A forum for anarcho-capitalists.

[anarchir]

Yes, it is a reddit page:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstAllArchons

Should be good for some discussions we can drag back here. From the page:

Dedicated to the realization of an archon-free world. See an archon-based understanding of voluntary relationships for more information on the topic.

Our (abridged) mission statement: to discuss philosophical topics, current events, and ethics of everything related to relationships with archons (politicians, teachers, abusive parents, police, or any other aggressive people). To talk about, and come up with, rational strategies to strip archons and archists of their power and influence, and bring about an archon-free world.

While we do encourage live-spirited debate and hard-core questioning of ideas, we do have a zero tolerance policy for aggressive or abusive people and defenders of archons (religious, political or familial). This is intended to be a safe place, and we will keep it that way.

[SeanD]

So....Anarchists with strict rules about what you can say?  Lol

[anarchir]

Because the other forum ended up getting swamped with non-anarcho-capitalists.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

So anarchists are also against family units?

Who knew.

[anarchir]

Are you strawman'ing yourself?

[Cognitive Dissident]

So....Anarchists with strict rules about what you can say?  Lol

You see, this is the problem with the (WRONG) assertion that anarchists are against rules.  It's not rules, it's rulers.  A sovereign over his own property gets to make rules.  Without this, there could be no rule of law, and without rule of law you would have what the un-initiated refer to as anarchy.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Are you strawman'ing yourself?

"Familial archons"

[Defendant]

While we do encourage live-spirited debate and hard-core questioning of ideas, we do have a zero tolerance policy for aggressive or abusive people and defenders of archons (religious, political or familial). This is intended to be a safe place, and we will keep it that way.

In other words, a circle jerk.

[SeanD]

So....Anarchists with strict rules about what you can say?  Lol

You see, this is the problem with the (WRONG) assertion that anarchists are against rules.  It's not rules, it's rulers.  A sovereign over his own property gets to make rules.  Without this, there could be no rule of law, and without rule of law you would have what the un-initiated refer to as anarchy.

While you are mostly correct (I do know the difference between rules and rulers) it reads like it was written by ardent Statists who are afraid of opinions that are TOO far from their own.  "Zero tolerance policy" - Please - straight out of the Statist Handbook for we don't want to have to look as context.  Turns question how various tenets fit into everyday life into "questions tenets" - you must be statist - are are BANNED.  Kinda like public school zero tolerance nanny statism don't you think?

[Cognitive Dissident]

So....Anarchists with strict rules about what you can say?  Lol

You see, this is the problem with the (WRONG) assertion that anarchists are against rules.  It's not rules, it's rulers.  A sovereign over his own property gets to make rules.  Without this, there could be no rule of law, and without rule of law you would have what the un-initiated refer to as anarchy.

While you are mostly correct (I do know the difference between rules and rulers) it reads like it was written by ardent Statists who are afraid of opinions that are TOO far from their own.  "Zero tolerance policy" - Please - straight out of the Statist Handbook for we don't want to have to look as context.  Turns question how various tenets fit into everyday life into "questions tenets" - you must be statist - are are BANNED.  Kinda like public school zero tolerance nanny statism don't you think?

Fair enough.  However, I think the question is less one of whether a principled anarchist can have such a policy (and still be principled) and whether it's a good idea.  I don't think it's a good idea to squelch speech in general, either--regardless of who is doing it--but I don't think there's any inconsistency in principle.  In fact, you could argue that for some purposes, you might want to lock out all the "wrong-thinkers" (only half joking) for the purpose of honing discussion in a particular way. 

The purpose for this would be only in a limited context, however, such as a group of people who throw a bunch of money into a hat in order to invest it in some sort of "liberty-oriented" project.  If such a group found itself deliberately "attended" and "filibustered" by statists, one may wish to rid themselves.  I suspect they want to rid themselves, for the purpose of the type of discussion they want to foster in their circle, of statists.  It's not like statists can't enjoy free speech in just about every other context.

[alaric89]

Right. Even some libertarians can't have any honest debate about some things they feel strongly about. Good conversations are often squelched by people who blow a fuse over discussions involving some wedge issue like race, feminism, their own ego etc. I believe the conversation should always be open as possible. Trolls or unindoctrinated types can be used as practice to hone principled debate skills.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Right. Even some libertarians can't have any honest debate about some things they feel strongly about. Good conversations are often squelched by people who blow a fuse over discussions involving some wedge issue like race, feminism, their own ego etc. I believe the conversation should always be open as possible. Trolls or unindoctrinated types can be used as practice to hone principled debate skills.

The trolls strive to stop communication altogether, unless they can turn it into whatever gets their rocks off, such as racism, as we've seen here.

[alaric89]

Right. I consider people, that tend to drag others into the same old squabble looking for a excuse to bitch, as kind of a troll as well.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

And on a related note, a forum where everybody has to toe the line has got to be pretty boring.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Right. I consider people, that tend to drag others into the same old squabble looking for a excuse to bitch, as kind of a troll as well.

I'm partial to the ones who claim people are looking for an excuse to bitch after having been trolled off topic.