The Late Andrew Ryan:Sorry about that snow. I haven't been following this thread (its too damn failful thusfar) and I didn't feel like wading through 200 posts (of "get nowhere" argumentation) to make sure I didn't restate someone's argument. I just skimmed through a page or two and felt that the argumentation provided on both ends has totally missed the point.
[CONTENT DELETED: PLEASE USE ISSUES FORUM]
For example, is it possible that a despotic element can emerge within an anarchic society that would censor, subjegate, and otherwise use market forces to their own advantage within a quasi-government framework?
Moreover, a sort of pack mentality is at play here -- for example, why would anyone be attracted to a society that ostracizes newcomers if they do not "toe the party line" which is "irrefutable". these are tenets similar to that practiced by despotic regimes. For example, is it possible, even likely, that a despotic element would emerge within an anarchic society that would censor, subjegate, and otherwise use market forces to their own advantage within a quasi-goverment framework.
of course, self-interested actors would immediately form associations that would be government in all but name within anarchic societies that would use "political means" to gain wealth and power at the expense of the free market. Moreover, anarchist society, being totally free, would be extremely vulnerable to these political machinations versus the checks and balances present in the Federal Constitutional Republicanism system.
This illustrates a fact that I have not put forth, namely that the intellectual rigidity and purism of anarchism may lend itself vulnerable to despotic exercises of power. For example, one of the reasons why anarchism is not viable is that it is no more immune to despotic influences than any other ideology. In addition, it may not be as flexible and open-minded a society as presumed since it is founded on the "commandment" that "all governent is evil".
once an anarchic society is created, what tenet of anarchism protects it from the influence and abuses of statist?
For example, are anarchists naive enough to believe that human avarice, envy, pride, et al are going to disappear thanks to market forces?
which further illustrates that the while anarchism is viable "on paper" -- in practice and based on thousands of years of experience, it has not grossly inadequate to deal with the myriad human intangibles that have left it on the ash heap of history.
in summary, anarchism's belief that market forces will contain human envy, pride, greed, et al has been soundly rejected by historical fact.
for better or worse, it appears that the overwhelming majority of citizens have determined the optimum way to achieve the most freedom, peace, stability, and prosperity is within an open and dynamic society founded on the principle of "all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" versus the anarchic creedo of "all government is evil".
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
snowflake
There are no real world examples of pure anarcho capitalism.-- snowflake
Think about what you are asking snowflake. You are challenging my assertion that anarchic societies are untenable since I have no examples to prove are untenable.
Wow!
can anyone cite a more succinct example of a "logical fallacy" then snowflakes argument?
Any you provide will be like the following: Spain had a civil war, there were anarchist communities that branched off and were doing fine. Soviets come in and back the communist faction in spain, allowing them to take over the anarchist communities. Does this mean anarchism failed?--snowflake
Yeah snowflake, I would say that when an anarchic society like the one in Spain is destroyed due to predation -- then logically it would be an example that anarchism has failed.
btw, snowflake the fascists in spain eventually removed the communists thanks to germany. of course, liberal democracies eventually sent both fascism and communism to the ash heap of history. Today thanks to American hegemony -- europe is more peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free than at anytime in its tumultous past, current statist crises notwithstanding.
Stable limited governments --- most of europe, most of western hemisphere, most of the asian pacific rim.
snowflake, if japan, germany, sweden, south korea, singapore, netherlands, canada, the USA, costa rica, chile, et al are not stable -- can you produce better examples of stability?
.
Why don't you read some of the free material on the site. It answers all the question you have been asking over and over again. But you won't, youll just reply saying the same thing in different words, like you have atleast 6 times now.
Interesting, since I have a differing opinion I am labeled a troll and my posts are cited as flaming. No. There are a lot of minarchists on these forums. They just don't make baseless assertions and straw man every one of their opponents.
Interesting, since I have a differing opinion I am labeled a troll and my posts are cited as flaming.
Moreover, the thread's name has been changed perhaps in an attempt to discredit its premise Lilburn changed your title because it was trollish. He'd rather correct your behaviour than ban you.
Moreover, the thread's name has been changed perhaps in an attempt to discredit its premise
For example, is it possible that a despotic element can emerge within an anarchic society that would censor, subjegate, and otherwise use market forces to their own advantage within a quasi-government framework? Private clubs can ban whoever they wish.
Moreover, a sort of pack mentality is at play here -- for example, why would anyone be attracted to a society that ostracizes newcomers if they do not "toe the party line" which is "irrefutable". There are a diversity of opinions on this forum. [AD HOMINEM DELETED]
Moreover, a sort of pack mentality is at play here -- for example, why would anyone be attracted to a society that ostracizes newcomers if they do not "toe the party line" which is "irrefutable".
For example, When you say "for example", it is usually followed by a real example, not speculation.
For example,
is it possible, even likely, that a despotic element would emerge within an anarchic society that would censor, subjegate, and otherwise use market forces to their own advantage within a quasi-goverment framework. Baseless assertion. Flame/baiting/trolling behavior.
is it possible, even likely, that a despotic element would emerge within an anarchic society that would censor, subjegate, and otherwise use market forces to their own advantage within a quasi-goverment framework.
of course, self-interested actors would immediately form associations that would be government in all but name within anarchic societies that would use "political means" to gain wealth and power at the expense of the free market. More baseless assertions. For a counter argument, you are talking about people cartelizing some aspect of the industry. See Long's analysis:
of course, self-interested actors would immediately form associations that would be government in all but name within anarchic societies that would use "political means" to gain wealth and power at the expense of the free market.
Is this cartel likely to be able to abuse its power in this way? The problem is cartels are unstable for all the usual reasons. That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that a cartel succeed. After all, people have free will. But it’s unlikely because the very incentives that lead you to form the cartel also lead you to cheat on it – because it’s always in the interest of anyone to make agreements outside the cartel once they are in it. Bryan Caplan makes a distinction between self-enforcing boycotts and non-self-enforcing boycotts. Self-enforcing boycotts are ones where the boycott is pretty stable because it’s a boycott against, for example, doing business with people who cheat their business partners. Now, you don’t have to have some iron resolve of moral commitment in order to avoid doing business with people who cheat their business partners. You have a perfectly self-interested reason not to do business with those people.
Bryan Caplan makes a distinction between self-enforcing boycotts and non-self-enforcing boycotts. Self-enforcing boycotts are ones where the boycott is pretty stable because it’s a boycott against, for example, doing business with people who cheat their business partners. Now, you don’t have to have some iron resolve of moral commitment in order to avoid doing business with people who cheat their business partners. You have a perfectly self-interested reason not to do business with those people.
Moreover, anarchist society, being totally free, would be extremely vulnerable to these political machinations versus the checks and balances present in the Federal Constitutional Republicanism system. Even more hot air. For the counter, see Hoppe:
Moreover, anarchist society, being totally free, would be extremely vulnerable to these political machinations versus the checks and balances present in the Federal Constitutional Republicanism system.
As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.
For example, one of the reasons why anarchism is not viable is that it is no more immune to despotic influences than any other ideology. Do you just make stuff up? See Long again:
For example, one of the reasons why anarchism is not viable is that it is no more immune to despotic influences than any other ideology.
Another worry is that the rich would rule. After all, won’t justice just go to the highest bidder in that case, if you turn legal services into an economic good? That’s a common objection. Interestingly, it’s a particularly common objection among Randians, who suddenly become very concerned about the poor impoverished masses. But under which system are the rich more powerful? Under the current system or under anarchy? Certainly, you’ve always got some sort of advantage if you’re rich. It’s good to be rich. You’re always in a better position to bribe people if you’re rich than if you’re not; that’s true. But, under the current system, the power of the rich is magnified. Suppose that I’m an evil rich person, and I want to get the government to do something-or-other that costs a million dollars. Do I have to bribe some bureaucrat a million dollars to get it done? No, because I’m not asking him to do it with his own money. Obviously, if I were asking him to do it with his own money, I couldn’t get him to spend a million dollars by bribing him any less than a million. It would have to be at least a million dollars and one cent. But people who control tax money that they don’t themselves personally own, and therefore can’t do whatever they want with, the bureaucrat can’t just pocket the million and go home (although it can get surprisingly close to that). All I have to do is bribe him a few thousand, and he can direct this million dollars in tax money to my favorite project or whatever, and thus the power of my bribe money is multiplied. Whereas, if you were the head of some private protection agency and I’m trying to get you to do something that costs a million dollars, I’d have to bribe you more than a million. So, the power of the rich is actually less under this system. And, of course, any court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time. They’d only want to deal with it when they’re dealing with people poorer, not people richer. The reputation effects – I don’t think this would be too popular an outfit. Worries about poor victims who can’t afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) – in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You’re too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it’s kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.
Whereas, if you were the head of some private protection agency and I’m trying to get you to do something that costs a million dollars, I’d have to bribe you more than a million. So, the power of the rich is actually less under this system. And, of course, any court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time. They’d only want to deal with it when they’re dealing with people poorer, not people richer. The reputation effects – I don’t think this would be too popular an outfit.
Worries about poor victims who can’t afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) – in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You’re too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it’s kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.
In addition, it may not be as flexible and open-minded a society as presumed since it is founded on the "commandment" that "all governent is evil". Well attacking innocent people and making a group judge in its own case is kind of lame.
In addition, it may not be as flexible and open-minded a society as presumed since it is founded on the "commandment" that "all governent is evil".
once an anarchic society is created, what tenet of anarchism protects it from the influence and abuses of statist? If you have so many questions, you should probably do more reading. Bob Murphy:
Now that we’ve focused the issue, I think there are strong reasons to suppose that civil war would be much less likely in a region dominated by private defense and judicial agencies, rather than by a monopoly State. Private agencies own the assets at their disposal, whereas politicians (especially in democracies) merely exercise temporary control over the State’s military equipment. Bill Clinton was perfectly willing to fire off dozens of cruise missiles when the Lewinsky scandal was picking up steam. Now regardless of one’s beliefs about Clinton’s motivations, clearly Slick Willie would have been less likely to launch such an attack if he had been the CEO of a private defense agency that could have sold the missiles on the open market for $569,000 each .[ii]
For example, are anarchists naive enough to believe that human avarice, envy, pride, et al are going to disappear thanks to market forces? Actually a lot of us arrive at anarchism explicitly because we expect people to be self interested and underhanded. See the above quotation for the reason why we trust private firms over government.
in practice and based on thousands of years of experience, it has not grossly inadequate to deal with the myriad human intangibles that have left it on the ash heap of history. Actually only 150 years of industrialized history. And all these governments are residual from agricultural economies, which most scholars agree is prone to statism. See Long again:
in practice and based on thousands of years of experience, it has not grossly inadequate to deal with the myriad human intangibles that have left it on the ash heap of history.
And on the question of why we don’t see any industrialized country that has anarchy – of course, we also don’t see any industrialized county that has monarchy. But then industrialized countries haven’t been around all that long. There was a time when people said every civilized country (or just about every civilized country) is a monarchy. You find people in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saying: look, all the civilized countries are monarchies; democracy would never work. And by saying democracy would never work, they meant not just that it would have these various bad results in the long run; they just thought it would completely fall apart into chaos in a matter of months. Whatever you may think of democracy, it was more viable than they predicted. It could last longer, at any rate, than they predicted. So, things are in flux. There was a time when it was all monarchies. Now it’s all semi-oligarchical democracies. The night is young.
in summary, anarchism's belief that market forces will contain human envy, pride, greed, et al has been soundly rejected by historical fact. It may shock you that monarchy, theocracy, and feudalism, are not free markets.
all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness If liberty is an inalienable right, you can't have any government because its an involuntary association. Fail.
all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Rettoper:Think about what you are asking snowflake. You are challenging my assertion that anarchic societies are untenable since I have no examples to prove are untenable.
And in the future, please try to write better. It is frequently difficult to understand you.
Rettoper:Yeah snowflake, I would say that when an anarchic society like the one in Spain is destroyed due to predation -- then logically it would be an example that anarchism has failed.
Rettoper:btw, snowflake the fascists in spain eventually removed the communists thanks to germany. of course, liberal democracies eventually sent both fascism and communism to the ash heap of history.
Rettoper:Today thanks to American hegemony -- europe is more peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free than at anytime in its tumultous past, current statist crises notwithstanding.
Rettoper:Stable limited governments --- most of europe, most of western hemisphere, most of the asian pacific rim.
Rettoper:snowflake, if japan, germany, sweden, south korea, singapore, netherlands, canada, the USA, costa rica, chile, et al are not stable -- can you produce better examples of stability?
Enough. Your arguments are faulty, yet few here can challenge them without losing their temper. Rettoper, I challenge you to a debate. One thread. Nobody else. Just you and me. The question: "Is anarchism disproved by history?" You in support of the affirmative. Me in support of the negative. During the debate, neither of us will participate in any other thread discussing the same topic. Do you accept?
Has Rettoper asked why any of us are anarchists? He seems to be attacking anarchism because it is "unsustainable," however, I don't recall any ever stating that they favor anarchism because anarchism is "sustainable."
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Rettoper:I see that you have provided arguments for why anarchic societies are unsustainable, namely anarchic societies are decentralized and therefore subject to predation by less advanced but more centralized enemies who can concentrate power.
I think it ultimately depends on the mindset of a poulation. An natural anarchy (one that spontaneously arises from the "state of nature") seems much more likely to buckle under the pressure of a militant, centralized effort (take the history of native americans in the United States). It remains to be seen if a much more ideologically cohesive, intentionally anarchic society would do the same. There is historical evidence to the contrary. Take the ability of the Mujahideen to effectively wage a geurilla campaign against the USSR, or the current situation in Afghanistan with the USA. Or perhaps the Karen or Hmong in southeast Asia, or the FARC in Columbia. To automatically dismiss Anarchic societies as inevitably failing to defend themselves against more centralized belligerents is a bit premature, IMHO.
Rettoper:It is relevant from the standpoint that if you are an advocate for a system, that system should be viable. It took liberal democracy less than 200 years to destroy monarchism that had existed for hundreds of years. In contrast, anarchism is not a proven viable system by any objective measure.
But unless a system of governance is enacted, it is impossible to say whether of not said system is viable. I don't know if I can think of a time or place in which anarcho-capitalism was intentionally enacted (history wonks?), so as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on its viability as a socio-economic political system.
As far as the length of time in which Liberalism has been viable, or beneficial to citizens of that form of government, it only took a few years before the terror of Robspierre, and a century before Liberal principles were distorted into the monstrosities of Fascism and Bolshevik Communism. Liberalism is not a panacea for human welfare. Look at the atrocities commited in Africa by (initially, at least) "Democratically elected" leaders in the last half-century.
Rettoper:I assert that liberal democracies are the most peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free based on an examination of the economic, social, and political data from these nations compared to autocratic nations. Moreover, people vote with their feet, and Western democracies generally have the highest rates of immigration, even among those states that try to restrict illegal immigration.
And I assert that that assertion is either unintentionally irrelevant, or intentionally a strawman. I don't think anyone is arguing that Liberalism is worse than autocratic dictatorships. To have anymeaning in this conversation, you would have to assert that,
"liberal democracies are the most peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free based on an examination of the economic, social, and political data from these nations compared to Anarcho-capitalistic societies."
As stated earlier, I can't really think of any, so it might be a tall order to assert that statement with any grounding or evidence beyond conjecture.
Again, it is irrelevant to this conversation to state that Liberal States are superior to autocratic nations because of large immigration numbers. Of course I would prefer the US to North Korea, or Cuba, but would I prefer the US to an AnCap society? I couldn't tell you, although I'd imagine I would prefer AnCap.
Rettoper:Lastly, I agree with you completely that the less government a society has -- the more peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable. However, there is empirical research to suggest that when government gets "too small" growth rates begin to decline. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/rahncurve/fig2xl.jpg
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/rahncurve/fig2xl.jpg
Well, that may be the case, I'm no economist. But I don't see how an anarchic society would prevent the "sweet spot" from being found. Ask ClaytonB or AJ, they'll tell you all about common law and how anarchic societies spontaneously and naturally form cohesive legislative bodies, without centralized direction or control. Anarchism doesn't necessarily and inevitably lead to chaos. If there is some perfect level of governance required to maximize potential, the free market will determine it, not some graph.
Rettoper:NOnetheless, I dont discount your assertion that we are advancing toward "every individual granted unlimited freedoms" For example, the recent statist entitlement experiment has failed abysmally and this failure will lead to less government in the long term.
Well, if we agree, then where is the argument. We both agree that the scale of government is too great, but the must be some assumed protocol of interaction between individuals for the market to realize its fullest potential.
The only divergence I can find is that I am confident in individuals to spontaneously and directly determine those guidelines of interaction, wheras you believe that these rules of interaction must be determined by a third party specialist in some centralized location.
Daniel Muffinburg:I don't recall any ever stating that they favor anarchism because anarchism is "sustainable."
Does it matter whether or not anarchy is a sustainable system? After all, If you believe that response to aggression should only be proportional to the amount of force initiated by the aggressor, an ideal, even in large numbers an anarchist "society" could easily be conquered by a Statist one in which individuals believe in disproportionate response to aggression, and trend towards the initiation of aggression as a way to maximize social equity. But even their system is unsustainable in its purity.
I'd go on arguing for anarchy anyways, whether or not it could outlast the other forms of "society" because I believe man has a self-evident, naturalistic right not to be aggressed against.
I'd even assert that trying to "maintain" anarchy would make anarchists and anarchist legislatures morally inconsistent, even if the potential was there to spontaneously organize.
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.
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.
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.
grayson,
sure.
it will be interesting and educational thats why I am here.
i will cease posting on this thread.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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 ??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rettoper:until anarchist can provided substantive actions to insure a viable and sustainable model of anarchism in the REAL WORLD
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.
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.
^rettoper don't bother responding to my post. Focus on lilburn's new thread.
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?
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
Well, thanks for what you've told me. I'll look for Browne's book.
@ 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
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.