What is Anarchy?

[Maxliberty]

@meambobbo

My point here is that freedom is the absence of coercion, and to say otherwise is simply incorrect.

And I maintain in the context of human beings this has been proven to be impossible. Humans have a natural instinct to want freedom in the sense you are discussing but we have other instincts as well and those come into conflict. Human society can not exist without conflict and coercion because it is part of our nature.

In your view, is there anybody anywhere that is free? Are the ones doing the coercing free? If no one is free then who is doing the coercing? If one person is free then we should be trying to follow that example.

[Maxliberty]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Maxliberty

Yes, you can act in ways that prevent others from using coercion on you.

Sure: you can lock everyone else up. Otherwise: it’s not possible. No Max, it really isn’t. I don’t care how much you whine and bitch: it’s not possible. You cannot–CANNOT–directly control others in that manner.

What you CAN do is act in such a manner that will bring the likelihood way down. But prevent (altogether…which is what your unqualified statement means)? No.

So the type of control that you claim the “state” has over you is impossible. Good you are making progress.

My statements have been pretty clear that there will always be coercion and the best you can do is minimize it.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

Yes, you can act in ways that prevent others from using coercion on you.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Sure: you can lock everyone else up. Otherwise: it’s not possible. No Max, it really isn’t. I don’t care how much you whine and bitch: it’s not possible. You cannot–CANNOT–directly control others in that manner.

What you CAN do is act in such a manner that will bring the likelihood way down. But prevent (altogether…which is what your unqualified statement means)? No.

@Maxliberty

So the type of control that you claim the “state” has over you

I made no such claim as you think I have, liar.

@Maxliberty

My statements have been pretty clear that there will always be coercion

Liar. Your statement above shows that you believe that you can prevent others from using coercion on you.

Protip: lies mean that people will not believe anything you have to say.

Further: you seem to have the view that anarchy is ONLY a way of thinking. Problem: it’s not. You can think all you like that you’re in anarchy, and then the jackbooted thugs from the government just spoil your view.

Thinking one way while the reality is another is called “self-delusion”, Max.

[Maxliberty]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Maxliberty

Yes, you can act in ways that prevent others from using coercion on you.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Sure: you can lock everyone else up. Otherwise: it’s not possible. No Max, it really isn’t. I don’t care how much you whine and bitch: it’s not possible. You cannot–CANNOT–directly control others in that manner.

What you CAN do is act in such a manner that will bring the likelihood way down. But prevent (altogether…which is what your unqualified statement means)? No.

@Maxliberty

So the type of control that you claim the “state” has over you

I made no such claim as you think I have, liar.

@Maxliberty

My statements have been pretty clear that there will always be coercion

Liar. Your statement above shows that you believe that you can prevent others from using coercion on you.

Protip: lies mean that people will not believe anything you have to say.

Further: you seem to have the view that anarchy is ONLY a way of thinking. Problem: it’s not. You can think all you like that you’re in anarchy, and then the jackbooted thugs from the government just spoil your view.

Thinking one way while the reality is another is called “self-delusion”, Max.

So are you a slave or are you free? If you are free what is the problem? If you are not then people have the control over you that you claim is impossible.

[Maxliberty]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Your statement above shows that you believe that you can prevent others from using coercion on you.

Yes, you can prevent people from using coercion on you, it is not universal though. Crazy people can do the unexpected and the strong can coerce the weak. You can not prevent all coercion or possibility thereof.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Further: you seem to have the view that anarchy is ONLY a way of thinking.

What you envision as anarchy is impossible. That is the point of this thread. The common libertarian view of anarchy is not possible and is in fact a distraction from understanding what we should be working for.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

So are you a slave or are you free?

So are you saying that no governments exist at all? That we’re just deluding ourselves?

Oh wait–governments do exist. There’s a difference between the legitimacy and the actuality, Max. Learn the difference.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

Yes, you can prevent people from using coercion on you, it is not universal though.

Your lack of qualification in the first place made it universal. Sucks to be you.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Further: you seem to have the view that anarchy is ONLY a way of thinking.

@Maxliberty

What you envision as anarchy is impossible.

No, it isn’t. That you’ve deluded yourself into believing otherwise is YOUR problem. YOU deal with it.

[liberty_student]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

So are you saying that no governments exist at all? That we’re just deluding ourselves?

Oh wait–governments do exist. There’s a difference between the legitimacy and the actuality, Max. Learn the difference

I hate to step into this, but yes, we’re all just deluding ourselves.

The only reason why governments are “actual” is because people give them legitimacy.

When people stop giving them legitimacy, they will cease to exist.

[Juan]

Actually, governments are fully legitimate. If you don’t agree with your government, you can leave.

[nirgrahamUK]

@liberty student

The only reason why governments are “actual” is because people give them legitimacy.When people stop giving them legitimacy, they will cease to exist.

true.

@liberty student

yes, we’re all just deluding ourselves.

not so true.

[liberty_student]

@Juan

Actually, governments are fully legitimate. If you don’t agree with your government, you can leave.

I don’t think government is legitimate. I agree with Rothbard, that it is a “gang of thieves, writ large”. If the government is legitimate, then every thug who would use violence is a legitimate government. Everyone who strikes fear into the hearts of the weak, and manipulates the avarice of the lecherous is a legitimate government.

If we won’t speak up, who will?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@liberty student

I hate to step into this, but yes, we’re all just deluding ourselves.

No, WE are not. WE are not saying that governments are legitimate.

Again: there’s a difference between the legitimacy and the actuality of them.

[liberty_student]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

No, WE are not. WE are not saying that governments are legitimate.

Oh, then we’re in agreement. There is no government. Only a gang of thieves.

[Juan]

There’s a gang of thieves which is usually referred to as “the government” - it could be called “the mafia” or the “tyudgfgr6qwecx”, or anything.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

No, WE are not. WE are not saying that governments are legitimate.

@liberty student

Oh, then we’re in agreement.

Yes: there are governments. And one of the defining features of them is that they are not legitimate. Playing some childish semantic game does not impress me in the least.

[liberty_student]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Playing some childish semantic game does not impress me in the least.

lmao. I like you so much. You’re unintentionally funny sometimes.

This is a non-argument, IMO. Governments are illegitimate, and “I” believe there is no difference between them, and a gang of thieves. If you can agree with that, cool. If there is more to the definition of a government, which differentiates it from a gang of thieves, then let me know.

[Juan]

Well what is a bit problematic is the idea that ‘people’ (who?) give governments legitimacy. I think we agree that governments are not legitimate, so ‘people’ giving government something that government can’t really have doesn’t sound like a good description of what’s going on.

At best people tolerate government, they don’t give it any legitimacy…

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Playing some childish semantic game does not impress me in the least.

@liberty student

lmao. I like you so much. You’re unintentionally funny sometimes.

That’s really nice. Now stop playing a childish semantic game. Let me know when you’re done, ok?

[liberty_student]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

That’s really nice.

Thanks! [:D]

[liberty_student]

@Juan

At best people tolerate government, they don’t give it any legitimacy…

I think that is fair. But there are some people who use the state to their advantage. These are the court intellectuals and such. They attempt to give the state legitimacy.

But yes, we libertarians tolerate government. Until a better deal comes along, we keep paying taxes, and keep obeying their commands.