Political Theory

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

chloe732 — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:17:08 GMT

@ Samarami - Your posts are interesting, and your insights contribute much to the forums along the lines of, let's call it, "practical liberty." Hope to see you contribute often.

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

JAlanKatz — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:38:56 GMT

Well, thanks for what you've told me. I'll look for Browne's book.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Samarami — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:30:30 GMT

I've been free and "off paper" for almost 40 years. But my epiphany began, as previously stated, while in solitary. One can have significant "spiritual awakenings" in the hole.

I had been the victim of state slavery ("the draft") and had spent the better part of 4 years in the US Army, much of it overseas. I married immediately upon return in hopes, I now understand, a wife could ease the trauma of all that. Nine months and twelve seconds later I was a father. 11 months and 15 days after that I was the father of 2. I ended up with seven children while yet wet behind the e: 4 boys and 3 girls. Jewish boys should never marry Catholic girls.

As an idealistic child I somehow had the idea that I had been "serving my country". Somewhere in that time frame while trying to become a decent father I began to see things the way they really were. For one thing I never ever wanted to see one of my boys enslaved by state employees to participate in another of the white man's scams. That was long before anybody even thought up the evil of girls being involved in the horror episodes we read about from their being in the "service". There were "Wacs", but they stayed back in the orderly room or they were medics.

I came to understand I hadn't been "serving my country" at all. That slogan was just one of the many, many inducements to state worship absolutely necessary for the "military-industrial complex" to continue to prosper. I had been participating in the greatest fraud in the history of human kind.

http://warisaracket.org/

Today I avoid gatherings where the sheep-like moderators might ask "veterans" to stand so everybody can bow and clap. I stay away from spectator sports so I don't have to witness the obligatory state worship before the game can get under way. Needless to say I don't participate in the series of political holidays this time of year designed to aggrandize state wars.

If you love your freedom DON'T THANK ME. Thank yourself if you are free. You earned it.

Liberty, simply put, is seeing things the way they really are and behaving appropriately. Nobody -- not a wife, not children, certainly not employees of state -- can grant you liberty. "If it's going to be it's up to me".

I quit blaming others. I look at the roll I played in becoming locked up. I focus on my behavior, not that of the mother of my seven children, for our divorce (we were married 25 years, have been divorced 27 years. I just received my 27-year AA sobriety medallion. Go figure). That does NOT mean I beat myself up -- I try never to do that. On the other hand if I blame others for my calamities I'll spend my life in disaster. Many do, you know.

You asked: "Do you continue keeping your head down and avoiding trouble...?" If you're implying we (ex cons) should fear the white man (white man = all state employees -- a native term) or be obsequious to him I reply "not on your life!" I am totally indifferent to employees of state unless they're armed, wearing a state costume and directly confronting me. Then I will ask, "is that gun loaded?" S/he will normally give me a sullen, supercilious response of some sort. I'll try to be nonchalant when I say, "I always believe a man with a loaded gun!..."

Now if your question is in the boot camp sense, then my answer is "yes -- always keep your head down -- better a body wound than a head wound..." There are large numbers of people, J Alan, gleefully striving to prevent you and me from being free. They smile and they wave and they urge you to march down and vote next time they hold "an election". And if we're not careful -- well, they can sound so genuine and so sincere. They just want to take care of everybody (read: enjoy power over everybody and steal as much of their produce as practicable -- and then some). That translates, of course, into making government larger and all pervasive. Every single piece of legislation put forth out in the "District of Collectivism" is a volley of machine gun fire and shrapnel aimed directly at you and me and those we love.

I actually look for another crisis event of "9-11" proportions quite soon. Think about it. That phenomenon opened the door for the Bushes and Obamas of the world (and the "power heads" who are behind them) to expand government exponentially in very short order with very little resistance from the shapeless masses. But alas, time has a way of drawing even the dumbest of us to a semblance of reality. So now come the "tea party" types offering the entrenched and seemingly powerful state employees (and those silent backers who stand to benefit from their machinations) some real opposition -- they're even putting a number of incumbent political hacks at risk. Look for a crisis. And a war. And bank closings.

"Why doesn't becoming free have to involve getting rid of these restrictions?"

I don't know that I'm reading that question correctly. My mantra is that we can't have a whole lot of influence over "THEM" (whoever we perceive might be keeping us from being free; or whomever it is we would like to help become free but who will not grasp hold of our "lifeline to freedom"). They're ~~probably~~ not going to listen to us. But that should never keep us from being free.

The best single reading I remember coming upon many years ago that set me on the proper road to freedom was (the late) Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World", published around 1973, was out of print for years but I understand is now sold through their website. Google "Harry Browne" and I think you can find a copy.

Be free.

Sam

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

JAlanKatz — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:02:13 GMT

Yes, sure, but what do you do once you're out? I have the desire, and I'm out, but what is involved in becoming free in your mind? Do you continue keeping your head down and avoiding trouble, and if so, how does this count as freeing yourself? Why doesn't becoming free have to involve getting rid of these restrictions?

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Sieben — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:33:37 GMT

^rettoper don't bother responding to my post. Focus on lilburn's new thread.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Daniel James Sanchez — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:28:12 GMT

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/17464.aspx

Now that the debate has begun, Retopper please cease posting in this thread (as you said you would), and everyone else please stop addressing him regarding this topic and regarding his character and conduct. I'm leaving this thread open so Samaramis, JAlanKatz, and others can continue their cool-headed conversations, but I will lock it if I have to.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Sieben — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:26:45 GMT

Rettoper:

you accuse me of flaming, trolling, and baiting -- then you repeatedly ask me to respond to your "baseless assertions" retort ?!

how does anyone respond to the "baseless assertion" retort -- for example, I could cut and paste with the same inane "baseless assertion" That isnt an argument snowflake, but you use it frequently ??

It means that instead of simply stating your conclusions, you need to actually argue for them.

Here is an example of your tactics: "The government is evil and unsustainable. Rettoper fantasizes that it is, but he's actually wrong. He doesn't realize that government is stupid and will never work"

See. This is just mouthing off. I'm not proving anything. Thats a "baseless assertion". When I call you out for doing it, it means you need to go back and actually argue.

Rettoper:
hoppe did not understand or acknowledge the context in which the US Constitution was developed, namely that in a world of autocratic states, anarchism is subject to predation. thats why no anarchic states presently exist. The US was under seige by statist regimes France, England, native americans, et al.

You missed the point entirely, which was that the US constitution and all minarchist states are doomed to to devolve away from their stated purpose.

Rettoper:
Our founders understood that the resources of the populace had to be focused to repel these threats, hence a more centralized Federal government. Alas, we surrendered liberties and prosperity for the common defense, but the alternative was predation and enslavement at the hands of a far greater evil, absolutism.

False dichotomy. Are there any atrocities you don't apologise for?

Rettoper:
Lastly, these founders recognized the defects in the Constitution and they attempted to forestall or prevent the likely progression toward more statist abuses by installing substantive checks and balances on the power of the statists to subvert the system. These tenets have had mixed results.

To say the least.

Rettoper:
for example, the FACT is that techonological advancement, industrial production, life expectancy, free enterprise, free trade, infant mortality, disease, et al have all seen improvements since 1776. So if the US COnstitution is oppressive, then it has not unduly impacted human advancement when compared with the thousands of years of relative stagnation in the human condition prior to 1776.

Exactly. We have nice stuff in SPITE of the constitution, not because of it.

Rettoper:
Theoretically, under anarchism these changes would have been far more dramatic, however infant mortality, disease irradication, minority rights, et al are not going to wait for anarchism to emerge while human needs are left wanting in a statist absolutism.

What is this argument? "Theoretically anarchism is awesome but there are lots of problems in the status quo?". Right. We should try to solve these problems whether an anarchist society is realized or not, but this is a red herring.

Rettoper:
until anarchist can provided substantive actions to insure a viable and sustainable model of anarchism in the REAL WORLD

A lot of people have suggested that education is key. I agree with them. But really, can you take more time with your posts? Like proofread them, run them through a spellcheck? Its probably pretty embarrassing for you to make so many mistakes in front of your opponents.

Rettoper:
then they would be better served to reserve their invective and vitriol for statist regimes and back off of attacks on minarchism because this tact plays into the hands of the greater evil of absolutism.

You always have ignored our charge that minarchism devolves into collectivism. Attacking BOTH minarchism and totalitarian governments is tantamount to attacking both pre-totalitarian and totalitarian societies. Its a perfectly viable option. No State-Communist is going to co-opt the anarcho capitalist movement any time soon :P

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

cognitivist — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:19:42 GMT

Rettoper:
Baseless assertion.

I can't tell if you're trying to piss me off, or actually serious. In either case, you've failed.

But at least you've succeeded in being obfuscating. So like an ideologue.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Rettoper — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:12:11 GMT

You're the one initiating verbal aggression here. "Baseless assertion" is, in debate, a value-free assertion. Just because he believes you're wrong doesn't mean you should take offense to him for pointing out that you can't substantively argue within Anarchist logical frameworks.-- cognitivist

Baseless assertion.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Rettoper — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:10:03 GMT

"The original poster is totally incapable of seeing anarchism as anything more than another "type of government": organized, with elected officials, boundaries, "constitutions", laws and bylaws, desirous of enforcing its tenants upon all within its area of influence. He is charged with an oligarchic mentality. He has no escape."-- sam

I had to break my promise not to post .

of course I know that anarchism is the absent of government. private property rights and individual freedom is paramount in an anarchic society any statist influence for "good" or ill is rejected.

However, I dont think that human nature has a tendency to establish quasi-statist institutions to coerce and extort wealth and power from the citizenry.

For example, in a free society parasites will naturally coalesce and form associations to subvert the natural order in order to extort wealth and gain power in the name of "social justice" "egalitarianism" or some other -ism

In summary, I dont think that market forces alone have demonstrated that they have the wherewithal to overcome the machinations of parasites and those that seek to exploit parasites (statists) to gain power and wealth

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

cognitivist — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:01:36 GMT

Rettoper:
they would be better served to reserve their invective and vitriol for statist regimes and back off of attacks on minarchism because this tact plays into the hands of the greater evil of absolutism.

Anarchists are just following Aristotlean argumentation. You can't be inconsistent, even if the multiple outcomes of a moral judgement in action are morally inconsistent.

Rettoper:

snowflake,

you accuse me of flaming, trolling, and baiting -- then you repeatedly ask me to respond to your "baseless assertions" retort ?!

You're the one initiating verbal aggression here. "Baseless assertion" is, in debate, a value-free assertion. Just because he believes you're wrong doesn't mean you should take offense to him for pointing out that you can't substantively argue within Anarchist logical frameworks.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Rettoper — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:58:41 GMT

grayson,

sure.

it will be interesting and educational thats why I am here.

i will cease posting on this thread.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Rettoper — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:55:34 GMT

snowflake,

you accuse me of flaming, trolling, and baiting -- then you repeatedly ask me to respond to your "baseless assertions" retort ?!

how does anyone respond to the "baseless assertion" retort -- for example, I could cut and paste with the same inane "baseless assertion" That isnt an argument snowflake, but you use it frequently ??

with respect to the arguments you did provide sources (hoppe)

here is my response:

hoppe did not understand or acknowledge the context in which the US Constitution was developed, namely that in a world of autocratic states, anarchism is subject to predation. thats why no anarchic states presently exist. The US was under seige by statist regimes France, England, native americans, et al.

Our founders understood that the resources of the populace had to be focused to repel these threats, hence a more centralized Federal government. Alas, we surrendered liberties and prosperity for the common defense, but the alternative was predation and enslavement at the hands of a far greater evil, absolutism.

Lastly, these founders recognized the defects in the Constitution and they attempted to forestall or prevent the likely progression toward more statist abuses by installing substantive checks and balances on the power of the statists to subvert the system. These tenets have had mixed results.

for example, the FACT is that techonological advancement, industrial production, life expectancy, free enterprise, free trade, infant mortality, disease, et al have all seen improvements since 1776. So if the US COnstitution is oppressive, then it has not unduly impacted human advancement when compared with the thousands of years of relative stagnation in the human condition prior to 1776. For example, in the last 200 years mankind has seen expontial increases in standards of living. Theoretically, under anarchism these changes would have been far more dramatic, however infant mortality, disease irradication, minority rights, et al are not going to wait for anarchism to emerge while human needs are left wanting in a statist absolutism.

In summary, to paraphrase churchill "democracy is a terrible system, however it is the best one we have at present" until anarchist can provided substantive actions to insure a viable and sustainable model of anarchism in the REAL WORLD, then they would be better served to reserve their invective and vitriol for statist regimes and back off of attacks on minarchism because this tact plays into the hands of the greater evil of absolutism.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

cognitivist — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:52:24 GMT

when it behooves the anarchist to cease proselytizing his/her lifestyle and state-free understanding and to knuckle down and practice his freedom in peace

That's specifically what I'm talking about. You can convince a Statist to become less of a Statist, but I'd asert that in certain cases you simply cannot "win them over" without initiating some form of coercion. It's an inbred culturally sort of thing to be Statist at this point in the world's history.

Re: Anarchist society is a pipe dream.

Samarami — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:47:20 GMT

The original poster is totally incapable of seeing anarchism as anything more than another "type of government": organized, with elected officials, boundaries, "constitutions", laws and bylaws, desirous of enforcing its tenants upon all within its area of influence. He is charged with an oligarchic mentality. He has no escape.

Gentlemen, there does come a time, I believe, when it behooves the anarchist to cease proselytizing his/her lifestyle and state-free understanding and to knuckle down and practice his freedom in peace. We can be free sovereign states in an occupied land -- even this one that has deteriorated from "freedom" to abject police state.

Yes, we can.

Samarami.