Support Continental Congress 2009. 100+ people from all over the country meeting in Chicago starting on the 11th to document govt. abuses.
We can't get to a purely voluntary society w/o taking baby steps.
RyanReboot The Republic
I'm going to take my cue from the Maoists.
Ryan: Support Continental Congress 2009. 100+ people from all over the country meeting in Chicago starting on the 11th to document govt. abuses. We can't get to a purely voluntary society w/o taking baby steps.
Negative.
tacoface:I'm going to take my cue from the Maoists.
Stranger: Perhaps we should get our cue from the Maoists. Wars are fought over people, not land. Land can be reclaimed. If you are attacked, withdraw.
Perhaps we should get our cue from the Maoists. Wars are fought over people, not land. Land can be reclaimed.
If you are attacked, withdraw.
The term "we the people" always manages to send a chill up my spine...
and not in a good way
Filc,
Point taken, however, there is no way to move from our current fascism state to a complete voluntary state. What's wrong with taking steps that could lead us closer to our goal. A little liberty can be contagious.
Ryan: Filc, Point taken, however, there is no way to move from our current fascism state to a complete voluntary state. What's wrong with taking steps that could lead us closer to our goal. A little liberty can be contagious.
I still fight with this personally but the project you outlined above only gives merit to the un-ethical system. It legitimizes a legitimate system and pates democracy and voting as being morally justified.
I get the logic though, move to minarchy first than anarchy will follow. I don't think we will find our solution that way however. The nature of government is to grow. If somehow we could reset things back to a minarchist condition it would still not be controllable, it would still be pervasive. Currently I am considering the concept of indivdiual secession or grouped secession.
Ryan:We can't get to a purely voluntary society w/o taking baby steps.
That's an assertion.
Minarchism is not freedom. Limited government is not freedom.
@all, now let's get this thread back on track please. (Thread was split from another, feel free to carry on with this discussion)
"Minarchism is not freedom."
But Minarchism would be a step in the right direction on bearing ground. Or to say it with General von Steuben: Ideals are like the stars - you can not reach them - but you can follow them.
And the fact is: We do know that a state with very little state does work better. But we do simly not know whether a society in the total absence of state would work at all.
Peter Wild:But Minarchism would be a step in the right direction on bearing ground.
I disagree. Minarchism reinforces the idea of the central state as necessary.
Peter Wild:Ideals are like the stars - you can not reach them - but you can follow them.
Before space flight, that may have been true.
Peter Wild:We do know that a state with very little state does work better.
For some people.
Peter Wild:But we do simly not know whether a society in the total absence of state would work at all.
Yes we do. The only thing the state can do that cooperative individuals cannot, is promote violent monopoly and privilege.
Peter Wild:And the fact is: We do know that a state with very little state does work better. But we do simly not know whether a society in the total absence of state would work at all.
if I can go to my neighbor and trade my eggs for his milk without the need of the state then there is no need for the state to exist at all. that alone is proof enough that the state is unnecessary and stifles personal liberty and economic performance.
From the website: "Together, we will decide what peaceful, legal steps can be taken to bring about compliance with our Freedom documents."
So you want to go and beg our overlords to please hold up their end of the "social contract" (that none of us signed)? Doing so just reinforces that they are in charge.
Who decided my "Freedom documents" anyway? Not me. Did you sign them?
And how naive to use the word legal when it is the very government that you call "abusive" that is the sole determiner of the law.
Why anarchy fails
Hey Ryan, seems like you are spreading the word about your movement and I commend you for that. However, I see in your movement the very premise which started off where we are today, namely the idea that government need only provide for rights protection. It was a noble dream and a cunning experiment but sadly it did not pan out to be as great as we have hoped. I do not find flaw in the classical liberal tradition per say. They are great scholars who have much to say on the doctrine and history of how liberty came about, though they start from an incorrect premise. That the state is a neutral institution which can be used for the betterment of mankind. I disagree. There must be a realization of the asymmetry of power concerning the state apparatus or else we will continue onto the same doom of the founders. Another lesson is that the growth of government cannot be contained while the interpretation of the very document that is suppose to bind them is left up to them. Perhaps I can interest you in some works on the matter of the unattainably of achieving limited government that can be sustained. Let me also say that since we disagree on the legitimacy of government does not infer that there cannot be meaningful cooperation concerning the delegitimization of our current governmental system. Decreasing 95% of the government is certainly better then decreasing none of it, and if you can live with that then perhaps we can walk together on the path towards liberty. However, I would caution you that this is a different movement that seeks to go further then your movement. The goal of this movement is the end of the state itself. If the day were ever to come when government is reduced to its original constitutional levels, there will still be those who wish it further decreased to nonexistence. Individual sovereignty leads to individual secession and the ability to engage in that secession. If that presents a challenge to you then this is not a movement in which you will find many supporters. If that is not a challenge then I say welcome.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael