing nothing of value and since it is incapable of naturally surviving in the free market it must use coersion, force, and theft from it’s citizen’s to survive.
I have already given you one, and someone else has posted a link to another. Convenient for you to skip over.
This kind of statement is like going to a Denver Bronco’s fan site and asking on their forum why they like the bronco’s but without being aware that you were on a bronco’s website. Do you have any idea what this website represents? Have you read any article here at all?
In what way are we being dishonerable and also what does honor have to do with anything? You sound like a neo-con trying to make the argument that we need perpetual war because it’s the honorable thing to do. I don’t things because they are honorable. I’m not discussing with you because it’s honrable, I’m doing it because your highly entertaining. That word, honor, has been abused into oblivion. A matter of honor seems like a pretty subjective matter to me.
Many have posted some real counter points to your argument and you have conveniently overlooked them. Perhaps it is you who needs to go back and re-read some of them. [:)]
Acting nicely does not require softening one’s argument or agreeing with them, however.
All this and we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the legitimacy of the creation of the government he proposes [H]
Turn on the smoothing music…this will take some time.
Your “liberty manifesto” is not even worth a status of of miniarchy. It’s ambiguous enough even for a socialist to go along with.
Where in your manifesto does it say that individuals are to be free from any form of coercion? That all exchange is to be done on a voluntary basis? That property rights are to be sacred? And the initiation of force is only to be tolerated for defense? I believe your “manifesto” guarantees none of the above!
Very well sir, my definition of Liberty: “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.”
And, that definition, I would add, is not arbitrary. It is taken from Dictionary.com as the primary definition of Liberty. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty
You will note, that nowhere in that definition is either the need for, or possibility of governance by and for the people excluded.
Now, since I have honored your request, and since several here suggest I might become educated from your theories, please enlighten me with specific replies to the following questions:
- How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty?
- Please define “Anarchy” as a working political theory? You said you previously defined it, but it is still unclear to me how it might work in practical terms.
- Given the definition in #2, please cite historic examples of it at work?
- If historic examples are not available (and I again submit that the colonies had a working set of governing laws, and so were in no way an anarchy in practice), then please state clearly how you think such a “system” (can it be Anarchy if it requires a system?) would work?
I will read your answers with an open mind.
In Liberty -
Scott
Is this a serious question?
If your genuienly interested then stop arguing semantics.
Well I think there is something about God coming first and being that a manifesto is a declaration of intentions…I’m guessing all the atheists are going to be..well something, maybe not have their rights respected because they don’t believe in divine power and according to this manifesto natural rights are divine edicts [ to which I think is ridiculous, natural rights are based on logic and reason, not fictious entities ]
I would love to do a critique of this book if it ever actually came into existence.
I agree. It’s just the tone of the debate.
Anyway, on with the debate! 
Who really even cares about legitimacy?
Pennsylvania’s Anarchist Experiment 1681-1690
-
It is a myth. The only way to be free from despotic control is to be only involved in voluntary relationships. Any involuntary relationship, by definition, is despotic. So any social contract without 100% agreement, is worthless as a liberty document.
-
Anarchy is voluntarism. Wikipedia can help you with this. Not all of us, but many ascribe to anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism or market anarchism.
-
Anywhere that voluntary action occurs without government supervision/coercion is an example of anarchy and spontaneous order.
-
Anarchy is not the absence of law. It is the absence of involuntary laws.
Too true! Much like the quack scientist let us just postulate that was is-is for a reason and therefore above introspection [:P]
It’s confrontational and antagonistic. That is what debate against the state involves. Anyone you can sway with soft words and gentle nudges wasn’t a serious believer in the myth of state anyway. I mean it is a victory for sure, but it is picking the low hanging fruit.
How can the state say it protects property, when it must violate property to exist?
The people are not the government. The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED. Hitler was democratically elected. The Jews didn’t commit suicide. They didn’t do it to themselves.
Thank you. Not much is worse than contempt prior to investigation.
Terrible analogy, most science, and political science share little to nothing.
Of course there is methodological dualism, I was merely being flippant hence the tongue smiley
Link doesn’t work