Lam you guys should start another thread and dish it out. It’s hard to read through 2 seperate topics though. I seem to remember us making fun of the Rev-Left forum for the same kind of nonesense. No offense intended.
tyranny and all is an illusion (skeptics) That’s your worldview since you’ve provided this definitional opinion. yes your opinion cause there is only arbitrariness from your perspective as you state here.
I should stop discussing with lam. too. You’re correct. This thread does have an intention based on the original post.
And I’m not seeing anything at all new in your statement, that which hasn’t already been refuted.
Not all ideologies seek to cloak. Others seek to expose and enlighten. There are ideologies synonymous with tyranny and others explicitly with Liberty. And you didn’t exactly add anything there. It’s easier to base a movement on the truth, than lies. Which is why the state has so much of a vested interested in keeping the curtain closed.
Europe has traded for centuries without a single highway authority. The American national highway system was built to facilitate land based military response coast to coast.
I’m not sure I understand this.
Buy land, build highway. I know it sounds trite, but its really not more complicated than that.
No, it’s just that you are maybe the 200th person I have seen come in here in the last year, without a conception of anarchism, and specifically anarcho-capitalism, and the first thing people say is “Who will build the roads?” completely unaware that the original American roads were all private, and most of the American state infrastructure in the form of rail, roads and canals was built simply to provide graft and payola to people politically connected.
It’s that so many people (I am not American btw) that do not have a proper grounding of history, outside what is taught in the state schools. I’m happy you have opened yourself up to hearing some of us out. I hope you at the very least, end up with some new ideas about what liberty really means on an individual level, and perhaps how the state is not the institution we have all hoped, at one time or another, that it in fact is.
Wilderness asked how a government gets its operating funds.
It gets them from the agreement that all who wish to benefit from the fruits of what the government does shall pay a certain fair fee for the expenses incurred.
Thus, if a government raises a force to protect its citizens, and to referee the playing field of commerce, then all who are citizens should pay fairly for those services.
And, you asked about the manufacture of money out of thin air – a reference to the banking system which I agree warrants close scrutiny, and change from our present system.
Thank you for your questions.
FREEDOM: “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.”
ARBITRARY: “choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.”
Forum Participants -
I came here hoping to find thinkers. I found them. I came looking for debate. You have given it.
My mission is to help forge a Liberty Manifesto, which does include the idea of government where government is needed, though smaller and in much better check than we have today. The purpose of the manifesto is not to have the last word, create a party, or mandate anything other then a freer form of government, dedicated to Liberty, which is not what we have now (our common ground).
You have argued that no government is needed. You have sent me to a number of citations to which I will respond to three:
-
The problem of Indecision: “Meanwhile, the Assembly, headed by Arthur Cook, met in May and fell apart on the issue of protesting the arrest of one of its members. Between May and the end of the year, the Council met only twice.” - Pennsylvania’s Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690
http://mises.org/daily/1865 -
An example of Inefficiency: From David Friedman, “Police, Courts, and Laws – on the Market”: “Consider first the easiest case, the resolution of disputes involving contracts between well-established firms. A large fraction of such disputes are now settled not by government courts but by private arbitration of the sort described in Chapter 18. The firms, when they draw up a contract, specify a procedure for arbitrating any dispute that may arise. Thus they avoid the expense and delay of the courts.” My response to this is how inefficient, since many cases involve the same principles.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html -
Groups which govern given as historical examples anarchy: “Celtic Ireland (650-1650)In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner.”
You have said that Anarchy means without leaders. Seems like a society with “courts” and “law” not only required a “leader” during hearings, etc., but this is also a form of governance. Interesting, however, and certainly an example of smaller forms of governance.
Finally, it worries me that what you call “anarchism” is very arbitrary (from wikipedia.org): “Anarchism is a heterogeneous philosophy with many different tendencies and schools of thought; differences on questions of ideology, values and tactics are common. Ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics.”
So, I conclude that no clear definition of Anarchy emerges, is illogical, inefficient, and therefore a threat to Freedom itself, as defined as, “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.” This is precisely contrary to what the Liberty Manifesto has for a goal.
Men disagree. Societies disagree. But the laws of God remain the same – this is why divine reference is in the first draft of the Manifesto, and likely to be in the last. If there is not an authority above man, we are left to the arbitrary whim and interpretation of men and their customs. The American founders understood this well.
In your own forums here, the discussions often devolve into debates about semantics, straw men, definition of terms, and philosophical concerns, which while interesting – don’t get the roads built.
It seems to me now, that while your ideas have a certain merit, they lack a real and practical method for success in the real world. A major problem with your ideas about anarchism is human nature. Without law and order (and how will it be accomplished without a regional authority?), society devolves into bands of bullies, balanced at times by bands of people with “better” values. Not very efficient. Not very productive. Free? Free until the next bully comes along. Free if you wish to live in isolation. The Wild Wild West.
Yet, you have influenced me to consider the root of the case I am presenting much more carefully. You’ve reminded me that smaller is usually better. I thank you for that. And who knows, perhaps we will be persuaded to include an argument against any form of state government in our book. I will not forget you.
Yours in Liberty -
Scott
And you are the voice of god eh ?
The crackpots are out in huge numbers.
If there is no coercion, you are on our side already. Is your manifesto opt-in/opt-out, or does everyone in the territory have to agree to it? If the former, we’re all in agreement. If the latter, you’re a Statist and not yet our ally, but I for one welcome you to come and read. No one is born an anarchist. Everyone had to learn.
This is good. It’s voluntary.
Can everyone in the territory choose not to be citizens? Or just because I am ostensibly receiving protection, does that mean I have to pay for it? If I follow you around with a gun and protect you from your enemies and send you my bill, will you be fine paying that?
A) I never made such an agreement yet am forced to be bound by it.
B) New born citizen’s unfairly inhiret this illegitimate agreement. That is basically slavery in a nutshell. Creating a binding contract against a persons will before their existence. Worse then slavery really.
C) In the free market consumers cast a ballet on goods based on what they purchase. If product A under performs or has lesser quality desired the consumer can compensate by purchasing product B instead. The result is that Company A suffers for producing a shafty product. In government the consumer has no say, they are forced against their will to use product A regardless of their feelings or sentiments. How you can call that freedom exposes your socialist ideals.
Again oxymoronic. The existence of government means the direct removal of liberties and the consent of a lord over ones own person. If you are a supposed Christian how can you grant any other false god, (government), power over your human body. Should you not remain sovereign to god? Your loyalty to your government is nothing short of false idol worshiping. Your bible talks a great deal about the fallacy’s of Cesar. You cannot serve two gods, there is either God, or Government, not both. That’s if your a Christian like you say though…
Calling it en-efficient is presumptuous on your part. Are you actually going to try and argue that the current system of planning and installing roads is efficient? I live in and I KNOW why our deficit is so outstanding. I know we’ve been promised a road system of our dreams, instead we’re spending billions to install a light rail system that no one will use. Complete utter waste of natural resources. I may as well mine for coal then destroy it, I’d be performing the same action but without stealing money from the taxpayers.
You make it obvious that you were desperate to find a flaw in this one.
Courts would have to compete and citizens would decide which court to bring a case to. It would not be one all powerful government. There would be several avenues. Courts that are corrupt would fail and not turn a profit. Our current court system fosters corruption with no means of correction. You seem to like that kind of system.
The only one arguing semantics here is you, as you can see by the post made above. Your the only one here who is confused on the definition. But ultimately it’s arguing semantics and that is completely fruitless and erroneous to the actual debate. How is it supposedly “honorable” as you would call it to debate semantics? You say tomato, I say tomaato, who cares? The fact that your hung up on it proves that your not here to be insightful but here to instigate a fight. The precise meaning of anarchy is completely erroneous. All that you need be concerned with is our interpretation of it in order to properly defend your case without looking un-informed.
If it makes you feel better lets make up a new word to demonstrate how frivolous the semantic argument is. From now on the word “flabbergast” is the definition for a society without government. Now copy this entire forum and find/replace all “Anarchy” with flabbergast. Use my definition of flabbergast and you can have your little debate without using a word which you chose to have a different meaning as a matter of opinion.
The whole exercise is a big waste of time.
What is voluntary about the social contract with a government? What voluntary rights do citizen’s have against their government? How is NOT forced apon them at birth?
No, it means without RULERS. Leaders can be different to rulers. One uses coercion, one uses voluntaryism.
lol, voluntaryism is so unwieldy.
not as bad as an-cap though…
Any books to recommend on that topic?
lol got lazy
I’m still waiting to hear by what legitmate power this ‘Liberty government’ is going to be established by.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14140118/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Walter-Block
–
Voluntarism is unweildy? Unweildy like a thousand page+ socialized medicine bill which the criminals legislating it don’t seem to have time to read?
Libertarianism is simple. Walking up to people along the street and punching them in the face is wrong, now how do we deal with it. Voluntarism is the acknowlegement that anarchy at some point requires an end to (under a certain definition) political processes, and the desire to achieve it peacefully.
Plagerizer! You have stolen the intellectual property of my hypothetical face puncher situation!