Guest Commentary… Anarchy: Truth or Fantasy

Guest commentary again and this week we have a topic that I think will spur some interesting conversations. Many of you have had your debates with Black Flag and Kent and others who espouse a form of anarchy. I have come to understand the difference between what they mean when they say it and what is accepted as fact in popular culture. They are two very different things. Even understanding that difference, I still sometimes find myself skeptical as to whether it can work. I remain, however, open to learning and understanding even better than I do already. I like the idea, in principle, if not in practice yet. This week we have a guest article from none other than Jon Smith. He has already posted this article on his site, and the debate began a bit there. I believe he will be moving some of that discussion over here as well. I encourage everyone to take the time, now, while it is a main article topic, to press BF and others on this concept. But do so with an open mind, one at peace with the idea of learning something new. I am not yet convinced that a world without government at all would work, so I will be learning too…

Anarchy: Ultimate Truth or Fantasy?
by Jon Smith

I write this article as a philosophical discussion, inspired by a very, very smart fellow blogger who has been quite influenctial to me. His name, as I know him, is Black Flag. BF is very consistent, he has few, if any, contradictions in his arguments. He is a believer in freedom as the highest good. He believes in the rights of man as natural, not issued by government or by other men. We agree on many things, but not all. He is an anarchist.

No, not the violent, pro-chaos type of anarchist that you see in movies and hear about in punk rock songs. This is a reasoned and very compelling sort of anarchy. It is, in fact, the ultimate goal of perfect freedom. The big question I usually have is not whether that sort of self-governed anarchy would be good, but whether it is possible.

I heard a quote the other day, that anarchists are those who fail to recognize how evil men can be. I tend to agree with this, I think that peaceful anarchy is a utopian ideal, but no more realistic than a communist or socialist utopia where all persons did their utmost and all needs were met. I believe that we, as a species, are far too violent, lazy, controlling, fearful, etc. to make true self-governance work.

I have heard many arguments contrary to this. Despite what you see in movies, the wild west was, in fact, quite stable, and involved almost no government interference. Whole communities operated without any government for months and years at a time. People did not all perish in violence, it was not all stealing and murdering and various sorts of evil. The people in those communities found ways to organize and police themselves. Even simple things like people forming lines all on their own to be fair with access to something limited shows an ability of mankind to operate without a structured government.

There are also many arguments against government. All of them in history have eventually failed due to becoming too large or violent or power hungry or expensive or whatever. There is great evil in history perpetrated by governments. Government is a consolidation of power, meaning that the evil it commits hits harder, farther, and wider than the evil of an individual. Even the free market is not free from evil, but the actions of evil men have far less ruinous effects in the free market where their power is limited, than in government where it is consolidated.

Like a true Libra, however, I still feel there must be a balance. I believe in the concept of opportunity and greatest potential is the highest good of mankind. I believe that freedom is the path to this great potential. Freedom comes with risk and opportunity. The attempt to remove risk will always result in a loss of freedom and opportunity, they are inextricably linked. However, I do believe that there are men who can weild power over others that the others cannot resist on their own. I believe that there are limited numbers that will assist those victims is resisting such men because it places them in peril. I believe that such defensive action and the determination of its use is something that a structure is needed for. I believe in the need for police and military and emergency services and courts. There is a balance.

Now, some would ask, why do I have any faith that this balance of government is possible with no historical precedent for it. I have limited faith in it. I think my governmental philosophy would work, at least for a time. I do not have any more faith than the founders did that tyranny will not once again try to rise up within the governmental structure. If precedent is your basis, then I would say that there is not one for full anarchy or any other utopian ideal being functional in the real world either. Even the examples of the west and so forth are limited in their scope and longevity, and they are not without examples of abuse of the system or lack thereof.

I think I have a way that my idea of limited government could work without breaching the freedoms of those who refused to recognize the authority of that government. I may, however, reserve the specifics of this for soon to be written post. I understand the argument for perfect freedom, I just don’t think most people will go for it, at least not for long. I think that there are needs that must be met that require specialist action, and I do not think that the market can provide them within the restrictions that would be required for something like a military. I do not think that market driven courts would work, nor that laws would mean anything without consistent courts and police. I think that there are a host of other things that the government could provide that people may want, but the cost of those things should be only on the people who want those things. I believe that most things should also have a free market alternative. Part of government incompetence rests on their monopoly. The more competition, the more increase in quality of service and decrease in cost.

Basically, I think Anarchy is the ultimate of freedom, but that it is unrealistic in implementation for a whole nation because the self-reliance is too great. People will not all be able to defend themselves against the violent and fraudulent, and not all communities will work together on such things. I certainly think a great deal could be done, but there should be a core within a society that gives it some basis. If there is no agreed upon rights, even if those rights are rights mankind is born with, then there will be no defense of those rights. The Constitution does not grant us rights, but we would not have them available to us without it. We had those rights before the revolution, but we did not have access to them, else we would not have fought a war to begin with. Freedom is costly, and that cost is not always evenly born. No man is an island, our strength lies in communication and cooperation. It lies in innovation as well, but the early days of man were not just survived because we could make weapons and fire. We also used language and coordinated our efforts in order to survive and eventually be at the top of the food chain.

I will do more on this later, for now, I seek comment. I want to make it clear that I respect the anarchist ideal, but I do not believe in it. I have, however, been working for sometime on a solution that would allow it to exist. Most of the time libertarians say that their government form would allow all forms of societal organization. If a group of people want to have a communal arrangement, they are free to do so, as long as it is not forced on individuals. The one exception has been that libertarian government does not make room for anarchists. I believe there is a way to do this. Anarchy makes room for everything, that is one thing I like about it, but I still feel that people, as a species, have a propensity for structure.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning 🙂

    Good article Jon. I’ve thought often of Black Flag’s and Kent’s ideals and how they may work. I often cringe at the actions of the Anarchist’s (as they are called) when reported by the MSM. What I see on TV is far, far different then the men I know here. I think Anarchism can ( and for the most part does) work where I will reside in the very near future. Where as, it would be total chaos where I reside at the moment (Country vs. city). I look forward to what could be an educational discussion on this subject.

    USW, we need to work on this age thing and the light green font in the morning thing 😆

    Peace!

    G!

  2. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I will have to finish reading Jon’s article later as I am busy today. Looks like an interesting topic. The first thing that comes to mind are movies like the Road Warrior with Mil Gibson. Anarchy worked itself out for Mil, 🙂

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Or maybe Flag is Johnny Rotten and Kent is Sid Vicious?

    • Bottom Line says:

      APD – “The first thing that comes to mind are movies like the Road Warrior with Mil Gibson.”

      BL – Think of something more like “The Little House On The Prairie”

      • Mathius says:

        Didn’t the sister starve to death or die of some preventable illness in that book?

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          A series of books, and no. Mary Ingalls got Scarlet Fever. She went blind because of it.

          • Mathius says:

            cut me some slack.. It been at least 15 years since I touched those books.

            I still remember how they entertained themselves by making a ball out of an inflated pig bladder. And then there was something about a starving winter where they ran out of salted meats. I like to think we’re headed in a different direction than that.

            • Mathius:

              “cut me some slack.. It been at least 15 years since I touched those books.”

              That seems like a strange reaction to someone who answered the question you asked!

              What’s the matter? Are you a little edgy this morning?

              • Mathius says:

                I’m in a bit of a mood today.. not sure yet if it’s a good mood or a bad mood. Too early to tell.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        I already live a life like little house on the prairie………. so long as I continue to pay my taxes.

        • Bottom Line says:

          If I could afford a chunk of land, tools and building materials, …I would be living like that myself. That kinda lifestyle and a family is my long-term goal.

          I envy you.

  3. Hi Jon….interesing article (USW, gotta agree with G-man on the green)

    Jon, the first thing that jumped out at me is the use of the term “peaceful anarcy”. I find that to be conttradictory but will think through it. I first am going beck to reread some of BF’s arguments in the past…since you referenced him…because I do not believe his form of anarchy to be peaceful, however, I will think on this for awhile and respond later today.

    Thanks again…

    Keep your powder dry, my friend.

  4. Bottom Line says:

    Great article Jon!

    For those that are having trouble reading the light green text, do what I did…highlight the article with your mouse. The contrast makes all the difference.

    Gotta run, Perhaps I’ll be back to weigh in later.

    • Mathius says:

      That probably makes more sense than what I did.. I copied the code and replaced “color:#99cc00” with something more reasonable…

      We should consider lobbying congress to pass a law banning the use of 99cc00.

      • Have a sip of DPM grog…clears a lot of things up.

        • Mathius says:

          DPM grog? No, sorry.. he doesn’t have any grog.

          I have some grog in my fridge. DPM brewed it, sure, but I acquired it as payment for the use of my basement.

      • Take note – it wasn’t necessary to lobby Congress to do anything, a little human ingenuity took care of the problem. It is also fair to assume that as soon as USW receives the polite objections-He of his own free will, will stop using the green but if not, there are other options one has other than involving the government and more laws. 😉

        • Mathius says:

          But- but we liberals really like regulating things…

          • I feel obligated to remind you-that generalizations are evil-You even as a liberal cannot speak for all liberals. So I must politely insist that you add the word most or many. 🙂

            • Mathius says:

              Nope. I took a census. Every single last one of us likes to regulate things.

              Adding, did you notice that Weapon changed the color as you predicted? He switched to a much better #008000

              • I did actually notice a change-posted about it a few minutes ago-wasn’t sure if my eyes were fooling me though. 🙂

    • Come on BL…..that was way too easy. (Thanks for the tip)

  5. TO: Dread Pirate Mathius aboard Thor’s Hammer. Map references you requested as follows:

    Lat – (25 degrees 57 minutes 11.181 seconds)
    Lon – (-97 degrees 8 min 42.8388 seconds)

    Note that you must come in a high tide to sufficiently pass raptor intercept. Anchorage leeward with SE heading.

    • Correction…to avoid sandbars go to:

      26 degrees 24 minutes 23.8716 seconds
      -97 degrees 13 minutes 46.8876 seconds

      sorry..almost ran you aground.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        That’s more like it.. As soon as I can get out of this blasted basement, I’ll be on my way.

        • Sending clandestine Raptor with c-4 plastic….use for walls.

          Sending additional Semtex….for use on barriers.

          Step one…use C-4 for basement walls….use Semtex for barriers as underwater obstructions and sandbars.

          Step three….be careful.

          • Mathius says:

            You know I can read this, right?

            They won’t succeed – I’ll be ready for them. And, just as a reminder, it is immoral for you to cause damage to my property or to inflict violence on my guards.

            Also adding, you probably want something a little stronger than C-4..

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Y’arr.. I think there be too much government near that specific point. You wouldn’t be trying to get this pirate captured by the border patrol, now would ye?

  6. Morning all,
    I will get permission from bf and my other commenter and copy their responses here so that bf doesn’t have to retype his initial refutation. As usual, its not bad. Looking forward to the discussion once you guys all wake up and the heavy hitting commences.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      too.. early… maybe once I’ve had my second or third red bull..

      On balance, it was an interesting read. I have some thoughts, but I have more work, so the thoughts will have to wait.

    • No prob, Jon.

      It’s on your site, so you own what I write there 🙂

  7. Question for you anarchists…… Here is the definitions as I have found them…before commenting, I would like to know if there are “any other” definitions of anarchy that you would like to add.

    Anarchy – a State of lawlessness and disorder usually resulting from a failure of government.

    Anarchy –
    an·ar·chy
       /ˈænərki/ Show Spelled[an-er-kee]
    –noun
    1.
    a state of society without government or law.
    2.
    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
    3.
    a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
    4.
    confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

    Now, which definition are we going by?

    • Mathius says:

      I think they’re going for #3.

      • So do I… but can you have #3 without the others?

        • Mathius says:

          Nope.

          Dread Pirate Mathius: Nope. But that’s no excuse for violating people’s rights.

          • DPM..not talking people’s rights….not yet…tampering with definitions right now….

            be out of pocket for a couple hours…check back….happy red bull.

        • D13

          Yes you can!!!!! 🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Of COURSE you can have #3 without the others.

          I know that most of you skim my stuff that I write, and probably skim the stuff that BF writes as well. YOU SHOULD NOT DO THAT.

          You should actually read it.

          We NEVER have argued that there should be “no laws”. We argue that social disorder would not happen.

          OF COURSE “political disorder” would happen, because #3 would eliminate “politics” as we know it.

          And as for #4, that has nothing to do with #3.

          You all should pay better attention when BF and I write stuff! 🙂

          • I think that is where I question tho. What is law without enforcement? What is government but laws and enforcement?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Ah yes, what is law without enforcement?

              Allow me the liberty of answering your question with a question of my own:

              What laws do not violate Natural Law? (this need not be an exhaustive list).

              Any laws which do not violate Natural Law would be just fine and dandy, so I have no problems with any of those laws.

              Now, question #2, how do we devise a way to enforce the laws which are in accordance with natural law WITHOUT initiating violence against the non-violent?

              Once we figure out the answers to question one and question two, we have a good starting point for what law and enforcement look like in a free society!

          • Peter B,

            I read what you write. Except these last weeks. Computer problems. When I agree with a posted point to the degree that I have no other thought or comment, I usually move on.

            I have posted arguments against Flag, Ray, Matt and others. Not sure I have seen you post something I would challenge. Will keep looking.

            I try to read BF, but work/home/life does not allow.
            Sorry, that was too PC, Flag, you are frequently too damn long winded. So I skim.

            • LOI

              The day you say “When ever BF says something, I believe him”, my posts will shorten.

              • How about….

                Whenever BF says something, I believe he believes himself.

                Close enough to qualify for shorter posts?

              • 😆

              • I think its more like if you don’t believe what he says you will run out of patience (and words) before he does. So far he has written NO VIOLENCE ON NON VIOLENT MEN at least 10000 times and I don’t see him running out of gas any time soon. 🙂

              • Flag doesn’t run on gas, he has managed to install his own personnal nuclear reactor to power himself 😆

                G!

              • I don’t care what he powers himself on. I’d rather read his posts than any of the lefties on this site.

                Good weekend to ya G 🙂

              • Back to ya Anita! Waiting on info, as we rejected our employers final contract offer yesterday. I’ll post at the bottom to explain better.

      • Here is now I am looking at it:

        The first definition I found = lawlessness (self explanatory)

        The second definition I found had four distinct areas.

        #1 – Reads to me…no law..no government OR everybody on their own.

        #2 – Reads to me…that without government, there is disorder both politically and social. Disorder in this case reads to be no law…no government.

        #3 – Appears to be conflicted. It says voluntary cooperation then uses to term ORGANIZED society. Does this not indicate structure to the rule of law or some form of government albeit voluntary?

        #4 – Read as is.

        • D13

          Regarding #3: Organized = Lions club, YMCA, boy scouts, churches, etc, etc,.
          Laws do not require government as we currently understand govt.

          Remember my posts about how the mining camps organized themselves, passed laws, selected judges and enforced their “code”, all without “traditional institutions of govt”.

          So you see, at the core of this discussion is a difference in the definitions of Government itself.

          One can argue that the miners instituted a government. But it did not have the authority or structure of anything “accepted” as government at the time, or even today.

          • Yes, understand thoroughly. I am reading your posts and BF’s and several others because of a pattern the I see…but not yet ready to comment…will later tho.

            One thing that is standing out….it seems everyone wants to change definitions…to fit their own standards,,,and then claim that the other definitions are flawed. But….allow me some more time.

            (I hear all of you in the background limbering up your fingers. 🙂 )

          • Also, I am looking closely at the definition of anarchy as well….not just government.

            I have not yet grasped the concept that today, you can cherry pick which definition of anarchy you want. So far, I do not think one can exist without the other.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            D13,

            You must REMEMBER that BF’s definition of government is:

            Government is the societal institution which CLAIMS THE MONOPOLY OF THE RIGHT TO USE VIOLENCE AGAINST THE NON-VIOLENT.

            Any “organization” which does not claim the right to use violence against the non-violent would not be a “government” by this definition.

            As such, Anarchy DOES NOT FORBID any sort of societal organization(s) which you wish to have, provided that these organizations CANNOT LAWFULLY INFLICT VIOLENCE AGAINST THE NON-VIOLENT.

            Make sense?

            • The point seems to be more the means by which natural laws are enforced-which from what I can gather is based on the hope that right will win out more often then evil. That individual man may have to fight for his rights but at least the fight will be fair based on no one having a governmental power to legalize and support their evil through power and corruption. I see the validity of this argument

              BUT

              many times I have heard that this would eliminate might is right-Personally I think it would just involve another kind of might. I guess it boils down to what kind of world you wish to live in.

              • I do not embrace anarchy solely because it is not the world I live in, even if it is the world I wish to live in. I live in a world where I see too many who would take what they want of they thought there was not a large enough deterrent. I do not think that all the people in the US would present a strong enough or unified enough resistance to such evil without a military. Perhaps I do not see far enough into the future to see what we would be as a society if we had no government option. I am always saying that society would take care of itself in many areas government is trying to take over if only there was no government option. Maybe a militia would form that was powerful enough…

            • Yes sir….it has always made sense and I understand it…but now trying to see if it applies in the reality of today……….without violence on the non violent.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Well,

                The crux of the problem is you cannot “apply” it to the reality of today, because the reality of today bears no resemblance to the concept which you are trying to apply to today’s reality.

                In order to apply it to today’s reality, you must completely shift the paradigm of “today”. That is why getting to a free society is no easy thing!

                V.H. is also likely right. There are still going to be evil people, and most likely those evil people are going to try to create a power structure for themselves under which they can dominate those that wish to be free and non-violent individuals. This is why Anarchy would rarely be “peaceful”, but then again, what peace do we really have now?

                The emminently practical questions HAVE to be, how do we shift the current paradigm so that Natural Rights and individual liberty become “the way that people live”? and secondly, how do we defend ourselves against those that would do us harm? (The second question exists REGARDLESS of the form of society you live under).

                I have not answered all of these questions for myself yet. I am hoping to get help on this from the intelligent and esteemed people here at this site.

                Usually all I get for a response is, “IT CAN’T BE DONE!”

                I disbelieve that response. I believe that it COULD be done, but it is so far outside of the experience of most people that they cannot even consider the idea even though the logic makes perfect sense to them.

                We need to make a more sincere effort as a “community” on this site to formulate some real ideas and see where it leads us!

              • Discussions are good-but trying to prove that anarchy would work is impossible-but if we head in the direction of less government-less law-less control- the answers will come easier. We don’t have to agree that anarchy is the answer -we only need to agree that a powerful government is the wrong direction, if we want to have more freedom. As an example I don’t know whether or not JAC is right and societal norms could stop our society from becoming a cesspool but I don’t have to-head in that direction and the outcome will be clearer and we can make any needed adjustments.

              • Also- but if we continue to head in the other direction, away from freedom we may not have the power to make needed adjustments. We may not have that power now.

              • Peter, V.H.

                First part A………DECENTRALIZE govt to the fullest extent possible.

                First part B…….. EDUCATE, EDUCATE, and EDUCATE

                B is needed while A is being done.

                A will address your concerns V.H. about hitting moral bottom. Local communities will set the norms through local govt.

                That allows freedom for those who wish to seek the nudist colony, drug dens and houses of ill repute.

                It allows freedom for those who do not wish to see love making in the park on a regular basis.

              • That sounds great and it has started-I see States fighting to get their rights back. I see the development of the Tea Party fighting more spending and new laws like cap n trade and health care.

                We can’t achieve anything right now IMO without using the power of the State Government combined with the voices of the people.

              • and the votes of the people

              • Right ON V.H

              • I agree that this is most likely going to happen with the assistance of state power. I do not think we will see an overall revolution, if one were to happen, it woudl still be a fractal action of certain states, not a unified force distributed across the country. There just is not enough concentration of people who understand and/or care about this stuff to do it nationwide.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          D13,

          Organization does not equal coercion. Society is free to “ORGANIZE” whatever the hell it wants to, provided that there is no use of force or coercion involved in the process.

          Free does not mean disorganized, haphazard, and without structure.

    • I always go by my own, which is less “definition” and more “root”: without king (ruler).

  8. Good article Jon; I’ve had a hard time grasping BF’s approach in the past and your doubts are similar to those I’ve felt.

    Will respond more when the epic comments are transferred over.

    • I have to say, I find myself excited by what I see going on. Don’t know how far it will take us-but it is nice to see it happening.

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    Off topic – anyone have thoughts on the potential mess Rand Paul finds himself in now with respect to the video released regarding his Ed. Board discussion in Louisville regarding the Civil Rights Act and his subsequent appearance on the Rachel Maddow show?

    Here is one link regarding this – the video is easily found on YouTube if you have not seen it yet.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul

    • Mathius says:

      Yea, I thought his view was fairly nuanced – though I generally disagree, I think he’s going to get blasted for a caricature of his view.

      Basically, if I understood, he is saying that the civil rights amendment – though well intentioned – gives the government a lot of power over private business. That, even though he finds segregated lunch counters abhorrent (and bad business sense to boot), he doesn’t like the idea of the government interference.

      The money line was something to the effect that, if we truly value freedom, we need to value it when it whether we like where it takes us or not.

      But that’s not how it’s going to play out.

      • Wow, Kudos to you Mathius for seeing through the blather and understanding his point.

        • Mathius says:

          Thanks, Kath,

          I think it actually speaks to the heart of the liberal/conservative divide. Where he (a conservative) says freedom is more important that addressing a serious wrong via government intervention, a liberal would look at the same problem and reach the exact opposite conclusion: that it is worth surrendering some freedom to address a grievous wrong.

          It’s a nuanced argument and one that deserves better than Rand is going to get. I will take the kudos you gave me and pass them along to him for standing on his principles and trying to have an adult conversation about a serious and complicated subject.

          ——–

          Then again..

          http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/reversal-paul-backs-govt-enforced-ban-on-discrimination.php?ref=fpa

          (Disclaimer: TPM, so take it for what it’s worth.. I haven’t dug into the actual quote/releases behind the article)

          • Mathius

            One small point. OK, there are only Big points.

            Paul is not a “conservative” in any way that I have seen. He is clearly a “libertarian” (philosophically) running as a “republican” (politically).

            I would say his stated views are very consistent with “traditional liberals”, as in our founders. And I don’t mean the pro slavery garbage, but I think you know that.

            Conservatives try to espouse the principle you mention but then they fall flat when they want to use govt to remedy what they see as “immoral” behavior.

            That ought to bring out the sharks. Bwahhahahaha

          • I actually don’t believe that is the liberal/conservative division. I’ve been a conservative most of my life and I have never considered it the conservative position that we have no social programs or laws to stop discrimination-My position was always that the programs had gotten out of hand-blotted and abused, basically huge money eating monstrosities that had gotten so big-that they are now hurting more than they help. That laws on discrimination were good but they too had become so restrictive on business that they need to be changed. Not gotten rid of-reformed.

            • Bloated and abused-this is starting to get embarrassing.

            • That is why I stopped defining myself as a conservative. Too much support for laws and restrictions. I am all about reform if it goes in the right direction, and I am all about reform of certain things, but some things need to be eliminated, or at least phased out. They are doing more harm than good in the long run, no matter how good of an idea they seem to be.

              • Until I came on this blog-I never even considered that there was another way to run the government other than through negotiation-I’m just trying to point out that the democrat vs. republican stereotype that the media and extremes are pushing is BS.

    • Ray and Mathius

      He is getting scalded in the left wing sites.

      Some R’s are running away, but then they would anyway.

      I have spent a lot of time yesterday and this morning trying to explain the philosophical basis for his comments and how those fit with freedom, liberty etc.

      The inability or unwillingness of a vast majority to stop and think, to get past the knee jerk reactions, is quite overwhelming.

      He is now being portrayed as a closet “southern racist”. Actually trying to “restore” segregation.

      If this effort succeeds in destroying his candidacy then I guess we will have to admit we may not be ready for politicians with principled philosophical foundations.

      The rest of the “money line” is that we can take action to correct what we don’t like, but we should not use the Govt to do so. We need to find ways to resolve the issues by willing cooperation.

      And your right Matt. It doesn’t look like we are going to have a rational discussion about the underlying values or political philosophy.

      It will be RACIST–RACIST–RACIST.

      I did see this morning that Paul was far ahead of the Dem candidate in the polls following the primary election. Interesting given that more people voted for the Dem than for Paul and the other Republican combined.

      I also feel for the folks in KY. Some are already building the story that if he wins in is because KY is predominantly White and Racist.

      I do have separate thought on the Maddow interview. Paul is being blasted for not “directly” addressing her questions. The insinuation is that she tried to let him off the hook but his ignoring her question is proof of his hidden racist agenda. I have a different take that politicians way want to think about.

      Paul’s response is exactly the kind of response that has been taught by “media consultants” (ex media people) to politicians and others who must deal with the press/media. The strategy is to talk about YOUR points regardless of what the question is. Always finish the answer with your point, regardless. Paul is obviously wanting to explain the “libertarian philosophy” here and just keeps going.

      This approach has worked for many years but I think the public and some in media are growing tired of the practice. They would like direct answers to direct questions. I would also……….provided we can get the media types to start asking intelligent and relevant questions. 🙂 🙂

      Hope you gents are well today.
      Big sky day here, so looks like lawn mowing is in order. Got a little shaggy with the cold wet this past week.

      JAC

      • JAC…..don’t you think that the only salient point that the left has left is racism? Everything else seems to not be working as time goes on.

        • Mathius says:

          We have plenty of good points, including the one I made above. But those aren’t the ones that grab media attention. So they aren’t the ones you hear about.

          You hear about RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! because the media notices RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! so it’s easy to think that’s our only remaining argument.

          Similarly, the left only hears NO TAXES! STATES RIGHTS! because that’s all that penetrates the media’s bubble from the other direction.

          • Understand, sir. Thanks…..you are invited to the coordinates BUT do not bring any government…it will not be welcomed. I am practicing to be an anarchist. 🙂

            • Mathius says:

              DPM won’t tell me how to read the coordinates, but he did say it’s north of the border, so I’d say you’re already in gov’ment territory. But it doesn’t matter.. I’ll just talk to a few people while I’m there.. I can’t help it if government spontaneously forms itself.. BWA HAHA HAHA

        • D13

          I don’t think it is the only “salient” point but it is the one that they have chosen to keep what they perceive as their loyal base agitated and activated. On the other hand, as time goes on you may be correct.

          They just don’t seem to realize that it is causing a coalition to form on the other end that might not otherwise be there. Who would have predicted, two yeas ago, a “libertarian” winning a Republican nomination outside of Ron Paul’s district?

          The effect is much like what happened when all the “conservative” talking heads starting screaming “socialist lefty liberals” at anything opposed to Bush. The moderates partnered with the left to send a message.

          My experience is that the “far left” are a very hateful bunch and right now they are spewing that hatred all over everyone else. I just hope and pray that the rest of us don’t become infected. Perhaps one reason I am so slow to use inflammatory words about muslims and Mexicans who come here illegally. I don’t want the hate to spread.

          We need to be resolute and firm and committed. But not angry.

      • I am not concerned about his campaign falling apart. RACIST! Whatever…..if that’s all you’ve got, you’re done. It doesn’t mean anything anymore.

        • I must agree. Weak minds can’t convince us their ideas are good, so they seek to invalidate opposition by playing the Race Card. I say BS

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @JAC – I am suspicious that it will be ruinous to his candidacy – I think he made a tactical mistake going on Maddow – I enjoy that show from time to time – but he had to know it was not going to end well. I was hopeful he would stick to his principles and be given a rational opportunity to explain his position without a talking head interrupting him, badgering him or trying to jackpot him – now we see the end game and yes – he will be painted as a racist and yes he has apparently flip flopped even a little.

        I do agree with Kathy that the racist charge is waaaay overused to where even if it were true it is quick to become lost in ‘boy cries wolf’.

        • agreed. (gasp!)

          How is the son, Ray? Have total control yet?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Hey D13 – son is good – almost a year old and already 27lbs, is fairly tall and walking. Kid is a bruiser – comes home everyday from daycare with a new knot on his head from falling from the jungle gym or slide. I love being a Dad!

        • Ray

          You and Kathy raise a concern that is building in my own mind.

          The charge of racism could become so dulled that we will fail to look seriously at someone who actually might be a racist in disguise. Thus is the cost of a media hell bent on fanny flames instead of seeking truth.

          I would expect Paul to do even more sidestepping and dancing. He just found out how they play in the big leagues and he will adapt. And we will be the losers for it.

          By the way, I have mentioned before but since we are on the general idea, the two men I have the most respect for in Congress are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. That is because they are not afraid to explain their principles and they stand firm upon them. Integrity is a value to be respected, even if the underlying politics is suspect.

          Now, I wouldn’t vote for either. I respect them most among Congress, but my Full respect is not wasted on anyone in Congress. I have never found one of them deserving of that measure. But you know me, the eternal optimist. Perhaps one day I will find one.

          Time to go mow the grass.

          Until later
          JAC

    • I had a little to say about the Rand Paul “racism flap” in today’s Examiner column: link

  10. Cyndi P says:

    just woke up, posting for comments

    • Cyndi

      Well good morning then!!

      🙂

      Time to put the hard thinking cap on.

      • Cyndi P says:

        OMG! Now you sound like my boss! AAHHHHH!!!

        I’m still preoccupied by yesterdays events. I tried to pull some money out of a small 401k and was disallowed the transaction! I hear that AmeriTrade folks had the same problem. Am I the only freaked out about that? I’m going to see what the account is worth later today, and if it isn’t too bad, pull the money, pay the penalty and make my gold purchase. If it is too bad, I’ll wait and see if the Feb manipulates the market in a fashion that makes the fuzzy math numbers go up. Are things economic getting more scary, or is it just me???? I’m sure that the rest of it is getting more scary by the minute.

  11. D13

    because I do not believe his form of anarchy to be peaceful,

    “Peace” and “Freedom” are two, different concepts.

    They are not intertwined. You can have “Peace and Slavery”, you can have “Peace and Freedom”, you “War and Slavery” and “War and Freedom”.

    However, often it requires fighting to get yourself free.

    Often, fear in the face of threat creates slavery.

    But the key – the concepts are independent operators.

    Anarchy:

    The root of the word is from the Greek -archy which means right to rule.

    So,

    monarchy is the “right of ONE to rule”

    theoarchy is the “right of GOD to rule”

    olig archy is the “right of ELITE to rule”

    demo archy is the “right of the MOB to rule”

    etc.

    An, in Greek is No

    Thus, No right to rule.

    If you are a believer in “archy” – that is there exists a right to rule over other men, even though you may dislike others offering of their version of “archy”, but if there is one cause that unites all those the believe in rules, is the war against those that believe in “no right to rule”.

    If the idea of “no right to rule” actually became pervasive, what would most of the parasites called politicians do for a living?

    So it is the very best interest of “archy” based people to demonize Freedom.

    Though “archy” has demonstrated its evil, destruction, and promotion of disorder and strife, they advertise that the lack of their effort of death, in fact, disorder!

    It is fear mongering at the highest order, for the stakes – the minds of the People – is at stake.

    So True Anarchists are at an extreme disadvantage in this battle.

    For anarchists, who by philosophy, find no right for them to impose their ideas upon their fellows, are essentially disarmed compared to those who have no problem imposing ideas upon their fellows.

    So, specific clarifications to common (misunderstood) definitions:

    “Anarchy – a State of lawlessness and disorder usually resulting from a failure of government.”

    First, anarchy is not a “State” or a “state” – it is the natural order of meneach man is his own owner.

    It is NOT lawlessness – I am confident that the Law of Gravity exists in Anarchy – but the lack of “counterfeit” law as Kent would say, that is “law” that imposes upon non-violent men.

    Dis-order? No, chaos! I love this saying:
    “Chaos always wins because it is so much better organized”.

    Chaos is the state of nature – where by self-consistent set of natural law determines outcomes. It is NOT designed nor deterministic – but that does not make it unworkable – in fact, it is the only thing that ultimately works

    “a state of society without government or law.”

    It is not a “state” – that is “holds a particular form” – like a state of water being “gas, liquid, or solid”. This is nothing like that at all.

    It is more like “color”, where a mix of different frequencies of human action create a perceptible “color” in the mixing.

    No two “anarchy’s” are the same color.

    Without “Government” – true! Who needs the “right to do violence on non-violent men”?? NO ONE!

    Without “law” – as above, without counterfeit law

    “political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control”

    Actually, “due to the pervasive government control, political and social disorder is guaranteed”.

    I have offered tomes of argument to demonstrate that the legitimization of attacking non-violent is the dominate cause of social collapse. Thus, it’s opposite – the de-legitimization of attacking non-violent men INCREASES social order

    However, this truth is contrary to the goals of those that need to use violence to obtain their resources, so the promotion of the “Revolution in the Form” is required to twist the truth.

    “a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society”

    It is NOT a theory – it is a natural order.

    “confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.”

    Yes, anarchy could be confusion, but so is government.

    Yes, anarchy is chaos! Thank God!

    No, anarchy is NOT disorder! Disorder and Chaos are CONTRARY ideas – you cannot have both define the same thing!!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Chaos is the system of reality in which certain natural behavior in the universe APPEARS to be random. This appearance of randomness is generally due to OUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING!

      The universe as a system APPEARS TO BE a grand combination of order and chaos, but THE IMPORTANT THING is the UNIVERSE IS CONSISTENT! If the universe were not consistent, it would fail to exist.

      Anarchy is a system of free individuals which might appear (to the uninitiated) to be behaving at random. The IMPORTANT THING is that the majority of the free individuals would be CONSISTENT.

      The VAST majority of people do not behave “at random”.

      • Yes, some will consistently be evil and there must be a means to combat this. The predictability of a system does not guarantee the success of a system. Of course, then the question is, what is success?

        If, however, your definition of success is freedom, regardless of its results, then you can only classify a system as successful if all persons are indeed free, meaning that no person is able to control another. If the results of a totally free society, an anarchy, do not actually result in freedom, then it has failed. As such, the means cannot justify the ends.

        Now, there is also relative success. If anarchy results in the MOST freedom of any societal form, then it is still relatively successful. I think that a government can be formed that will allow anarchists within it to exist without coercive force being enacted on them, but such persons would have no representation or part of that government. They would not be citizens.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Jon,

          The ENDS cannot justify the MEANS.

          If we end up with a totally free society in which the natural rights of all are paramount, then that could be viewed as a “good”.

          If people chose to not voluntarily defend this society against internal and external threats and it either collapsed or fell to invading forces, that could be viewed as “bad”

          The fact that it collapsed or fell to invasion would NOT automatically mean that the GOAL OF A FREE SOCIETY IS BAD. It would simply mean that people were indeed to lazy to defend their own freedom once they had it.

          However, the BAD END would not have anything to do with the fact that the “good” of a free society had indeed been achieved, even if only for a short while.

          Obviously, if we were ever to achieve a free society, our HOPE would be that people would voluntarily contribute to and participate in the defense of the free society. However, we could not FORCE such contribution and participation.

    • Thank you,,,,but I understand where you are coming from….have always understood but disagree with the definitions….however, in fairness, I am doing a lot of reading of past posts…reading a lot of variations of anarchy and anarchists from the world over. Getting around the handle of how the founding fathers previewed it.

      I understand the Greek derivatives and understand the definitions that you posted. I get it.

      I am trying to reconcile in present time the “without violence on non violent men” and the definitions offered accordingly and reconcile that to your past posts (not just yours but others) to see where the realities of your philosophy will fit in with the realities of today and bring that in accordance the above article all with out violence by your definition and the reality of your definition of who or what is non violent and why there are varying definitions of non violent. (ex. You have repeatedly said that a man coming across the border looking to feed his family is non violent. I say that he creates violence by his presence. You will say that until he creates a clear and present danger there is no violence and I will say that one inch inside private property creates a clear and present danger. To which you will say that our laws are unjust and therefore that created the presence of violence and I will say we are a nation of laws and the fact that we have laws does not create violence.) Both of us have definitions and both can try to prove each others point and both will be correct……in each of our respective viewpoints….but the reality of it only ONE can be correct.

      So, we apply this to the terminology of anarchist and anarchy……I see violence everywhere……so far. But am willing to learn and discuss but we may still ultimately disagree….but I will actually have an open mind (yes, even Colonel’s can do this. even those of us that are so called “baby killers”.)

      • OR, you could both be wrong.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        In reality, there can be an infinite number of “correct” answers to any problem. The job is to try to come up with the correct answer which also best fits your principles.

    • @ BF….I reread something that I said and you boxed it up…(wish I knew how to do that)..

      D13 said: “because I do not believe his form of anarchy to be peaceful,”

      I meant that to not pick you out specifically…I really meant the term of anarchy…not just your definition. Sorry.

    • USWeapon says:

      BF,

      You said “I have offered tomes of argument to demonstrate that the legitimization of attacking non-violent is the dominate cause of social collapse. Thus, it’s opposite – the de-legitimization of attacking non-violent men INCREASES social order”

      I would like to see something to back this up or explain it. It is a fallacy to say that A=B, therefore the opposite of A equals the opposite of B. Could it not be that A=B, but the opposite of A equals a far worse version of B. Not claiming that is the case, just showing the fallacy contained within your statement. What I would like is some reasoning behind the belief that social order would increase.

      USW

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        USW,

        If you have a society in which the initiation of violence against the non-violent is clearly seen as illegitimate, any initiation of violence against the non-violent will be met with derision, and those that perform such acts would have to compensate those that were harmed. The derision would (hopefully) be so strong that those who initiated violence against non-violent people would be shunned. No one would do business with them, no one would associate with them, etc.

        Basically, it would be as if there were a big scarlet V branded on their foreheads (figuratively speaking anyway).

        Because of the shunning and derision, these people could not be successful within a free society unless and until they came to the realization that the only way to do business in such a society would be to NOT create an imposition on others.

        On the whole, this would create societal stability. People would realize that as long as individual liberty is respected, they are going to have a reasonable chance at thriving in the society, and if individual liberty is violated, they are going to have to pay the price, as well as suffer a tremendous hit to their reputation.

        Word of mouth is TREMENDOUSLY powerful. If “everyone knows” that you are generally honorable, you are going to get a ton of referalls. If people think you are a slimeball, your endeavors are going to suffer.

        Now, I THINK what you were trying to get at is that if we de-legitimize the use of force against the non-violent, it is possible that the violent, although illegitimate, would strive to grab power for themselves and enslave all of the people who would be free. G.A. Rowe alludes to doing just such a thing below.

        Certainly this is possible. A free society on ANY scale is always going to be a HUGE TARGET for those who wish to CONTROL things which are actually outside of their rightful sphere of influence. I suspect that it would take a lot of time and a very strong voluntary defense in order for a free society to really establish itself.

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I am with Black Flag here.

    The title “Peaceful Anarchy” is completely… well… not a good title (sorry Jon).

    I have NEVER claimed that Anarchy would be “peaceful”. I have claimed that in true Anarchy, there are still gonna be bad people, and those bad people are still gonna wanna do bad things. The one thing that true anarchy AVOIDS is that in Anarchy you do not have a societal institution which claims the right to inflict violence upon the non-violent. So what is lacking in Anarchy is a “lawful institution” which allows a whole bunch of bad people to do bad things and get away with it.

    I am not sure where Jon got the idea that Anarchy would be “peaceful”.

    Our current system is not “peaceful”. We have essentially been at war non-stop since 1775. There have been “interludes of peace” but they have been VERY MINIMAL.

    Overall, the American Experiment has not been a peaceful one at all.

    The hope is that society in which individual freedom and liberty are ultimately respected by the vast majority of the people will result in as much peace as possible due to the benefits of mutual cooperation without coercion. However, NO SYSTEM WILL ULTIMATELY BRING “PEACE”. There will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be evil people who are hell-bent on doing evil things REGARDLESS of what form of government you have, or if you have no government at all (using the BF definition of government here folks!).

    Changing the “form” of government will NEVER bring peace, because government is, by definition, institutionalized violence against the non-violent. How could that POSSIBLY be “peaceful”???

    • “Peaceful anarchy”, in retrospect, was indeed a bad title. My intention was to differentiate the view of philosophical anarchists from villainous anarchists that are depicted in hollywood, or the “anti-establishment, pro-chaos types I have met on occasion. People hear anarchy and think of the bad guy in Triple X with Vin Diesel, or they think of the crazy kids in SLC Punk. People who want violence as a way of life, thinking that it is the only alternative to the establishment, or more accurately, not thinking at all. It was a title designed to clear preconceived notion, but I should have done it a little better.

  13. Mathius says:

    Let’s play a game: guess what’s in my pocket!

    (hint: it’s worth $1,180.50)

    • Copper? Igneous rock? Lava? Cat’s Eye? I got it….a D13 baseball card!!!! THAT’S IT.

    • Mathius

      Whatever it is in your pocket it has NO value or “worth” to me.

      Sorry brother, I just couldn’t pass that one up.

      • Mathius says:

        Black Flag would disagree with you..

        • Mathius,

          Nope. I would not disagree with JAC.

          Value is a human determined.

          If he does not value the coin, it has no value TO HIM.

          It may have value to ME.

          All value is subjective and determined individually.

          There is no such thing as “inherently” valued.

          One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.

          One man’s treasure is another man’s garbage.

          • Mathius says:

            I still think you would disagree with him on the grounds that he is lying. He absolutely values gold, or values gold as something he can exchange for something else he values (in the same way you value FRN’s).

            Therefore, I think you would consider his statement as false.

            • Perhaps it is of no value to him because it is your property. He chooses to not covet your property, therefore, to him, anything of yours has no value. 😀

              • Mathius says:

                Human beings are incapable of not coveting.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If human beings were incapable of not coveting, then “Thou Shalt Not Covet” would not be part of the commandments.

                God wouldn’t intentionally set us all up for failure, would God?

              • Mathius says:

                No, but if the Commandments were written by people, then they might be.

                I like the FSM version of the Ten Commandments: The Ten “I’d Rather You Didn’t”‘s

              • People are incapable of being without desire, but they need not desire YOUR stuff, even if they want stuff like it. It is only coveting if I want YOUR stuff.

    • A gold coin

      • Mathius says:

        And our resident alien, V., wins 10 Mathius Points!

        I ordered it a few days ago and just got.. it is so shiny…

        (Note: Mathius Points (MP) are now officially a gold backed currency)

        • I would take a bow but I suspect all knew the answer. 🙂 I am interested in knowing the value per point and just where I go to case them in. 🙂

          • Cash not case. Really must work on my typing skills.

            • Mathius says:

              The exchange rate is fixed at 1 MP per gold atom.

              *To reduce frivolous transactions, conversions must be at least 1 mol to redeem.
              **Redemptions may be made by written request only.
              ***Written requests will only be accepted by carrier pigeon.
              ****Carrier pigeons must be specially marked.
              *****The Office of the Treasurer is open only alternate Thursdays when the temperature is about 33 degrees Celsius.
              ******Taxes and fees may apply
              *******Conversions from gold or other recognized world currencies to MPs may me made at any time by contacting Mathius directly.

        • Mathius,

          And heavy!

          Such a little thing, but so condensed in its footprint!

          I use a gold coin (Maple leaf) as my “marker” on poker tables.

  14. Here follows the comments so far on my site, at least the ones pertinent to this topic:

    BlackSand: (not Black Flag)
    May 9, 2010 at 8:14 pm (Edit)

    As seems to be the usual. Were pretty much in line with this. It took me a while to get there, but I respect anarchist. But I dont think it will work because of basically the same reasons. I think eventually some force will eventually take over. So the need for a military is needed. I dont believe market driven courts would work. And I havent read how capo anarchists believe criminals would be caught. So I cant comment on that. Maybe Black Flag can tell me (I assume hes a capo anarchist, correct me if im wrong).

    However, I think anarchy should be the ultimate goal of any nation for a couple reasons.

    1. The ultimate goal of anywhere should be utopia. And in my mind, utopia is defined like this “an independent society with so little problems, it has no need for government” or something to that effect.

    2. I think everyone should always support the people that wants even less government than they themselves want. Because inevitably, politicians are idiots and want to be overlords.

    I think anarchy can work in small numbers and for a limited amount of time, but I dont think at a national scale it would work. Especially if we were just thrown into anarchy. It has to be a slow process if it ever comes about. Just like libertarianism. I dont think the nation would be ready for it if it was just suddenly here one day. The society has to sort of “warm up” to it first.

    Our stated goal should always be “lessen the power of government” even in a totally libertarian society. And if libertarianism (assuming we get it) works, and we have so few problems we feel we can try anarchy…then I’m all for it.

    • Jon Smith:
      May 9, 2010 at 9:05 pm

      Agreed, I like the idea that one should always support the idea of even less government, regardless of the level you do support.

      I agree on libertarianism too. I have often said that if I could have this country switch to all my policies tomorrow, I would not want it. The effect would be devastating for some time. People have to adjust, infrastructure must change, cultures and education would as well. Also, the man or men who could make such a sweeping change would weild too much power to be called libertarian anyway. I will not violate my principles in order to uphold them, that does not compute for me.

    • Black Flag:
      May 18, 2010 at 9:56 pm (Edit)

      Jon,

      Can anarchy exist?

      It does everyday. You used it walk down the street. Was there a government-cop forcing people not to run into each other?

      You used it at work. Was someone pointing a gun at you to do your job?

      Probably 99% of your daily action is anarchist and free – so you don’t even notice.

      You do notice the ATTACKS on your freedom, though.

      Anarchists are men who do not fail to recognize evil men – in fact, that is probably the most fundamental realization of them all.

      Politics is the most corrupt action of men.

      It attracts the greatest of evil men, and legitimizes their action.

      It is this particular realization that evil exists that anarchists argue that CENTRALIZING and LEGITIMIZING the use of evil is a really terrible idea.

      Instead, DIFFUSE evil – distributed and not concentrated – and ILLEGITIMATE is the best way to handle evil men.

      Anarchy does not fear A man of evil

      Anarchy fears the hundreds of thousands of trained killers organized under the belief that their action of death is legitimate.

      The political ideology dependent upon politicians being wise and saintly isn’t anarchy but, rather, the common concepts of GOVERNMENT.

      “Peaceful” anarchy….nope.

      Adding ADJECTIVES to freedom destroys freedom. There is no adjective to freedom.

      Freedom can be peaceful.

      Freedom can be violent.

      Freedom can be chaos.

      Freedom can be orderly.

      Freedom can be anything and everything, but what it is in all cases is…

      …Freedom.

      So talking about (adjective) anarchy is senseless. Freedom is its own purpose, and as you stated, it is the highest purpose of mankind.

      Without it, you have nothing.

      So the solution of your species of violence, lazy and controlling people is to Centralize the violence and the control and legitimate the violence and control.

      Hmm, does that make sense to you?

      Or would it not be better to DE-legitimize violence and de-legitimize control?

      No government can exist without tyranny. The moment you belief you need government, you have enslaved yourself to tyranny.

      Government makes the laws government follows, and enforces those laws upon itself.

      Do you really believe it will make any law that REDUCES its control and violence? And if it does, do you really believe it will hang itself if it breaks its own laws?

      Government exists in the manifestations of great contradictions. Human created suffering can all be traced to attempting to make contradictions real.

      Great human suffering comes from the boots of Government.

      Men cooperate naturally without the need for government.

      What is unnatural is the demand to force men to act against their will.

      Blacksand

      You state “some force will take over” and then “comes the military”….hmmm… I guess that is the force that takes over!

      To protect against one evil man, you invite an army of evil men.

      Does that make sense to you?

      I am not a (adjective) anarchist.

      I am a Sovereign Individualist.

      If you have specific scenarios, you can raise them.

      Be prepared for large posts.

      PS:
      Let’s get this “utopian” thing straight so you stop embarrassing yourself.

      “Utopia” was written by St. Thomas More who dreamed of a society that was CONTROLLED, the PEOPLE had NO Freedom, there was NO PRIVATE PROPERTY, and everyone was taught and had to learn the same way and the same thing.

      You live in Utopia right now. You do not own your property or your own body. You are taught the same as everyone else and the same way and the same thing. You are controlled.

      So, to claim I seek “Utopia” is about as wrong-way as you can get.

      YOU seek Utopia – I want to break it.

      Why do you want or need anything on a “national scale”? Who cares?

      I mean extend it. Are you claiming a GLOBAL government must be even better! IF it is not, why is a National government? And if it is not (by the same argument) why is a State Government? or County, or City, or Community?

      ALL Human ACTION is ULTIMATELY INDIVIDUAL.

      • Jon Smith:
        May 19, 2010 at 12:18 pm (Edit)

        Ah, here we go Black Flag, let’s dance, you and I! 🙂

        Seriously, responses like this are why I love debating with you.

        I see your point that not all action is controlled by outside sources, in fact most of it is controlled solely by the individual. I notice this, but not as much as I notice when such freedoms are attacked or restricted. I also notice when such things are attacked that do not affect me, because I see that such an attack could, in theory be wielded on me, and I see that regardless of this, something I believe in, freedom, has been violated. This affects me because of my faith in freedom and my passion for my core principle of maximum potential.

        What I do not see is that societal structure, which you define as politics, is inherently evil. I certainly do not argue that centralization and legitimization of evil is a good thing. I argue that a certain amount of structure is needed to combat evil. Evil will always seek the highest power level it can, and once there, it will seek more. This does not make power evil, else the power and authority you have over yourself would be evil.

        I believe that societal structure is needed for the same reason that societal cooperation is needed to survive, and has been needed for millennia. I believe that certain things in society require specialization, and that things like defense and courts and police require structure to exist without abuse. Certainly there can and has been abuses in a structured version of those things, but the corrupting is more difficult.

        I also believe that until all men are operating from a standpoint of freedom, there will be governments that wield their consolidated power in an evil manner, and that simple uncoordinated cooperation among those without a structured nation is insufficient to defend against such an attack. This is the evil that I see anarchist philosophy as failing to recognize. Black Sand was, I believe, pointing to this when he said “some force would take over”. I do not fear an evil man, and I do not fight an evil man with some army, that is not needed. I fight armies of evil men with armies. And I make sure my army is bigger and better and will completely stop the evil army with minimal damage to non-violent men.

        I do apologize for throwing the term “anarchy” around so loosely without a clear definition. I see anarchy as the absence of government. Implications of lawlessness and so forth are not included in this definition. I would submit that such results of total freedom are possible, but not automatically a result of it. As you say, freedom is itself, regardless of the outcome.

        That is, and always has been, where we fundamentally conflict. I care about a result, you do not. If my core principle could be achieved for all without freedom, then I would not support freedom. Fortunately for our interactions, freedom is the best path to my goal, only I am not convinced that total freedom is.

        Government is people too. It is not both and arbitrary entity of no consequence or true authority and also a bastion of evil that is a great threat. Government is simply a form of organization and structure by which a group of individuals can achieve their goals, both collective and individual. Government becomes evil when it is hi-jacked by evil men who seek to change the goals of individuals or collectives.

        As for my use of the term “Utopia”, I know where it came from, but that is not the sole current definition. The term “capitalism” was not favorably termed either, but it has come to mean, at least to enough to make it an alternate definition in the dictionary, a free market economic system. the term “utopia”, at least according to the dictionary, has come to mean “ideal society” where “society” refers to people who do not live totally alone, who have contact on some level or other with other people. Society is the accepted manner in which they interact. So I get what you are trying to do, but I do not think the correction was necessary. On the other hand, if Paine’s version of an “ideal society” is what comes to mind when I use that word, then I should be careful with my use of it.

        I am all for keeping a government free society as the ideal. I understand, however, what such an ideal would require to achieve it. I do not think we are there. I am a healthy person in general. I understand nutrition. In an ideal world I would eat a perfectly balanced and nutritionally fulfilling diet of natural foods, at intervals that permitted my body to use and digest the nutrients in the most efficient manner. Since I do not have the time nor the resources to do this, I can alternatively supplement my diet with vitamins. When this is not possible, I can simply do without certain nutrients and eat off the McDonald’s dollar menu because that is the cheapest manner in which to acquire energy rich food. Were I to refuse to eat “bad” food or to eat at “bad times” or too fast or whatever, I would starve to death. So, I deal with what I have at my disposal, and I remain in fairly good health. Not ideal health, but better than average. I do not think that total freedom is in reach for the human race yet. We have too much to learn. I think that things in life require a balance, a Yen and Yang. We are not at the point of being all good.

        Now, I recognize that for you, the ultimate good is, in fact, freedom itself, and the result for humankind is somewhat irrelevant. I respect this view, but it conflicts with my core view. I do not believe I can reach my maximum potential as an individual, nor can this society, nor the human race, without specialization. As such, I do not believe that I can ask the next Einstein or Edison to also be their own defender against any who do not respect freedom.

        • #
          Black Flag:
          May 19, 2010 at 6:55 pm (Edit)

          Jon,

          First, is there a way you can turn on “email responses” or something? That way I know you’ve posted.

          Now, on to: “Sword unsheathed ….”! 🙂

          I see your point that not all action is controlled by outside sources, in fact most of it is controlled solely by the individual.

          We dialogued a lot about core principles, and as you know, mine is “Freedom”.

          But as the dialogue continued over the last few months at SUFA with that group and others, I’ve learned a lot about the other things too.

          One concept – which came from Mises in his tome “Human Action” was:

          All human action is ultimately individual

          Now, being an amateur economist, I accepted that as part of his premise to economic theory decades ago.

          Now after months of trial by dialogue, the power and wisdom of the statement rocks me to my core.

          It was not Hitler who killed millions, it was the human beings with the guns.

          So much illusion about “power” and “institutions” surround us and the effort to peel away these false dogmas is exhausting – it seems endless.

          But once I realized that statement to its complete extent – it all went away.

          Do not look at the institutions. Look at the man.

          The man seeks solace and confirmation that his evil is doing good, and the institutions lie to him and say “yes, it is”.

          And +200 million die.

          All human action is ultimately individual and when THE man finally understands it, human evil will begin to evaporate.

          What I do not see is that societal structure, which you define as politics, is inherently evil.

          So let’s clarify here.

          I do NOT claim societal structure is evil – in fact, most of it is a ‘good’

          GOVERNMENT, by definition, is evil.

          Government is one structure of society, but it is NOT all structures of society. It is not even a required structure of society. It is not even the dominating structure of society, however, it works very hard to become that. When it does become that, society collapses.

          I argue that a certain amount of structure is needed to combat evil.

          And I would agree. Cooperation improves the state of all participants by orders of magnitude.

          But the question is not “organization” but the principle behind organization … is it voluntary or is it coerced?

          An organization based on evil will manifest evil.

          That is, and always has been, where we fundamentally conflict. I care about a result, you do not.

          As a poker player, I quickly learned about the Universe and how it works.

          Sometimes, a terrible play will win.

          Sometimes, the best hand by the odds will lose.

          If you make poker decisions by attempting to forcing outcomes in place of the “best play”, you will -guaranteed- be a a long term loser…big time.

          That big time loser will win quite a few pots. He will think his “strategy” of playing “badly” is paying off – because he will catch a few players playing “good” by surprise.

          But as the saying goes: “You may have a few grand of my money, but by the end of the month, I’ll own your house”.

          The secret of poker and the secret of life – both circumstances that do not have GUARANTEED outcomes, nor any means to determine with certainty such an outcome except time, the best play is ALWAYS the “good” play.

          It does not mean you will win. Often, you may lose … today.

          It does mean over a period of time, you will win.

          Government is people too.

          No.

          Government is an abstraction of the people. It is a fantasy.

          People do the “things” -like pull the trigger and drop the bombs.

          Government is simply a form of organization

          It is an “institution”

          So what is an institution vs. merely an organization?

          An organization exist for the betterment of individuals. You join the Lion’s Club for the betterment of someone outside the Lion’s Club.

          It does not exist to better the Lion’s Club.

          An institution exists for the betterment of ITSELF. The people in the institution sacrifice themselves for the Institution.

          Whether it is a religion or a organization of power, all institutions exist for their own self-existence at the cost of the participants and others.

          Thus, all institutions will become perverted for evil purposes by men.

          the sole current definition

          And this is a fundamental problem and a basis of the control the elite enforce upon the people….the fluid and changing “definitions” of words.

          Anarchy really means “No right to rule”, the elite change it to mean “utter chaos and death”. Why? If the people really learned there was no right to rule, who would rule them?

          “Utopia” really means “total control and no freedom”, the elite change it to mean “perfection and unachievable”. Why? if the means that is operating upon them is turned into a fantasy, who would think to change the way things operate?

          “Free market” really means “without coercion or force”, the elite change it to mean “out of control, violent, and force”. Why? If people understood that the free market is VOLUNTARY, who would accept VIOLENCE into the marketplace?

          It is called “Revolution within the Means” keep the word, but change the definition to be opposite of the original meaning

          So as you know I tend to be a bit forceful in demanding definitions and articulating them and correcting them.
          #
          Black Flag:
          May 19, 2010 at 7:01 pm (Edit)

          “Revolution within the Means”

          opps,

          Really it is:

          “Revolution within the FORM”

          • All action is individual, I do not contest this. Nor do I contest that people are the ones who “do stuff”. “Government is people too” was intended to say that “government is done be people”. Essentially, I think, that our definition of government itself is different. I think that I cannot understand your definition of anarchy (no right to rule) until I understand your definition of government, which appears to be that people have a right to rule over people. By that definition, I must agree.

            My definition of government (at least the government I seek) is not ruling, but the keeping of rules. The organizing of society is meaningful only to those who wish to follow it, and to those who are able to keep it from those unwilling. For those unable to keep it against those unwilling, it is simply tyranny without legitimacy. That it is not legitimate or “allowed” does not keep it from still being tyranny.

            I do not trust voluntary cooperation to carry out law. Even more, I do not trust it to defend against societies that are lead by evil, whole armies that would take what they want by force. It is not that I do not trust people to be good. It is that I do not trust people to do enough while things are good to be prepared for when things are not. I do not reference economics with this, I think people will look to their provision and that of their family. I am talking about military and police action. I do not see it as possible. IF you can show me a path to bring that to reality, then perhaps I can be persuaded.

            “I can see the universe in a game of Hold’em”, eh? I like your statements, but I think, again, we are starting from different premises. I believe that starting from a point of evil will not lead to good, but if it is not a point of evil until it is corrupted, then it is the corruption that is evil, not the starting point.

            I do agree with you to some extent on what has happened to definitions, look what has to be done just to explain that anarchy is not evil or violent by nature. That said, the evolution of language is a historic trend. I do not think a few feeble attempts at holding on to an old definition can stem the tide of language anymore than preserving a few specimens of an animal can stop evolution. We must, I am afraid, continue to be verbose in our explanations to communicate our true meaning.

      • BlackSand:
        May 20, 2010 at 1:45 am

        So do you believe that in an anarchaic society, people would be inherently good? And if not, what happens after someone violates another persons freedom? A fight? Or does some 3rd party settle the dispute? I guess what Im essentially asking is what kind of anarchist are you. But you dont believe in adjectives, so I dont know how to phrase the question. 😛

        Children do not always behave, so parents use force. Ideologies often conflict, evil men gather together regardless of whether or not theres a common institution they share. Men often cheat and lie and call it a “white lie” or tell themselves ‘it wont matter’. A third party is often needed in these instances or anarchy wont mean freedom. Even the best of men cant guarantee that they will never effect anyone elses freedom.

        A point I disagree with you on. ‘An organization exists for the betterment of individuals. Institutions exist for the betterment of the institution. And churches are institutions.’ I would disagree. Churches exist for the betterment of the individuals. Or at least some do. My church has a 3 fold mission. The first is “Perfect the saints”. The church as an institution often means little to the people, its the principles that they teach that matter. They teach how to better the individual. How to respect all men, and all creations. And essentially with the doctrine of sin, churches teach “all human action is ultimately individual”

        I can see why Jon likes you so much though. Youre a great writer, with a very interesting ideology, and can sell it very well. You make me want to be anarchist. But I just dont have enough faith that evil men will still not gather and use force. Or that small encroachments on freedom wont be so constant by good and evil men that we essentially end up as free as we are now with statist politicians.

        • Black Flag:
          May 20, 2010 at 5:07 pm (Edit)

          Blacksand,

          So do you believe that in an anarchaic society, people would be inherently good?

          No. There will always be bad people no matter what.

          What an anarchist society says is that it is stupid to centralize power and give it to bad people.

          Since bad people do not have tatoo’s on their head in glowing pink flashing “bad person! bad person!”, the only solution left is to NOT centralize power and violence.

          And if not, what happens after someone violates another persons freedom? A fight? Or does some 3rd party settle the dispute?

          Yes, and yes.

          Whatever the choice of settlement is made, that is the one.

          We do not have to define what pre-action, we need to do. Freemen will figure out it for themselves.

          No one man figured out how to “invent” money, or trade, or commerce or the billions of other things we do. “Men”, working in their own self-interest figured it out – naturally -.

          I guess what Im essentially asking is what kind of anarchist are you. But you dont believe in adjectives, so I dont know how to phrase the question. 😛

          Sovereign Individualist.

          No man has a right over another man – each man owns himself (Sovereign).

          All human action is ultimately individual. (Individualist)

          Children do not always behave, so parents use force.

          My child often does misbehave, but I’ve never needed use “force” on her.

          Further, what right does one man have to punish another man? Where is this right of revenge?

          Ideologies often conflict, evil men gather together regardless of whether or not theres a common institution they share.

          The Universe IS conflict. That is its test of all things.

          Ideas can conflict – not because one is wrong or one is right – it is because a problem only needs ONE solution to solve it, not 400… and knowing there are an infinite number of right answers to most problems, the battle is “which ONE” out of the infinite will be used.

          But with ideas – they are reasoned and articulated.

          If a man by rhetoric and reason is UNable to convince his fellow men of the merit of an idea – what right does he have to then use a club and pound it into them?

          Men often cheat and lie and call it a “white lie” or tell themselves ‘it wont matter’. A third party is often needed in these instances or anarchy wont mean freedom.

          Lying and cheating do NOT contradict your rights!

          You VOLUNTARILY accepted my word – and you’ll do that incorrectly exactly once if I am a liar.

          But if you voluntarily did an action, what right do you have to use violence on anyone?

          Even the best of men cant guarantee that they will never effect anyone elses freedom.

          Yes we can!

          Freedom is the lack of imposition

          If no one imposes upon you, you are free.

          I would disagree. Churches exist for the betterment of the individuals. Or at least some do.

          Few do. I’d say “none” but miracles can happen so I can’t discount miracle that maybe a few do.

          However, the point is, the moment the individuals cede their best interests in favor of an abstraction, you have an institution and it is dangerous.

          I can see why Jon likes you so much though. Youre a great writer, with a very interesting ideology, and can sell it very well. You make me want to be anarchist.

          Thank you for your kind words.

          But I do not want to turn you into anything like me or anyone else.

          As Jon will attest, my goal is turn you into you.

          The problem of the Universe called “being human” has billions of living, right, answers.

          The right answer called Black Flag will be different then the right answer called Blacksand or Jon Smith.

          We are all the same expression of the Universe manifest – each, though, with a unique perspective on the world. It is seeing the same world but from different points and senses.

          My saddeness of humanity is that most people do not even know themselves.

          They have been born, and from day one been told to obey authority and its proclamations without any further thought.

          And they struggle because most of what these ‘authorities’ teach is in contradiction. The Universe does not support any contradictions. Thus, the People suffer horribly trying to manifest contradictions in defiance of the Universe – and the Universe never, ever, loses.

          But I just dont have enough faith that evil men will still not gather and use force.

          Save your faith for church.

          Evil men will always exist and they will gather and they will use force.

          The question is a choice then:

          Do you legitimate them, or do you ridicule and resist them?

    • OK, this Black Sand person makes sense here (to me).

      In order to get from where we are to where we’d like to be (assuming that is Anarchy given this post), it must come in little steps over time and the first step is to minimize government wherever and whenever possible.

  15. D13

    but disagree with the definitions

    Then move beyond definitions!

    Called “Duddlemuddledub” for all I care – but grasp the concept behind the definition.

    “Duddlemuddledub” is the declaration that the natural order of man, without the imposition of other men on him, provides the highest degree of social order and prosperity.

    This is contrast to the belief that force and violence on non-violent men is a necessary condition of social order.

    I have posted and posted describing why violence on non-violent men destroys social order, so -to be fair- please offer your social theory that reasons that such violence on non-violent men is necessary for social order.

    @ BF….I reread something that I said and you boxed it up…(wish I knew how to do that)..

    The command is:
    left-angle(Shift comma)

    then type the word:
    blockquote

    then another:
    right-angle(Shift period)

    then the comments….

    then:
    right-angle (Shift period)

    Then (don’t miss this!!):
    slash (under the ?-mark)

    then, again:
    blockquote

    then:
    right-angle (Shift period)

    • BF says:I have posted and posted describing why violence on non-violent men destroys social order, so -to be fair- please offer your social theory that reasons that such violence on non-violent men is necessary for social order.

      D13 says: I will if I still think this but I am really working through some things in my small mind. But I will give my reason why I believe a certain way.

  16. Geez, even I can’t get it right

    Again

    The command is:
    left-angle(Shift comma)

    then type the word:
    blockquote

    then another:
    right-angle(Shift period)

    then the comments….

    then:
    left-angle (Shift comma)

    Then (don’t miss this!!):
    slash (under the ?-mark)

    then, again:
    blockquote

    then:
    right-angle (Shift period)

  17. Cyndi P says:

    Laying more ground work for the coming Obama Dictatorship/police state…

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005458-38.html

    Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.

    By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults “arrested for” certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory.

    “We should allow law enforcement to use all the technology available to them…to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets,” said Rep. Harry Teague, the New Mexico Democrat who sponsored the bill.

    But civil libertarians say DNA samples should be required only from people who have been convicted of crimes, and argue that if there is probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, a judge can sign a warrant allowing a blood sample or cheek swab to be forcibly extracted.

    “It’s wrong to treat someone as guilty before they’re convicted,” says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. “It inverts the concept of innocent until proven guilty.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership scheduled Tuesday’s debate on the bill–called the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010–using a procedure known as the “suspension calendar” intended to be reserved for non-controversial legislation.

    “Suspension of the rules is supposed to be for praising the winner of the NCAA championship or renaming Post Offices,” Harper says. “Things like collecting Americans’ DNA are supposed to be fully debated in Congress.”

    In a surprise move, as the U.S. Congress was expanding the FBI’s DNA database, the U.K.’s new coalition government was pledging sharp curbs on its own databases.

    Created in the mid-1990s, the UK National DNA Database originally was supposed to store data on convicted criminals, but grew to include records on more than 5 million Britons, including many who were only arrested on suspicion of a crime.

    U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg promised once-in-a-century privacy reforms in a speech on Wednesday: “We won’t hold your Internet and e-mail records when there is just no reason to do so. CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA database, with restrictions on the storage of innocent people’s DNA. Britain must not be a country where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question.”

    • Cyndi P says:

      Sounds like the new boss is WORSE than the old boss…..

      A second bill that President Bush signed in January 2006 said any federal police agency could “collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested.” Anyone who fails to cooperate is, under federal law, guilty of an additional crime.

      In addition, federal law and subsequent regulations from the Department of Justice authorize any means “reasonably necessary to detain, restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an individual who refuses to cooperate in the collection of the sample.” The cheek swab or blood tests can be outsourced to “private entities.”

      A May 2009 ruling from a federal judge in California was the first decision to say that police can forcibly take DNA samples from Americans who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows said the requirement of DNA-sampling felony arrestees did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures”–but noted that he took no position on whether or not DNA sampling for misdemeanor offenses was reasonable and constitutional.

      But that law applied only to federal agencies, and the bill approved this week would provide a strong incentive for state and local governments to follow suit.

      • Cyndi P says:

        Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?

        • Bottom Line says:

          No

        • Cyndi darlin’, you ain’t even CLOSE to being the only one.

          They are trying to slowly take ALL our rights away.

          And this is more proof that W was just another progressive. He just wasn’t quite as bad as Obama is.

          • Cyndi P says:

            I’m not sure Bush is one of ‘them’ so much as he was a ‘useful idiot’ of them. I get the feeling he was too trustful of his ‘advisors’. This enabled him to be used by them via manipulation. They got him to lay the groundwork for Obama. Most people think Bush is extremely stupid, especially Obama followers. Well, how can somebody be that stupid and still build the police state against so much ‘opposition’. The Dems were hardly powerless during the Bush Administration. The Dems have been grooming Obama for this for years, if not decades. So if that’s the case, is hard to believe that they manipulated Bush into doing things that would work to their advantage once their man was in? I don’t have any proof of this, its just my gut feeling.

            • Cyndi,

              I do think that Bush was manipulated to an extent. But he, along with all the rest had a Progressive view.

              For a long time both Parties have just been different sides of the same thing. A Progressive Liberal monster slowly taking over.

              Obama’s problem is that he thinks the time for waiting is over. He, along with Nazi Pelosi, Reed, and the others believe their time is now. And they are going to roll over everyone they can and push through every Prog. agenda item they can and try to make it too late to fix it by the time they are voted out.

              That is why I am just about ready to declare Revolution. If I thought we would have a chance of a snowball in hell, I would advocate ARMED Revolution. But since I don’t I guess I will just piss and moan about it like everyone else and pray November gets here quick and the people use the brains God gave them to make the change.

              I have to go now so ya’ll have a goodun’ and God Bless. Peace out. Esom 😈

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Hi Esom, Good to hear from you.

                Bush a conservative? As that big tall guy used to say in the movies, “That’ll be the day…”

                Conservative was a nice label to run on. Some thought he might even be one. But it did not take us long to find out. Unfortunately he damaged the brand so badly, it will take years to recover. People still call Nixon a conservative.

              • Esom,
                I feel you on the frustration level. There are several steps toward revolution that must be taken first to have the moral high ground that our Founders had. If more steps can be taken than they did, so much the better. We have taken fewer, far fewer, in the process of seeking change by the means we have at our disposal.

                I am working on it. 🙂

  18. Is it my imagination or is the green a shade darker?

    • Mathius says:

      Yup.. it’s not #008000# it was #99cc00#.

      The liberals passed a law banning #99cc00#’s use in websites citing its possible harmful effects on the eyes of readers.

      • Mathius says:

        replace “not” with “now”

      • It is certainly possible that Congress passed a law without any of us being aware of it before hand-It happens a lot.

        • Mathius says:

          I’m surprised you missed it.. Lieberman filibustered, there was a close vote and it squeeked by. Obama signed it about an hour ago.

          The bill authorizes lethal force to be used on bloggers in violation of the law.

          It bans colors from #99AA00# to #99EE00#.

          • Just bloggers, that’s good. I don’t need to go check my crayon box then. At least not yet anyway.

            • Mathius says:

              That’s just silly. Crayola has to stop including them in new sets, but existing crayons are grandfathered in. For the 2011 school year, public schools will have to remove them from the sets and replace them with the approved “Government Gray” (think battleship gray), but you are still free to use it in your home or at a private school.

              • Well, I reckon that will take care of the problem of children drawing those oh so bad pictures of the American flag at school. 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                It will if they’re trying to draw the flag is a particularly ugly shade of lime green.

              • Well, that is true but what you don’t see is that if they can establish the right to take green-getting red or blue a piece of cake. Must run home an hide my crayons while I still have them.

  19. I think that the key to all of this is defining government. If government is defined as the rule of the few over the many, or even the rule of the many over the few, or even just the rule of man over man, then I agree that it is evil.

    I do not think government is necessarily that. I think it is a tool of organization, and can even be a tool of “cooperation”. I think it is possible to find a way to organize (which involves a certain amount of centralization and consensus) without force, but that the consensus and centralization of courts and laws and specialists in the law designed to be “unbiased” and specialists in violence designed to protect the members of society from those who would engage in violence. Our government is not such a government. It was close once, but even then it was not such a government. It can be, however.

    I know such a thing costs money, but I think that there is a way to fund things based on usage for most stuff, and based on a transaction of citizenship for a few things. Those who choose to stay outside of such a structure are free to do so, but they must still respect the laws of the land that pertain to natural law and freedom. Violent acts against citizens will not be tolerated. If you are attacked as a non-citizen, you cannot call upon the courts or the enforcement arm of the government to protect you, you are on your own.

    I have not finished thinking this whole thing out, I am essentially taking on a constitutional writing, so I may never finish on my own, but I am working on it, as I get closer I will put pieces of it out there to be hammered into something beautiful under the smithy hammer of the blogosphere, lol. 🙂

    • Jon

      Do not strive for consensus. The best you can hope for is consent.

    • Jon

      Government is just another organization of people.

      But it is WHAT makes this group or organization different that is the real key.

      It is the monopoly on the use of legal force. Some say coercive force and others use violence but the essence is the same.

      There are two aspects to this power which is universal to governments of all forms. One, the determination of which force or when force is “legal”. The other is the actual monopoly on its use.

      So govt gets to use force against those it decides it wants to use force against, and it gets to decide what force it will use and to absolve those who use that force.

      I have argued that govt is benign without the authority granted to it. Now in some instances that authority is simply assumed, the dictator or tyrant king. In others it is granted by the “governed” who agreed to form the govt, the democratic or constitutional republic.

      But in both cases what ever authority is granted it is the use of, or at least the ability to use, force that makes the authority stand. Without that, govt would have to “negotiate” with the people.

      Of course, without that power to use force we must ask if it is still government or if we have created a new kind of government.

      So to avoid the Anarchy systems and still protect freedom we must figure out how to harness the power of the monopoly on using force. We must either strictly limit its use so that only the people can decide what, where, when and how or we must remove it all together.

      I assume we can limit the power to “self defense” at the Federal Level. At least then its use is limited to imposition on those who attack us or present the clear and present danger.

      I think you are onto one major solution in that funding of such a govt must be voluntary based on use or consumption of services. But this is where the “libertarian” or “objectivist” model has always floundered. No body believes that we can fund taxes with “voluntary” contributions. Which I believe says something about how we as Americans trully feel about our govt programs.

      If we trully believed in them and supported them we should be willing to fund them without threat of prison. But we don’t.

      • I agree that monopoly of force is bad. In fact, in a libertarian society as I see it, governmetn would not have a monopoly of force. It would be the backup for the individual.

        As for the funding factor, I think voluntary transactional participation in taxes would be doable. If the services were reduced enough, there woudl be enough people willing to pay for theier citizenship to cover the costs of government, and the rest would pay for it upon services rendered, which would be an enforceable transaction, valid by any terms.

        It is doable, I jsut have to noodle it a little longer, and keep writing along on it, and then put it out there for you guys and others to tear apart, then do it all again. A good philosophy or constitution or anything worth writing ot developing is like making a good sword. Start it, heat it, hammer it, heat it, hammer it, heat it hammer it, temper it. The better the sword, the more you do the steps other than 1 and the last one. Gotta start with good metal tho at least 🙂

  20. Judy Sabatini says:

    While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed
    > terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the
    > small arms treaty with the UN.
    >
    >
    >
    > OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.
    >
    > IF THIS PASSES, THERE COULD BE WAR
    >
    >
    >
    > On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to
    > Ban All Firearms in the United States
    >
    >
    >
    > On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major
    > step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obam a
    > administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all
    > weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with
    > foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama
    > administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal
    > legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these
    > international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws
    > created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and
    > promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as
    > George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to
    > lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama
    > administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that
    > will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even
    > understand what has happened.
    >
    >
    >
    > Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he
    > does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will
    > lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of
    > State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and
    > foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it
    > means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media
    > or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United
    > States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition
    > manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning
    > and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of
    > firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find
    > that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any
    > firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center
    > or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and
    > present!
    >
    > THIS IS NOT A JOKE OR A FALSE WARNING.
    >
    > As sure as government health care will be forced on us by
    > the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun
    > control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms
    > trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday
    > and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as
    > long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every
    > nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S.
    > State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush
    > s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that
    > national controls were better. View The Full Article Here
    >
    >
    >
    > Click on the link below for further acknowledgementB ..
    >
    > http://www.reuters
    > com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
    >

    • Obama sems to be very, very good at bypassing Congress and the Constitution of the US. And he is getting more adept at it every day.

      This is the major problem that I and many others have with him. It is almost like a Conspiracy Theory scenario the way he seems to be bypassing everything in govt and everybody to do as he pleases.

      Well, all I can say is he’s gonna have a hell of a time finding those guns that I’m not claiming to have to begin with. 😀

      • Bottom Line says:

        From now on I am going to make a point to be glued to the TV every time he makes an outdoor speech, all for the off chance that some heroic idiot decides to paint the backdrop with his brains.

        When/if …Once the initial 5 hours of laughter stops, I’m throwing a kegger.

        🙂

        • Cyndi P says:

          Good grief, BL. What are we going to do with you? Keep talking like that and you’re going to find yourself in a FEMA camp some where. Then us SUFA folks will have to bust you out! Stop making more work for us!

          😉

          • Bottom Line says:

            Cyndi – “What are we going to do with you?”

            BL – People have been wondering that since I was born. There is no answer.

            Cyndi – “Keep talking like that and you’re going to find yourself in a FEMA camp some where.”

            BL – I’ve been on the government paranoia shit list for about 13 years. If I go to a FEMA camp, it won’t just be for talkin’ trash about BHO.

            Cyndi – “Then us SUFA folks will have to bust you out! Stop making more work for us!”

            BL – I appreciate the support, but just leave me in there. I’ll organize a hostile takeover. We’ll convert the FEMA camp into a base camp for revolutionaries.

            🙂

            • Cyndi P says:

              Shaking my head, chuckling. Again…..

              🙂

            • I will leave you to convert the FEMA camp if you want, but if bodies start coming out of there, I’m coming to get you regardless.

              • Bottom Line says:

                I guess it wouldn’t hurt for you guys to bust me out, ..the more revolutionaries, the better.

                Just don’t put yourselves out for me.

                Thanks for the sentiment y’all.

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    Mary had a little pig, She kept it fat and plastered; And when the price of pork went up, She shot the little bastard.
    ********************

    Mary had a little lamb. Her father shot it dead. Now it goes to school with her, Between two hunks of bread.
    ********************

    Jack and Jill went up the hill To have a little fun. Stupid Jill forgot the pill And now they have a son.
    ********************

    Simple Simon met a pie man going to the fair. Said Simple Simon to the pie man, ‘What have you got there?’ Said the pie man unto Simon, ‘Pies, you dumb ass’ !!
    ********************

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the kings’ horses, And all the kings’ men. Had scrambled eggs, For breakfast again.
    ********************

    Hey diddle, diddle, the cat took a piddle, All over the bedside clock. The little dog laughed to see such fun. Then died of electric shock.
    ********************

    Georgie Porgy pudding and pie, Kissed the girls and made them cry. And when the boys came out to play, He kissed them too ’cause he was gay.
    ********************

    There was a little girl who had a little curl Right in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very, very good. But when she was bad…….. She got a fur coat, jewels, a waterfront condo, and a sports car.

    • Love those!!!

    • Ahhhhhh yes…

      Little Miss Muffet, sat on her tuffet, eating her pumpkin pie.. along came a spider and sat down beside her….and says ” What’s in the bowl. bitch.”

      or the sequel….

      Little Miss Muffet, sat on her tuffet, eating her pumpkin pie.. along came a spider and sat down beside her…. and she stomped the shit out of it.

      or

      Mary had a little lamb….the doctor was surpised…but when Old Mac Donald had a farm, you should have seen his eyes.

      or the sequel

      Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as snow.. And everywhere that Mary went….she stepped in lamb poop.

      • Now I can relate to these! Just get to the point. No need in fancy language. 🙂

    • Bottom Line says:

      Jack and Jill went up the hill to smoke a little leaf. Jack got high, unzipped his fly, and Jill said “Where’s the beef?”

      • Jack and Jill went up the hill to have a little fun, stupid Jill forgot her pill, and now they have a son!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hi All

          Nice to see different versions of children’s rhymes there. Funny, very funny.

          Hope you’re having a nice Sunday by the way.

      • Now…I really like this one.

        • Ooops…meant to post that on BL….where’s the beef….fuuunnnyy

          • Bottom Line says:

            That’s one left over from my childhood around the time of the Wendy’s commercial.

            Remember the elderly woman complaining that the beef pattie was too small?

            “Where’s the beef!”

            Anyway, Glad ya got a good laugh out of it. I certainly got a laugh out of yours.

            I had to re-read and think twice about the first ‘Mary had a little lamb’.

            Hilarious.

  22. Jon Smith,

    Great article! Sorry more posters didn’t rate you.

    Ray, I thought your Rand Paul post was on topic, as the MSM seems to somehow link Libertarianism with Anarchy.

    Total freedom=Anarchy, As D13 posted,

    1. a state of society without government or law.
    2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
    4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

    I can see an enlightened society functioning without any government forcing it’s
    citizens to act as mandated by a majority proscribed set of laws. But not today,
    nor anytime soon. Self reliant people might defend themselves against the largest mob, but would still fall to a hostile government. Take away our military and the headline might read “USA invaded by joint Iran/ N. Korea forces.
    After nuclear missile strikes on major population centers, a government was formed for the purpose of negotiation the surrender of the worlds last “super power”.”

    Before there can be a Libertarian or Anarchist world, the majority of the world must evolve. Consider the damage done by Germany or Japan in WW2. A world without government would end with a population unable to defend itself against
    the resources a national military would employ.

    Have heard stated, a company is only as good as its worst employee( Don’t agree)
    By comparison, a free world is only as free as its worst nation. Even back in the founders days, this might not have been true, but in today’s world, with modern weapons, it takes a nation to stand against the evil that is out there.

    As a nation, Libertarian/Anarchy would do fine. But would fail in the world we know…

    • Headline, Sat. May 22
      Arkansas Democrat Gazette

      Anti-system father, his son killed officers

      Ohioan denied the validity of banks, U.S. government

      A father and son passing through Arkansas shot and killed two West Memphis police officers in a traffic stop before dying themselves in a hail of gunfire, the Arkansas State Police confirmed Friday.

      Father Jerry R. Kane Jr., 45 & son Joesph T. Kane, 16, killed officers Brandon Paudert, 39, and Bill Evans, 38.

      The Kane’s have been traveling the country speaking of ways people can eliminate their mortgages, most recently in Las Vegas. They may be linked to the “sovereign citizen movement”, which believes the U.S. government is illegitimate.

      Kane had a website where he posted anti-government video’s.
      Sorry, not able to find today.

      My prayers to the officers families.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      What the rest of the world does is IRRELEVANT.

      Yes, even in a free society, you must have the MEANS TO DEFEND YOURSELF against agression by other people, and even “Nations”.

      The ONLY REQUIREMENT in a free society, is that the defense of that society must be on a fully voluntary basis (both the funding and the participation in the defense structure).

      The minute you make payment for the defense structure or participation in it MANDATORY, the society is no longer free.

      However, if your society was truly free, isn’t it pretty darn likely that you would be STRONGLY INTERESTED in making sure it STAYED THAT WAY???

      Motivation to both pay for and participate in defensive services would be pretty darn high in my opinion 🙂

      Also, the minute you used defensive services to initiate agression against a non-violent nation in any way or stationed defensive forces in some other nation without their express permission and invitation, your country would no longer be free either.

  23. Libertarian, and classin conservation would work great. The only problem is that people eventualy get frightened by the entire idea of freedom after awhile. All it takes is for somebody to get a rare illness, or a car accident to kill a couple children, and then everybody get’s scared and demands for more government action. It worked for us until the early 1900’s but people were willing to sacrifice a little in order to be free, and maybe even prosperous. If we could remind everybody the dangers of big government we would be fine… I can’t say anarchism would work, I think as humans we have to have some ground to meet on, to decide how to co-exist. That should be the only role of government. Otherwise it’s too difficult to figure out how to make for good neighbors.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ryan,

      A lack of government DOES NOT MEAN “A complete lack of societal organization”.

      Many of us here define government as “The societal institution with the self-proclaimed “lawful” right to initiate violence against the non-violent”.

      Any societal organization which you wish to have which does not claim the right to initiate violence against the non-violent is perfectly fine in a free society, and by the definition above would not be a “government”.

  24. For those of you who think that Anarchy is the answer to all your dreams, consider this;

    Your dream has come true and the U.S. government has just collapsed and vanished into empty space. While you were rejoicing all fat dumb and happy, I have gathered up some of my old USMC friends and we have scooped up a whole bunch of real nasty weaponry and a few thousand military types who know how to use them. Just who is going to stop us from running amok into your little dream world fantasy land and doing whatever to whomever we want?

    I submit to you that Anarchy is not and has never been peaceful, nor will it ever be. Look back into recent history to the cattle baron wars of the late 1800’s. Until the government sent in the Army, the cattle barons inflicted whatever pain and suffering they wanted to upon the “sod busters”. That is Anarchy. The little country of Somalia is another more recent shinning example of Anarchy at its chaotic best.

    Like the believers of the Karl Marx pipe dream of Communism, domesticated Anarchists have fallen into that trap of “if government would just go away, we all can just live peacefully and blissfully in our dream world”. That did not happen in the old and now defunct Soviet Union, or China, or Cuba, and it will not happen anywhere else in the world. History has proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we people need some sort of control to keep the peace. That control is called government.

    And that is all I have to say on that subject.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      G.A.

      What you describe:

      ” I have gathered up some of my old USMC friends and we have scooped up a whole bunch of real nasty weaponry and a few thousand military types who know how to use them. Just who is going to stop us from running amok into your little dream world fantasy land and doing whatever to whomever we want?”

      Is called A GOVERNMENT, or at least an attempt to MAKE ONE.

      Anarchy is not peaceful except under ideal conditions. You and your buddies would present a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER against any and all who wished to live in FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, and therefore THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESIST YOUR INITIATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM.

      The end result is that either you and your buddies would succeed in crushing the freedom and liberty of the people and creating A GOVERNMENT, or, you and your buddies would be dead or surrender.

      If you do not understand THAT, you do not understand freedom and liberty.

      That is all I have to say on the subject.

    • GARowe-

      In your scenario you would be forming a government of your own. The people would view you as evil and illegitimate, and resist you every second of every day in whatever way they can, no matter how minuscule.

      As opposed to today, where there the government is viewed as legitimate if not outright saintly by many/most people, and the people not only willfully go along with anything it says, but often cheerlead its violent actions on the non-violent.

  25. “If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.” ~Robert LeFevre

  26. Hi Ya’ll. Ol’`Esom here with a rare visit. At least the past few months have been.

    I agree with you Jon that while BF and Kent have a great idea for no Government, it is an unrealistic pipe dream. It would be great if everyone would just get along with everyone else. Not because they had to, but because that is the way they should be. Yeah right!

    People are just not that way for the most part. There is always a group that wants what you have and is willing to use force to take it from you. And that is would in no way stop because there was no govt to stop them. I don’t see how that wouldn’t just make it worse.

    Small, unobtrusive government is my ideal. By the way that is also unrealistic in today’s world. As long as there are Progressives alive in the world, and short of killing them all I don’t see a way of doing away with them, then govt will ALWAYS interfere in our personal lives.

    BF, Kent, I really do sympathize with you. You have probably seen me post many times that no govt is better than what we have now. I almost hope that soon our present government collapses of it’s own weight. I only say almost because I also think that you can never say that things could not be worse, because it CAN ALWAYS be worse.

    If our Government collapsed right now it would be Katie bar the door and pass the ammunition. That particular kind of Anarchy I personally can do without seeing.

    I do though thouroghly agree that something needs to happen soon. Something drastic. We cannot possibly continue as we are now for three more years.

    EH out.

  27. Cyndi P says:

    It a couple of months old, and we’ve heard it before but, it still makes you wonder….

    http://inflation.us/canadavaultempty.html

  28. Oh, by the way.

    We at the Middle School where I work were directed to have a celebration of Cinco de Mayo for the Latinos (abt 40%) because that was an important Holiday for them.

    I’m everyone here knows about the kids sent home from the CA school for wearing US flags on their shits. Well, as part of our “celebration” the Asst. Principal had a Mexican girl tell the story of Cinco de Mayo in both Spanish AND English over the PA system. I had no problem with that part (although I had a problem with the whole damn thing to begin with). But then, they had her recite the PLEDGE TO THE MEXICAN FLAG! Now THAT I had a monstrous problem with.

    Well someone (I don’t know who, probably an irate parent) called the District office raising hell about it. After all, Cinco de Mayo or not , this ain’t Mexico. It will please you to know that the Asst Pricipal got her ass reamed by the School Superintendant. IMHO they should have fired her stupid ass. The Principal was not involved because he was at meeting at central all day and was unaware of what had happened. I hope the Asst. Principal has learned not to get to overenthusiastic with celebrating Non-American Holidays next time. Sorry if this sounds Racist, but this is America, NOT MEXICO!!!

    • Cyndi P says:

      Mexican isn’t a race, so how can you be racist? 😉

      I agree with you 100%. Cinco de Mayo isn’t a ‘big’ holiday in Mexico. Most Mexicans in Mexico couldn’t give a rat’s patootie about it. Its a CAPITALIST marking ploy to sell beer, or whatever the hell the stupid product was. Its used by the Conquista movement to keep the Latino proles wound up. Thanks to the marxist takeover of the education system, Americans are too ignorant to know what’s really going on, but they can scream ‘racists’ at the drop of, well,… nothing. Its just what they’ve been condition to say whenever their indoctrination sets off an alarm.

      • I’ve really gotten kind of sick and tired of all the PC crap out here anyway. If someone thinks I’m being racist, I really don’t care anymore. I know I’m not, and that’s all that really matters.

        All the Cinco De Mayo crap at our school really pissed me off, and I wasn’t real good at concealing it either. I’ve had it with everyone from liberal a-holes to our own govt pissing and moaning about how terrible and bullying a Nation we are and tripping over themselves to be Politically Correct and be all things to all Nationalities.

        ByGod, if you want to be an American, that’s great! I’m with you all the way. But if that’s what you want to do, then BE an AMERICAN!!! If not, move your ASS back where you came from and bitch at us like all the rest of the foreigners do!!! And that case you can KISS MY AMERICAN ASS!!!!! :-;

        • Cyndi P says:

          It feels good to let it out doesn’t it? 🙂

          I know how you feel. I can’t even see the mugs of our overlords with getting angry. Its rare that I watch TV anymore…..

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          You know. July 26th is the anniversary of Castro liberating Cuba from Batista and United Fruit or Domino Sugar or the Mafia or the CIA (well, maybe the last two are the same thing). I hope you all are getting ready for the celebration.

          Remember, from my youth, all together now,

          “Cuba Si! Yankee No!”

          Have a good one.

      • Cyndi

        Its NOT the Marxists who have control of the schools.

        It would be more accurate to say the Progressives have control.

        Of course you can thank Plato long before Marx or Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and his crew.

        • Cyndi P says:

          What’s the difference between Marxists and Progressives? So far as I can tell there isn’t much….

          • Cyndi

            The Marxists strove for govt ownership (socialism) of the means of production with govt representing “the workers”. The communists then turned this into single party dictatorial control.

            The Progressives strove for a “third way”. The blending of govt and private sector. Controlling the means of production via private/public partnership. Democratic elections are still allowed along with multiple parties. They assume however that once everyone is hooked on the free cookies that they will never lose. The “progressive” ideology is essentially “fascist” without all the extreme patriotic, militarized nationalism that existed when the concepts first took hold. “Progressives today also carry with them a strong tendency toward “pragmatism”, which is basically ” no principles”, just do what is expedient and considered effective and efficient.

            There are similarities between the two as they are in essence rooted in altruism and socialism that existed at the time. However, they are distinct enough we should be careful how we use the terms.

            There are “Marxists” in the current govt. Some are new and some have been there for a long time. There are also socialists and progressives and some “liberals of the the 50’s/60’s mold”. However, it is the “fascists” that are in control and it is their system that has led us to where we are. It is their attempt to “partner” with private enterprise that has allowed the enterprise to gain control of the reigns of power.

            That is why I believe we now have evidence that corporatism leads to fascism which then leads back to corporatism.

            If we purged the “Marxists” from government tomorrow we would still have the same problems and freedom would still be threatened.

            • Cyndi P says:

              Thanks.

              I agree that the Progs have taken over the educational system. I’m concerned however that we are going to be having a Marxist/Communit dictatorship in the next couple of years. I see a lot of legislation being passed in the name of homeland security that looks like its part of that kind of plan.

            • Good definitions of the enemy(ies), JAC, well stated and concise.

  29. Bottom Line says:

    This is one of those instances where by the time I have time to post something with substance, most everything I have to say has already been said.

    But what the hell…

    I would define Anarchy as simply ‘a self-governed society’ or perhaps a ‘non-governmental or natural social order’.

    It doesn’t matter what social or political ideology you espouse, it all boils down to how you define rights and responsibilities. Anarchy is no exception.

    Natural rights and personal responsibility are the foundation for Anarchy, True freedom is the result.

    Anarchy suggests that government is unnecessary. It recognizes that in the absence of government, law exists in the form of natural law. Anarchy is governed by respect for natural rights. And as Mr. Flag points out,…”ALL Human ACTION is ULTIMATELY INDIVIDUAL.” It recognizes that responsibility lies with the individual and not a government.

    Anarchy has a lot to do with accepting personal responsibility. The picture in the article with the red Anarchy sign and caption underneath saying “Anarchy – Because some people never get over being told to clean their room when they were 15.”, ..Should have read “Anarchy – For those that never had to be told to clean their room when they were 15.”

    Anarchist idealism is all about saying…”I’m gonna do the right thing because I respect natural rights and accept responsibility for my actions. I’m gonna look out for myself, my family, friends, and neighbors without you forcing me to do so”.

    Can a peaceful Anarchy exist?

    The simple answer is no, there is no such thing as a peaceful society.

    The longer answer is that it depends on human nature and hemogony.

    Human nature in the sense that there’s always an asshole or group of them that have to encroach on the freedom of others. In terms of local crime rates, I don’t think Anarchy would be much different than it is and has been for centuries. People that commit burglery, rape, murder, etc…do so in disregard of government and natural rights anyway. Police department or not, they are still gonna do what they are gonna do. As it is, a criminal is faced with both the possibility of prison and/or getting shot when they commit their crimes, …yet they still do it.

    It goes back to individual action, choice, and responsibility. When you fine SUFA reader don’t steal your neighbor’s stuff, why don’t you? Is it because you think it’s wrong or because the law told you not to? When you pull up onto a red light, why do you stop? Is it because the law says to, or because you know it’s stupid to pull out in front of a row of moving cars?

    Hemogonous power is the fatal flaw of Anarchy as far as I can tell. It is why I think true pure Anarchy cannot exist. There will inevitably be some evil asshole with a military that wants to take over.

    Which brings me to the answer of whether Anarchy is “Ultimate Truth or Fantasy?”. The closest I think we can get is a Global Communist Libertarian form of Anarchy. Which starts getting into Marxist theories if you analyze it far enough. I think that’s where we are eventually headed, but not for quite some time.

    I like this guy’s take on hemogonous power…

    “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

    – Sir John Dalberg-Acton

    On a side note, I think the Christian god espouses Anarchy. Not that I am trying to preach Christianity or anything. I am after all an agnostic/athiest. But, consider this…

    What if everyone made a personal choice and honest effort to follow the ten commandments? …Well, 9 of them anyway(2-10). God’s law speaks to natural law, personal responsibility, and human nature…just sayin’

    I think that there are too many misonceptions about Anarchy. Another thing that Flag pointed out that I have to second, is that we already do so many things in our day to day lives that is Anarchist in nature. We already make so many choices without weighing government into the equation.

    In an Anarchist society, you can still live much like you do today. You can still go to college, get a good job, get married, buy a house, have babies, etc…you just won’t have government to worry about or rely on. Your day to day life will still include cell phones, grocery stores, and assholes in traffic. Instead of paying taxes for a police department, you might have to pitch in with your neighbors for a security guard. Neighborhoods do that now.

    • “There will inevitably be some evil asshole with a military that wants to take over”

      Which means in the worst-case scenario we end up right back where we are now. Fortunately the “worst-case scenario” isn’t inevitable. Being aware that bad people like this exist, it is possible to nip it in the bud. It is much harder once you allow them to start making the rules that trick people into believing the evil —holes are legitimate. Like now.

      I highly recommend listening to this podcast. He addresses this objection (beginning at 1:01:55 if you don’t have time for the whole thing).

      • Kent

        Excellent reference. I enjoyed as well as the one on Lincoln.

        I hope others take the time to listen to the history series.

        Again, thanks
        JAC

      • Bottom Line says:

        Kent,

        Thanks for the link.

        I listened to the whole thing. Very interesting. He touches on several things that have been discussed here over the last week or so. It’s a rather pertinent lecture.

        Kent – “Which means in the worst-case scenario we end up right back where we are now.”

        BL – Nothing to lose – good point. I never said it wasn’t worth trying. I see it as a worthy goal. If we make progress we’re still better off. If we shoot for Anarchy and end up with Libertarianism, we’re still doing pretty good.

        Kent – “Fortunately the “worst-case scenario” isn’t inevitable. Being aware that bad people like this exist, it is possible to nip it in the bud.”

        BL – The worst case scenario isn’t inevitable, but human nature is.

        I’ll humor the narrator’s(forgot his name) worst case scenario. He basically describes a cycle of anarchy to statism to anarchy to statism…

        It would seem to me that we would eventually settle on something balanced with a protectionist element, which isn’t true anarchy. If I were to guess, it would probably end up as something resembling Communist Libertarian Anarchy.

        I will also add that I think successful anarchy would have to be global. We all can’t be neutral Switzerland. If we were to adopt an anarchist system tomorrow and desolve our military, a foreign power would almost certainly take advantage of our vulnerability.

        And for it to be global, EVERYONE would have to understand and agree with the concept of the relationship between natural law and personal responsibilty and how it pertains to anarchy. The human race will be a bit further down our evolutionary path before that happens. Today’s society will appear crude and primative. In some ways we already do.

        I’m just sayin’ …Its a LONG way off…but still more than worth the effort.

        • BL

          But here is the thing about human nature. We have the power to change.

          If not, we would still be sitting around pounding grasshoppers on a rock for dinner.

          • Yes, altho human nature changes a lot slower than human technology. We don’t just go club the woman we want over the head and take her back to our cave (except Mathius), but we still have a lot of people that will use force to take what they want from others. We just use howitzers and high minded institutions to do it now instead of cluns and the power of our own arm. Did our nature change? Maybe a little, just because I can catch and kill my grasshoppers more easily and I have better spices and cooking apparatusses, does not mean I don’t still eat them. 😀

          • Bottom Line says:

            JAC – “But here is the thing about human nature. We have the power to change.”

            Indeed.

            Still gonna take a while though.

            How long has it been since we were pounding grasshoppers on a rock for dinner?

            • Please don’t pound your grasshoppers on a rock! Think of the waste!

              The proper way to prepare grasshoppers is to skewer them on a stiff grass stalk (a thin reed) as you go about your business. Then when you are ready for your meal, you toast them nicely over the fire.

              And, I think I’ll not answer that question about “how long since…”

      • I just listened to the podcast. Why oh why cant the same people on SUFA who kick me to another blog because I can’t articulate my thoughts correctly just think outside the box a little and find some middle ground so we can all get through this together? The frustration gets unbearable at times. So….where do we go from here? That is the ultimate question.

        • Anita…..my foot is clean…..why don’t you continune to post here and do not worry about the others?

        • Hey, I’m always willing to find middle ground. As I have often said, as long as someone is moving in my general direction- toward more liberty- I will be beside them.

          However, I won’t support their efforts to initiate force or coercion if that is part of their plan, nor will I cooperate if that force or coercion is directed at me. “Middle ground” doesn’t include making me do things I know to be wrong- violating my principles.

          If “you” (in the general sense) reach a point of “enough liberty” for you and wish to stop, we can then part ways as I continue onward. No hard feelings as long as you don’t then try to hold me back or smear my efforts. I know what I want, and I’ll not stop working toward it.

          • I have come to the point of understanding, through yourself and BF largely, that full freedom is possible and that none should stand in the way. I do not believe it is possible for everyone tho, thus I will always seek the existence of a nation with a very limited government, and I think most people will join my concept over yours.

            If, however, I ever acheive my goal, I will never require you to be a citizen of this nation regardless of where you live, nor will I require you to otherwise give up your freedom or pay taxes. If you receive services rendered by the government of that nation, however, you will be required to pay for those services just as with any transactional relationship.

            • “Pay as I go” works for me, as long as there is no monopoly preventing me from choosing (or starting) an alternative to the government “services”.

              I have no desire for “handouts” or “entitlements” where a part of my liberty is the cost.

        • Anita

          Before “how do we get there” comes that little thing “what do we want”.

          I understand everyone’s desire to ACT but we are talking about fixing over 200 years of mush created by a bankrupt philosophy.

          So let me toss it back to you.

          Given your new found understanding of freedom, liberty and justice. based on months of discussion, “what do you want?”.

          Lets start at the top. What is your view of the proper role of the Federal Govt? Don’t need details, just the highlights. What are the areas appropriate for Federal power and authority.

          By the way, Happy Sunday
          JAC

          • Oh man JAC…I’m just stopping in for a second. Just finished yardwork at mom’s and am headed to the lake for….yep more yardwork. But you gave me something to chew on and I’ll respond later tonight. Happy Sunday back atcha 🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Anita,

          I know that it can be frustrating. In a humorous attempt to frustrate you some more, I am going to answer you thusly:

          I don’t really care where “we” go from here. As free people each and every individual of us can go wherever the heck we want, provided that going there doesn’t violate the Natural Rigts of some other free individual! 🙂

          If you are going in some direction in which people are more able to excercise their freedom, liberty, and Natural Rights than at present, you will likely see me along the way.

          You cannot go from what we have now to total freedom and liberty overnight as a SOCIETY. It just isn’t possible due to inertia.

          The best thing to do is to live your life with as much freedom and liberty that you can, and hope that people follow your example.

          As for the “less government” thing, either you can vote for people who claim to espouse ideals of less government and more freedom (in my experience this doesn’t work well, but if you wish to do so it is really no business of mine :)), or you can withdraw your consent and legitimization of the government by not voting (my choice, but it doesn’t have to be YOUR choice).

          You cannot FORCE people to be free, because that would be a complete contradiction. The only thing to do is to be as free as you can yourself, tell others about it, and hope that it spreads!

  30. Cyndi P says:

    Yet another big power grab dressed up as ‘reform’….

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/financial-reform-cheat-sheet

  31. Jon and SUFA…I have not forgotten your article…..when I went back to read several of the posts from our resident anarchists (more than one) I did not realize that were so long and wordy…..so…………………………………..I have now read them and will respond today…..sometime….hopefully.

  32. Cyndi P says:

    This is for G-Man, but I think there’s a little something for almost everybody in there, lol.

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/us-state-department-says-conspiracy-theories-exist-in-the-realm-of-myth_05232010

    • Bottom Line says:

      I like what the first commenter(sanityjones) had to say…

      “I see no “debunking” in the Governments response to the so called conspiracies……..merely denial. How many other “conspiracies” have been proven factual over the years? Many.”

  33. TexasChem says:

    6,822,600,000

    Let me say that again!

    6,822,600,000

    This Anarchy based societal goal that you guys envision will never happen.Not in our lifetime anyway.How will you influence a population of humans not in your geographical area of influence?How will you protect your own area of geographical influence from those willing to band together? (the herd)

    6,822,600,000

    The human population on our planet Earth is 6,822,600,000.

    Even if the economy collapses, 2/3’s of the world population dies of disease, starvation, war or whatever cause; there will still be some form of government.I for one, would be a man to establish order and some form of representative democracy if I survived.Survival of my family, friends and community would dictate this as a necessity!

    There have and always will be men who are leaders and there have and always will be men who are followers.Human herd mentality requires this.

    I noticed this some time ago. There are two kinds of people, smart and dumb. Smart, maybe 5% dumb maybe 95%.
    Smart who know they’re smart 5% of the 5% smart. (they’re the leaders)
    Smart people who think they’re dumb 95% of the 5% smart. (they’re the followers)
    Dumb people who think they’re smart 95% of the 95% dumb. (they are also followers)
    Dumb people who know they’re dumb 5% of the 95% dumb actively sought out by the leaders. (these are invaluable workers!)

    The leaders and the workers are the only ones who influenece society, the rest just get in the way and make up the scenery for those 5% of the 5% of the smart members of society!

    • TexasChem says:

      The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1984_Social_Classes_alt.svg

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      TexasChem,

      The population of the world is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. I do not wish to FORCE Anarchy on the entire world. By forcing it upon the rest of the world, I would be initiating violence against the non-violent, thus violating my own principles! HELLO!

      The ONLY way anarchy can work is starting from a grass-roots level. INDIVIDUALS have to live by the principles by their own choice, have to associate with each other (or not) by their own choice, have to do business with each other (or not) by their own choice, and succeed or fail as individuals by their own choices!

      If enough people start living that way OF THEIR OWN VOLITION and are generally successful at it, I guarantee you IT WILL BE COPIED BY OTHERS!

      What the hell do I care if Iran is the most opressive regime on the planet? As a member of a free society, I could choose to do business with them or not based on a host of factors. I could choose to protest their treatment of their own citizens (or not). HOWEVER, I could not initiate violence against them until and unless they proved to be a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to ME.

      OF COURSE we cannot simply click the heels on the ruby slippers and POOF Liberty and Freedom EVERYWHERE! Not gonna happen.

      If we want to have liberty and freedom FOR OURSELVES, we must live that way as much as we can, and hope that others follow our example. However, if they do NOT follow our example, it DOESN’T MATTER, as long as they do not attempt to initiate violence against us (being as how we would be non-violent except in response to violence).

      Also, INTELLIGENCE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE! You ain’t gotta be real smart to live your life free. Pretty much anyone can understand the BASIC CONCEPTS of freedom and liberty. Pretty much anyone can understand what their Natural Rights are. If someone is wholly incapable of understanding their Natural Rights, then they should have a guardian that can protect their Natural Rights for them. Ideally such a guardian would be a close family member or friend who would know the person in question and understand their needs.

      You don’t even have to be super-successful in order to understand your Natural Rights and learn to live by them and protect them when necessary. However, if you do live by them and learn to protect them when necessary, your odds of a successful life are at least significantly improved!

      Does any of that make sense?

      • TexasChem says:

        @-Peter,

        PeterB stated:”understand your Natural Rights and learn to live by them and protect them when necessary. However, if you do live by them and learn to protect them when necessary, your odds of a successful life are at least significantly improved!
        Does any of that make sense?

        TC:Makes perfectly good sense to me.I have accomplished this already within our sociey.I belong to a community in a rural area that is predominantly Christian.Applying the study and application of the teachings of Christianity did this for my community.Not anarchy.We have all the freedoms you espouse in your post.We do give Caesar his due (the federal govt.) but, with the loss of morals of our elected governing representatives, freedom and liberty are taken away it seems daily, bit by bit.

  34. @BF and Kent,
    there is a lot of focus from you two (especially BF) about no violence on non-violent men.

    I would like some clarification about what to do with violent men. My idea that some organized military and police force is needed does not rest on anything to do with non-violent men, but on what to do with the violent, especially the organized violent.

    Also, what is this stuff abot monopoly of force? In a libertarian society self-defense and defense of property is fully justified.

    Finally, what exactly is violence? If a man is using violent force or coersion on me right now (such as the federal government, the makers of the laws and the enforcers), are they violent men? And can we, in self defense, perpetrate force against such men? Am I justified in using viiolence to secure my freedom as long as no person who was not part of the force used against me is harmed? If not, then how do I make progress towards my goal of freedom and how do I defend myself from such violence and tyranny without violating my own principles?Where is the line that cannot be crossed without rendering myself a hypocrite?

    • TexasChem says:

      @-BF and all the other Anarchists,

      Yes. Please explain to me how Anarchism will deal with all types of violence and not just “physical immediate violence”.
      I can think of several instances when it would be deemed appropiate to use force to stop some of the following types of behavior.

      Social violence, in which an individual or group is ostracized, demeaned, and made the object of discrimination.

      Cultural violence, where a people’s values and traditions are invaded, degraded, or destroyed by other groups.

      Religious violence, when one is denied religious freedom and made to suffer for one’s beliefs, and people are looked down upon or discriminated against in law because of their faith.

      Economic violence, where people are denied, because of caste or social group, opportunities granted to others, given inadequate pay, and forced to take only the lowliest, most menial work.

      Political violence, where persons are dismissed from their positions, arrested, tortured, and deprived of their rights because of their political beliefs.

      Ethnic violence, when people are expelled from their lands or subject to discrimination because their ethnic group is considered threatening or inferior.

      Gender violence, when the dignity and rights of women are violated, when they are paid less for the same work, sexually harassed, denied educational opportunities, or viewed as inferior to or of lesser status than men.

      Violence against children, when they are forced into labour, often in subhuman conditions, or subjected to physical abuse at home or school, or to sexual abuse by paedophiles and sex tourists.

      Violence to the unborn in abortion, particularly in the widespread modern practices of female foeticide and infanticide.

      State violence of oppressive and discriminatory laws, ruthless or biased law enforcement, unrestricted police practices, summary arrests, long-delayed trials, the undue use of armed forces to deal with internal disturbances, the suppression of right to dissent and freedom of association, excessive militarisation, and the most pervasive of all, corruption in public life.

      Violence to one’s self-image and self-respect, which makes individuals and social groups feel themselves inferior, backward, and “dispensable. ”

      Violence against the homeland, in uprooting and evicting a people from their lands and homes on the pretext of “progress” or the “common good.”

      Ecological violence, when nature and its resources are greedily exploited for personal profit, without concern for future generations, for contemporaries whose survival depends on a careful husbanding of the earth’s resources, or for the beauty and variety of Creation.

      • Tex

        You can not have “cultural violence”. Violence is committed against people directly.

        It is true that a large group can affect and change another groups culture. It has happened throughout history. But unless those changes include abandoning freedom, liberty and justice then I see no reason to be concerned.

        • No reason to be concerned-I am going to take a jump here and assume that Texas-chem is talking about the attack on the church-on The Christian religion in particular-Now it may not fit the definition of violence and I am not saying that “they” don’t have the right to do so-I will say that we need to look at the reasoning behind the attack-I personally believe it is an attempt to change the societal norms of our country-whether one believes that is a good thing or not I suppose is a matter of opinion-in my opinion it isn’t. As an individual I have my opinions on what is right and wrong. To have part of the society trying to use the fact that a person is religious as a means of discouning their views based solely on the point that the Bible supports their position, for the specific purpose of silencing their objections through ridicule.I think this is a little concerning.

          • V.H.

            What you describe is real but it is not “violence against culture”. It is certainly an attempt to change our culture to move people away from religion.

            But that is not a “normal” cultural change. It is a deliberate political action designed to impose a specific ideology upon us.

            I guess for me violence required physical harm to me or my property. I suppose you could fit economic harm or psychological harm in there but it is a harder fit.

            As for you last point, we should remember that some also use the Bible to denigrated and discount the views of others, for the purpose of silencing the debate through ridicule.

            I think such behavior by anyone is concerning and should be called out whenever we find it. Part of our problem today is that the evangelical and other “church going” political types have been drumming up this “war on Christianity” to the point it is sounding like the boy crying wolf.

            Sometimes it is real but some times it is over hyped. This is part of the “we are being played” warning I keep giving from time to time.

            By the way, one reason I do not support open borders right now is that it would destroy our culture in a short time period. Much shorter that is normal for such transitions. And I believe what would be lost is the remnant of our cultural values linked to freedom, liberty, justice and the political makeup to support them. They would also overwhelm our economy, but that is a different subject.

            Big hug and a sweet dreams to you as well.
            JAC

            • I don’t disagree with your comments but I feel a need to add something-It’s not that I don’t believe that people have used their religion to try and control outcomes-it’s that the people pushing the campaign against religion are taking whole areas of conversation and saying they are settled because they cannot be supported any other way but through religious belief-they are not targeting the ideas-they are targeting the belief system it’s self. I’m not explaining this very well-but it’s more that they have decided to make being a Christian somehow evil-a problem that needs to be taken care of and gotten rid of. It’s the same reason I have a problem with condemning the whole muslim religion. I see the same thing happening to the Christian religion.

              • VH- You should visit this site and put in your 2-cents’ worth: link

                Personally I think most Christians are decent people, but I think it is in spite of their Christianity rather than because of it. If Christians actually obeyed the Bible the way the radical Muslems obey the Koran, they would be just as bad. Fortunately, Christians cherry-pick what they obey and what they sweep under the rug.

                Anyway, that’s how I see it.

              • TexasChem says:

                @-Kent

                Kent stated”If Christians actually obeyed the Bible the way the radical Muslems obey the Koran, they would be just as bad. Fortunately, Christians cherry-pick what they obey and what they sweep under the rug.”

                TC: This is not true Kent.The New Testament teachings are what a true Christian follows.The teachings of Jesus.Hence the term Old Testament/New Testament or old compact versus new compact.Now I do believe their to be tons of wisdom contained in the Old testament and also that it is one of the most accurate teachings of history of the ancient world but their are some atrocities taught and told about in the Old testament that I do not believe to be applicable to todays society.Perhaps in the ancient world they were relevant to that culture and society and served a purpose though! 🙂

              • TexasChem says:

                Christian=Christ-like in my minds eye! 🙂

      • I await their answers on a few of those, but some I would like to answer.

        Socail violence – This is a tough one because sometimes such “violence” is a good thing. I could see a society that discriminated agaisnt nudists, relegating them to follow their lifestyles in certain areas. I do not think this is necessarily bad or good, but I do think it is none of the government’s business.

        Cultural violence – I am not sure how this would occur without the use of physical violence or property violence/trespassing. If someone is invading your church and shouting obscenities, they should be required to leave.

        Religious violence – This is not possible without state power, thus an anarchy would not have this issue. If persons were being ostracized for their religious beliefs, then it would fall under the same as social “violence”.

        Economic violence – can be handled, the unions did it just fine before the government jumped in and made them permanent fixtures.

        Political violence – Irrelevant in an anarchy.

        Ethnic and gender violence – again are not an isue without property or physical violence or threats. social pressures are not something that should be righted by government. It should be righted by thinking persons. If the society is one that would have these issues philosophically, then its government would have the same issues.

        Children would have protection from violence just like adults would. It does raise a good question about who has rights to do what in reference to children. Is spanking violence? How does one rear a chiled? what rights do they have, when does this change? What determines this? Age? Competency? Self sufficiency?

        Abortion is a subject difficult for me. It hinges on the rights of the unborn, what are they and why.

        State Violence – Again, not present in an anarchy.

        Violence to ones self respect – This is a tough one for me. I tend to say that if people demean you, then they are idiots, stop caring what they think. Psychologically tho, this is easier said than done. Is it really violence tho? Not sure.

        Evicting people from property or emminent domain, etc woudl also not occur without a State.

        Ecological violence – this assumes no ownership is involved. A good discussion, what defines ownership and why?

      • Social violence, in which an individual or group is ostracized, demeaned, and made the object of discrimination.

        That isn’t nice behavior IF the target is innocent of wrongdoing, but it isn’t “violence”. Without a political system to use against the targets, it would probably fail. However, “shunning” is an appropriate way of dealing with people who are known to be bad people (DEA goons, or BATFE thugs), without using actual violence against them.

        Cultural violence, where a people’s values and traditions are invaded, degraded, or destroyed by other groups.

        How can someone else invade, degrade, or destroy your values or traditions? That doesn’t even make sense to me. I have many values that are ridiculed by “society at large”, yet they are not harmed by that ridicule in any substantive way. I still value them just as much, possibly more. If your culture can’t hold up against a little bit of opposition or exposure, it probably isn’t worth much to begin with.

        Religious violence, when one is denied religious freedom and made to suffer for one’s beliefs, and people are looked down upon or discriminated against in law because of their faith.

        “Law” is the problem. Don’t establish it to begin with and it can’t be used to dictate or forbid religious beliefs and practices. I have warned people for years that any government strong enough to promote your religion is also strong enough to prohibit it.

        I am an atheist, and am pretty hard on religious beliefs, however I would NEVER demand anyone stop following their religion because it offends me. Only if it (or its followers) cause(s) me actual harm will I defend myself. I will also stand up for your right to follow whatever religion your conscience embraces in the face of anyone who tries to violate that basic human right.

        Now, I may ridicule some beliefs. My beliefs can stand up to it, so should your religion. If it can’t, then it has failed the test.

        Economic violence, where people are denied, because of caste or social group, opportunities granted to others, given inadequate pay, and forced to take only the lowliest, most menial work.

        Removal of corporatism and political favors, along with red tape and regulations designed to limit competition, will make this problem evaporate. If people are being used and taken advantage of, remove the “legal” barriers to them starting their own business. Let them brew beer in their living room, or braid hair in their back yard. Let them manufacture machine guns in their garage. Government is the main speedbump that the poor can’t get over or around. Remove it.

        Political violence, where persons are dismissed from their positions, arrested, tortured, and deprived of their rights because of their political beliefs.

        This is tied so directly to government that I don’t think a free society would even understand what you mean. If you are fired due to your political beliefs, and you had a contract saying this was not permitted, then the breaker of the contract would owe restitution. Otherwise, you and your employer have a right of association, and can (in a free society) choose who to associate with, or not, for ANY reason- or for none at all. “Arrested” is just government-sponsored kidnapping. Torture is an initiation of force, and torturers are subject to self-defensive violence just like any other attacker. The same goes for “denial of rights”. If someone tries to violate your rights you are justified in stopping them, using whatever amount of force it takes to make them stop. It seems funny to me that all these examples are rampant under ALL governments on earth, yet you use them to refute the idea of a free society. Hmmm.

        Ethnic violence, when people are expelled from their lands or subject to discrimination because their ethnic group is considered threatening or inferior.

        This falls under theft of property when people’s lands/homes are taken by force. They have the right to defend themselves and their property. As for discrimination- it isn’t nice, but everyone still has the basic human right to choose who to associate with and or do business with. In the long run it will economically harm the bigot to discriminate over stupid skin-deep things. The “pariahs” have economic needs and I will gladly trade with anyone who is not a thug. I will profit from the stupidity of the bigot. Only when such discrimination is made “the law” is it capable of doing much harm. Otherwise it is just jerks being jerks.

        Gender violence, when the dignity and rights of women are violated, when they are paid less for the same work, sexually harassed, denied educational opportunities, or viewed as inferior to or of lesser status than men.

        Once again, unless it is made “law” this wouldn’t hold up long. Stupid people can shoot themselves in the foot if they want to. Me, I’ll want to hire the best people and pay them what it takes to keep them, and treat them with the respect they deserve so they won’t go to a competitor (or become a competitor). Ignorant people can hold any views of any others person’s relative worth they want, but they had better not show it if they want to succeed.

        Violence against children, when they are forced into labour, often in subhuman conditions, or subjected to physical abuse at home or school, or to sexual abuse by paedophiles and sex tourists.

        In a free society there would probably be people who would make it their mission to find these kids and rescue them. And there would be no “law” to punish them for freeing individuals (“children”) from slavery. Since age-discrimination is as stupid as other kinds, the kids would also be defending themselves from abuse. Slavery and other abuse is a violation of anyone’s rights, and would be justification for defensive violence. These things happen even now, under the “protection of government”. They won’t go away in a free society, but the risks if caught would be much worse.

        Violence to the unborn in abortion, particularly in the widespread modern practices of female foeticide and infanticide.

        Liberty may not always be pretty. It may not always support your particular view. Abortion is a touchy subject, too deep for this comment. I have written about my views a few times, and here is one such column: link
        I do tend to think that if you allow people to give away unwanted children, and allow them to accept payment for them, there would be a lot fewer infanticides for any reason. That may seem crass, but do you deny it would save babies’ lives? So many people desperately want children, while others so desperately DON’T. Let them find one another without getting busybodies involved.

        State violence of oppressive and discriminatory laws, ruthless or biased law enforcement, unrestricted police practices, summary arrests, long-delayed trials, the undue use of armed forces to deal with internal disturbances, the suppression of right to dissent and freedom of association, excessive militarisation, and the most pervasive of all, corruption in public life.

        No more “State”; no more of these problems.

        Violence to one’s self-image and self-respect, which makes individuals and social groups feel themselves inferior, backward, and “dispensable. ”

        This is just hurting feelings. It isn’t nice, but it happens to everyone. It has happened to me, and I survived. It is NOT “violence”, as no physical force is involved. Grow up and deal with it like an adult, or strike back and let an arbitrator decide if you were justified in your actions. I would not likely decide in your favor, though.

        Violence against the homeland, in uprooting and evicting a people from their lands and homes on the pretext of “progress” or the “common good.”

        Once again, strictly a government-based problem. “Evicting” is just theft of land unless you have a government backing you up.

        Ecological violence, when nature and its resources are greedily exploited for personal profit, without concern for future generations, for contemporaries whose survival depends on a careful husbanding of the earth’s resources, or for the beauty and variety of Creation.

        The tragedy of the commons. People care for that which they own. Let every square inch have a real owner, and let every owner be responsible for any harm he causes to anyone else’s property. You are free to destroy your own property, but if any of your damage leaves your land- by air, groundwater, river, or on the back of trained turtles- you are personally responsible for restitution to all damaged parties. No “corporation” to hide behind; no “limits” capping your liability.

        Whew! I hope I addressed your questions. 🙂

        • TexasChem- Since I put so much time into writing this reply, would you mind if I used it, along with your quotes, as an Examiner column?

          If that would be OK, let me know if you want me to refer to you as “TexasChem” or leave you completely anonymous.

    • Violent men are subject to self-defensive violence from their intended victims or a rescuer. You can’t “fix” it by stealing from person “A” to pay the salaries and buy the weapons for person “B” to defend Persons “A” and “C” from attacker “D”. And most, almost ALL, governmental action is now directed against non-violent people (drug users, gun owners, “tax”payers, businesspeople, property owners, drivers, etc.). People who have not harmed anyone other than (possibly) themselves, and are simply seeking to live life as they see fit. Thus government uses violence against the non-violent.

      A monopoly of force would not exist in a libertarian society. As it now stands, a monopoly of force means that if I am attacked by DEA thugs engaged in a no-knock raid that got the wrong address, I will be punished if I manage to shoot and kill an invader or two, and survive. It means that if I use self-defense against an attacker that is not employed by the government I will still be treated like a bad guy until, and unless, the government decides my actions were justified. And then, in cases of which I have personal knowledge, the government can keep (steal) my firearms anyway. A monopoly of force means that the government gets to decide who gets to use force, and when, regardless of the situation.

      Violence is ethically neutral. It is simply “force”. Sometimes it is the only right thing to do. Initiated force; “starting it”, is not within your rights. Striking back with however much violence you feel is necessary after you have been attacked is not wrong. Never. However, it may be suicidal, such as in the case of government employees who have initiated force, theft, or fraud against you. And yes, they are “violent men” when they use coercion against you who have attacked, defrauded, or stolen from no one. You are justified in using violence against them, but you will be killed for your justified efforts. There are too many of them; they will keep sending more assassins without end, and they have too many “sheeple” cheering them on, and believing (due to brainwashing) that they are “the good guys. Being right doesn’t always mean taking action is the smartest thing to do.

      This is why I think the best, smartest thing to do is to simply withdraw support. Let them topple under their own weight. They WILL, you know. No consent; no opposition. Just ignore their “laws” any time you can. Avoid any “taxes” you can. Don’t contribute to the state. Don’t call on them for “help”. Don’t do business with them when it can be avoided. Don’t vote. Don’t let them appear legitimate in any way, because they are not. It’s a lie.

      But, if you choose to pursue a different path, that is your business. Just don’t be surprised at the frustrations of repeated failure and betrayal. You have been warned.

      • No worries Kent, I have no intention of doing something stupid. I suppose I wanted an idea of what you considered legitimate in terms of violence. There is a lot of time spent on what is not legitimate.

        My path will definitely differ at least a little. I believe that, while our initial constitution was flawed, it is not a horrible framework with a few amendments added. As such I will follow in the steps of the founders. I will seek resolution first through every means available. This means a vote. This means petition for grievance. This means free speech and resistance to tyranny. But it will be legal means until those means are exhausted. It cannot be ignoring the issue or “not showing legitimacy” because that will not accomplish what is needed, and it will not grant the moral high ground to use force, in my opinion.

  35. TexasChem says:

    @-JaC,

    I don’t believe I would characterize the most successful nation and form of government in the past 200 years as “mush”.

    Our government and media; and therefore our societal ethics has been hi-jacked by kool-aid drinkn’ greedy elitists.A combination of far left and far right policies has eroded and bypassed the original interpretations of our Constitution for their own personal benefits.Not the American citizens.This turn of events has been brought about through allowing the American citizen to be content with their livelihoods and not questioning our policy-makers intentions.

    I still believe in our form of government.The sleeping giant that is Americas’ middleclass is awakening and I believe it just a matter of time until “Enough” is shouted from every street corner.The burden of taxation that will be placed upon the middleclass come the implementation of the current administrations policies will be enormous in the next two years.

    • It was not mush the whole time, but it is mush now. It took it 200 years to be beaten into mush, but it is till mush.

      • TexasChem says:

        I agree that it is mush now.

        Or better yet a bottle of aged wine that was exposed to oxygen and bacteria through a bad cork and has now turned into vinegar!

        Oxygen-Judicial branch
        Bacteria-Legislative branch
        Bad cork-Executive branch

    • Tex

      I was actually trying to be nice by using the word MUSH instead of some others that first came to mind.

      But then I thought MUSH best described the philosophical principles that allowed the noble idea of freedom and liberty to be buried in a pile of dung for the sake of those who would use govt for their own advantage.

      I am curious as to how you measure “most successful nation and form of govt in the past 200 years”.

      How soon we forget that we were not a “GREAT” nation by historical standards until after most of the other nations had been destroyed by two world wars. The modern conservative cries out for a return to national greatness never understanding that such a goal was against the very principles on which we were founded. Except for Hamilton and his buddies, that is. They clearly would be happy with what has transpired. Only when we became an imperialist nation did we start to call ourselves GREAT. So is that your standard as well?

      How about our great wealth creation. One could easily prove that our greatest period of “economic” greatness came during a period dominated by Progressive Fascist policies. Even though those same policies now threaten to destroy us, as they inevitably would have to, we now yearn for those “good ol’ days” when America was strong and successful. Yet we want to go back to a time when we were not as great as when the fascists were in charge. So now what do we do?

      Tex, your comments sound like more campaign slogans and conservative talking points to me. They gloss over the critical issues that must be addressed if we truly want a nation founded on the concepts of freedom, liberty and justice.

      We must bury the philosophy of Altruism in the ash heap of history. If this philosophy and its ethics remain a fundamental part of America then it is freedom and liberty that will be forgotten in the not to distant future.

      I have no problem with a Constitutional Republic nor one that is Democratic in nature, as ours has become. I have serious problems with thinking that returning to the existing document is going to fix a problem that the document allowed to happen in the first place. Besides, the power and authority granted to govt in that document was far more than we should allow.

      • TexasChem says:

        I fully agree with the concept of no violence against a non-violent man.But, I believe you gentlemen are taking this concept fully out of context in my opinion though.I believe in pre-emptive initiation of violence if the burden of proof is met that violence is imminiment.

        example:A stalker calls your wife and tells her he is going to shoot her.
        example:You are in a bar, you drink too much and are physically impaired and get in your car.
        example:You take a tab of acid then go to your job working with heavy machinery.

        Perhaps you guys have a different definition of violence than I do.I admit I am a bit biased since my brother was involved in a head on accident in which the other driver swerved through three lanes of traffic and struck his truck.The driver had 5 narcotics in his system and was legally intoxicated at 1100 hrs. on a monday.The force of the impact broke both my brothers clavicles,his tibia and fibula;they snapped and broke like fiberglass fishing rods erupting out of his calf muscle.The calf muscle was completely destroyed.His calf was replaced with part of the lat muscle on his side.His right leg femur was thrust out of socket (breaking part of the hip bone) and pushing the femur over the top of his right side glute protruding under the skin so that if sitting he was sitting on his femur.19 surgeries so far he has underwent in an effort not to lose his leg from the calf down.The driver of the other truck was killed instantly as both his femurs were forced out of socket into his chest cavity.So am I being biased or realistic?

        BF reiterating not to “incite violence against the non-violent.” is beginning to sound like some Hare Krishna mantra chant to me.

        “Thou Shal-t not in-ciite vi-ool-ence a-gaaain-st the non-vio-io-io-lent.” “AHHmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

        • Tex

          I am sorry about your brother’s accident. I to have had tragedy in my life.

          But lets try to use some hard logic here.

          The laws against drinking and drug use were and are in place. The cops did and still do enforce those laws. Yet the dude got drugged up and ruined your brother’s life. All the laws and the State enforcement did not prevent it.

          I accept that some are prevented. And I have never said we shouldn’t have police. You will not find that anywhere in my positions. However, what most of us fail to recognize is that by giving govt the power to pass drug laws and to wage a war on drugs or drink or smoking or what ever other person behavioral issue we pick, we also give it the power to take as much power as it wants. For that reason I am absolutely opposed to Federal Police and would like to see State laws/police restricted more. I would like to see our police tied more to the local county or town/city. Closer to the people they serve in both control and contact.

          Of the three examples you gave the State laws nor the police are required to deal with them. The stalker can be stopped by you or your wife if properly armed. The drunk driver could be stopped by friends or pulled over if seen driving erratically. If he harms someone then he must pay restitution. Same for the druggie working machinery. Others can act to stop the guy. But no law in the land can prevent him TODAY, with all the laws and cops we have now.

          You seem to overlook the Clear and Present Danger criteria BF has posted on numerous occasions. It prevents us from sitting here waiting for the nukes to go off before we can launch ours.

          The reason the principle includes the word “initiate” is because until someone else actually takes action against you, you really can’t be sure what their intent is. It is to simply resurrect a golden rule that has existed for centuries and which is supported by the teachings of Christ I believe.

          What makes the ethic so important is not so much our relationship with each other. For the vast majority of us would not initiate violence. A few more might try coercive force but that should be included as a banned activity also, and we would be better for it. What makes this so big is that if we stand on this ethic, as a first principle, then we must construct a government around the same principle.

          Thus the monopoly on the initiation of force/violence may still exist in the nature of govt, but it is eliminated in the application of govt. Its only legitimate use of force is in self defense, just as it is for the individuals living under said govt.

          This was actually a key principle held by most of our founders. That is the foundation for their belief in staying out of the affairs of other countries. Unfortunately they didn’t build a strong enough door.

          Again, I am sorry for your brother’s pain and suffering.
          Events like these do usually affect the way we see the world. It take extra hard work to excluded them from your judgment of larger matters. But consider this. I just watched Invictus for the first time today. Remember that Nelson Mandela spent much of his life in prison and yet he forgave his jailers in order to build a new nation for all. In the same way we must all forgive, not the people who have caused us pain so much but the general impact that may cause us to stray from solid reasoning needed to reach a better tomorrow.

        • TexasChem says:

          I’ll tell yall the rest of the story…I found out a few weeks ago that his leg-bones have grown back together and his pain is gone.He was on morphine and narco (sp?) for his pain.He was in a wheelchair over a year and a half and has had a halo on his leg for a lil’ over a year.It truly is amazing.

          Three weeks ago he was at his sons little-league baseball game.He just had x-rays done the week before the game and the bones were showing no growth.The doctors were telling him they may have to amputate since the lower parts of the leg-bones were dieing.Now I know this will probably sound wierd to some of you but; whatever, I am just telling you like it is.Anyways, while at the game a missionary from California came up to my brother and told him that he had a premonition from God to pray over his leg.He asked my brother if he believed that God could heal his leg.My brother said yes and then the missionary prayed with his hands on his leg.

          The very next morning when my brother woke he had absolutely no pain in his leg.This is a man that was taking morphine and other high-potentcy drugs to be able to bare the pain every day.It was gone.GONE.Two weeks after the ballgame when he went to the doctor for x-rays the bones had grown together.The doctor told him it was impossible for his bones to grow together within a three week period.Yet they had.The doctor said it was a miracle and wanted to know my brothers exact diet and if he had been taking any other medications.So on and so forth.After 19 surgeries; what was not accomplished by man was accomplished by some other power.God.

          Call me a bible thumper if you wish but, I’d prefer a firm believer in Divine Casuality!There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

          • I am happy for your brother. I have heard many accounts like this. I do not know if I attribute it to God, but it certainly points to things beyond our current understanding. There are far too many such accounts to simply think they are untrue.

        • TexasChem

          I fully agree with the concept of no violence against a non-violent man.But, I believe you gentlemen are taking this concept fully out of context in my opinion though.I believe in pre-emptive initiation of violence if the burden of proof is met that violence is imminiment.

          The burden YOU need to demonstrate is:

          Clear and
          Present
          Danger

          example:A stalker calls your wife and tells her he is going to shoot her.

          Nope, not good enough.

          It is NOT Clear… it is NOT Present … and you have no evidence of Danger.

          example:You are in a bar, you drink too much and are physically impaired and get in your car.

          Nope, not good enough.

          It is NOT Clear, though it may be Present, but you have no evidence of Danger.

          example:You take a tab of acid then go to your job working with heavy machinery.

          Nope, not good enough.

          It maybe Clear, and it may be Present, but no action has been demonstrate to be Dangerous.

          Should you act in any of your examples, it is YOU who is Clearly and Presently Dangerous!!

          I am a bit biased since my brother was involved in a head on accident .So am I being biased or realistic?

          Realistically biased.

          Your brother was injured by this accident of a impaired driver.

          Three times more people are injured or killed by accidents of perfectly non-impaired drivers

          Statistically, non-impaired drivers are more dangerous.

          BF reiterating not to “incite violence against the non-violent.” is beginning to sound like some Hare Krishna mantra chant to me.

          It is.

          Until it becomes perfectly clear to you, you must read these words over and over again until your mind accepts this Universal Truth.

          “Thou Shal-t not in-ciite vi-ool-ence a-gaaain-st the non-vio-io-io-lent.” “AHHmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

          Repeat until it is perfectly clear to you…

  36. JAC,

    I have tried three times in the last hour to reply to your challenge. We had a ten second power failure when I was just about ready to submit. So I re- replied but forgot to enter my name and email address. That reply got lost. Then I re-re-replied with an incorrect email address. I GIVE UP. Maybe another time. Of course I can’t have shit. Sorry 🙂

    • Anita

      We will have time this week. No worries my dear.

      Hope your yard work at the lake was at least peaceful. Spent much of the day digging dirt myself.

      Sleep tight and sweet dreams.
      JAC

  37. TexasChem says:

    Sorry to hijack but wheres the media coverage on this issue?
    Heres another BIG power-grab!
    Any of you guys ever research Soros when I mentioned him backing Obama and the democrats “shadow govt.” back when Obama announced his run for office?

    “Soros-Funded Group Urges Media Run by Gov’t.”

    http://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2010/05/20/soros-funded-group-urges-media-run-govt

  38. Cyndi P says:
    • TexasChem says:

      Gold went from what 350 to 1200 dollars an ounce in the past 10 years.When the bottom falls out of the bucket our economy is laying in, gold will not be worth diddly.When the demand falls to nil and everyone is trying to sell what will the price per ounce be then?I predict a new cliche for this decade to appear!”All my gold for a cow, or err… chicken!”

      • TexasChem,

        No, it will never fall to sub-$1050 in your life time.

        You are misapplying relative measure.

        Gold is going up because the dollar is going worthless, not because your cow is going worthless.

        The same oz. of gold will buy the same amount of chickens today as it will in 10 years from now.

        But the same dollars will not.

        That is why gold is going up and that is why people are buying gold – so they can buy chickens in 10 years.

%d bloggers like this: