Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?  (Read 12354 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2010, 02:05:08 AM »

I don't see why anarchists and minarchists can't or shouldn't work together.  I would dispute the idea that most minarchists focus on more state involvement in some sort of pet issue rather than a broad reduction of government power.  If you believe such people are minarchists, then I think we have a definitional problem (much like communists who call themselves "anarchists").

Living and working together aren't the same as "uniting."  I find the quote above interesting, coming from someone with an image in his avatar of his hero--the guy who suggested federal income tax withholding.

Yay, debating semantics.  "Unite" and "work together" mean basically the same thing in this context.  If you don't believe me, look up the definition of unite.

As you probably also know, Friedman regretted the role he played in setting up withholding.  He did many other things which greatly contributed to freedom later in life.  I don't know if you're a Rothbard fan, but he certainly had his statist days as well.  I don't see why there needs to be so much stupid animosity.
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2010, 09:50:24 AM »

I don't see why anarchists and minarchists can't or shouldn't work together.  I would dispute the idea that most minarchists focus on more state involvement in some sort of pet issue rather than a broad reduction of government power.  If you believe such people are minarchists, then I think we have a definitional problem (much like communists who call themselves "anarchists").

Living and working together aren't the same as "uniting."  I find the quote above interesting, coming from someone with an image in his avatar of his hero--the guy who suggested federal income tax withholding.

Yay, debating semantics.  "Unite" and "work together" mean basically the same thing in this context.  If you don't believe me, look up the definition of unite.

As you probably also know, Friedman regretted the role he played in setting up withholding.  He did many other things which greatly contributed to freedom later in life.  I don't know if you're a Rothbard fan, but he certainly had his statist days as well.  I don't see why there needs to be so much stupid animosity.

I think my point drove home the point that "semantics" matters sometimes some time.  The issue is almost a signature issue for the difference.  They do not mean the same thing in this context.  Anarchists will never "unite" with statists, though they may occasionally work together.  I don't see why compromise has to go so far as to deny differences in principles.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 10:38:16 AM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2010, 10:29:46 AM »

Such a general, simplistic statement also undermines any intellectual legitimacy you might show in the rest of the thread.

I don't know any details of Dale's current bad situation, but offered general well-wishes in demonstration of my high esteem for him.

Seriously, I hope the remaining work on Intense is free of major troubles and that the finished project is a huge success. Because I and my family want to get involved after we move.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2010, 10:52:17 AM »

I don't see why anarchists and minarchists can't or shouldn't work together.  I would dispute the idea that most minarchists focus on more state involvement in some sort of pet issue rather than a broad reduction of government power.  If you believe such people are minarchists, then I think we have a definitional problem (much like communists who call themselves "anarchists").

Living and working together aren't the same as "uniting."  I find the quote above interesting, coming from someone with an image in his avatar of his hero--the guy who suggested federal income tax withholding.

Yay, debating semantics.  "Unite" and "work together" mean basically the same thing in this context.  If you don't believe me, look up the definition of unite.

As you probably also know, Friedman regretted the role he played in setting up withholding.  He did many other things which greatly contributed to freedom later in life.  I don't know if you're a Rothbard fan, but he certainly had his statist days as well.  I don't see why there needs to be so much stupid animosity.

I think my point drove home the point that "semantics" matters sometimes some time.  The issue is almost a signature issue for the difference.  They do not mean the same thing in this context.  Anarchists will never "unite" with statists, though they may occasionally work together.  I don't see why compromise has to go so far as to deny differences in principles.

Ok, here it goes:

Quote

u·nite
1    /yuˈnaɪt/ Show Spelled [yoo-nahyt] Show IPA verb, u·nit·ed, u·nit·ing.
[/u]
–verb (used with object)
1.
to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form a single whole or unit.
2.
to cause to adhere: to unite two pieces of wood with glue.
3.
to cause to be in a state of mutual sympathy, or to have a common opinion or attitude.
4.
to have or exhibit in union or combination: a person who unites generosity and forgiveness.
5.
to join in marriage.
–verb (used without object) (Hint: this is how it's being used here)
6.
to become joined together or combined so as to form a single whole.
7.
to act in concert or agreement.

8.
to share a common opinion, attitude, etc.
9.
to be joined by or as if by adhesion.

I guess we can't unite because we're always too busy reading the dictionary.
Logged

LTKoblinsky

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2010, 10:59:03 AM »

At least you guys use the correct meanings for terms. I can't tell you how many times Ian and Mark drive me up the wall by getting meanings wrong.
Logged

My wife's new site. Covers fashion, motherhood, our journey to NH, and soon activism.

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2010, 11:00:38 AM »

I don't see why anarchists and minarchists can't or shouldn't work together.  I would dispute the idea that most minarchists focus on more state involvement in some sort of pet issue rather than a broad reduction of government power.  If you believe such people are minarchists, then I think we have a definitional problem (much like communists who call themselves "anarchists").

Living and working together aren't the same as "uniting."  I find the quote above interesting, coming from someone with an image in his avatar of his hero--the guy who suggested federal income tax withholding.

Yay, debating semantics.  "Unite" and "work together" mean basically the same thing in this context.  If you don't believe me, look up the definition of unite.

As you probably also know, Friedman regretted the role he played in setting up withholding.  He did many other things which greatly contributed to freedom later in life.  I don't know if you're a Rothbard fan, but he certainly had his statist days as well.  I don't see why there needs to be so much stupid animosity.

I think my point drove home the point that "semantics" matters sometimes some time.  The issue is almost a signature issue for the difference.  They do not mean the same thing in this context.  Anarchists will never "unite" with statists, though they may occasionally work together.  I don't see why compromise has to go so far as to deny differences in principles.

Ok, here it goes:

Quote

u·nite
1    /yuˈnaɪt/ Show Spelled [yoo-nahyt] Show IPA verb, u·nit·ed, u·nit·ing.
[/u]
–verb (used with object)
1.
to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form a single whole or unit.
2.
to cause to adhere: to unite two pieces of wood with glue.
3.
to cause to be in a state of mutual sympathy, or to have a common opinion or attitude.
4.
to have or exhibit in union or combination: a person who unites generosity and forgiveness.
5.
to join in marriage.
–verb (used without object) (Hint: this is how it's being used here)
6.
to become joined together or combined so as to form a single whole.
7.
to act in concert or agreement.

8.
to share a common opinion, attitude, etc.
9.
to be joined by or as if by adhesion.

I guess we can't unite because we're always too busy reading the dictionary.

FAIL!

We obviously aren't in concert or agreement.  Also, it is instructive that you reached for definition number seven.  You'd do well to pay attention to the other eight definitions in your own citation.

Once again, there's no issue about working together.  It's the assertion of unity that's offensive.


...and for what it's worth, you reached for the dictionary.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 11:05:03 AM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged

LTKoblinsky

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2010, 11:07:54 AM »

The FAIL here is you, WTF Ken. The fact that def. 7 is included means that particular connotation is a widely used in conversation and discussion. It is clear that the OP was suggesting a form of alliance or working together towards the same end.
Logged

My wife's new site. Covers fashion, motherhood, our journey to NH, and soon activism.

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2010, 11:30:43 AM »

The FAIL here is you, WTF Ken. The fact that def. 7 is included means that particular connotation is a widely used in conversation and discussion. It is clear that the OP was suggesting a form of alliance or working together towards the same end.

I pointed out specifically that definition seven does not apply.  The fat fact that this thread exists indicates that we are neither in concert nor in agreement.  I'm not going to let either of you off that easily.  I'll go so far as to point out that "unity" in a political context is clearly a collectivist term.  Being "joined as if by adhesion" and assumed to be "in concert or agreement" is exactly the shit the statists pull when they refer to "our" troops, "our" socialist government indoctrination centers, aka "public" schools, "our" "leaders" and "our" electric chair.

They're not mine.  That would require unity.  I'm not glued to you, or the state, but you and the state insist that I am.  I resent the assertion.  I am not a collectivist, though I understand the emotional attachment to the collectivist propaganda, and I'm encouraging you to abandon it.

I've been lucidly unambiguous about the difference, and your clinging to collectivist terms and insisting they must apply to me is indicative of the obvious mass propaganda most people are subject to, that you must insist to the point of absurdity that we are joined at the hip.  WE ARE NOT.  

The fact that you cannot even see the distinction is indicative of the damage being done by the state, and the need to emphasize the lack of "unity" rational people have with it; your clinging to this point is profoundly disturbing.

One more time, this does not mean I do not join the minarchists in celebration when they actually manage to support less state oppression.  I've been very clear, for example, in my gratitude to the people of Colorado for passing medical cannabis, so I can get medicine which helps me without extreme risks, and I applaud such initiatives, however rare.  I'll even support an occasional congress-critter's election campaign in opposition to a more statist one--the obvious example being Ron Paul.  This is also rare for me (Ron Paul, for example, probably exercises more restraint than I would in his place.)

Nevertheless, any recognition of my ability to work together with you on occasion cannot be construed as "unity."
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 11:48:13 AM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged

LTKoblinsky

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #38 on: September 06, 2010, 11:48:44 AM »

Your statements are simply expressions of vitriol and childishness. Perhaps you should have gone back and read the thread again before lashing out about collectivists and statists. The obvious connotation was working together against a current situations and saving our differences for a more appropriate context.
Logged

My wife's new site. Covers fashion, motherhood, our journey to NH, and soon activism.

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #39 on: September 06, 2010, 11:59:37 AM »

Your statements are simply expressions of vitriol and childishness. Perhaps you should have gone back and read the thread again before lashing out about collectivists and statists. The obvious connotation was working together against a current situations and saving our differences for a more appropriate context.

My insistence on being an individual, not united with "fellow travelers," are neither "of vitriol" nor "of childishness."  They're of principle.  The distinction is what defines the difference between mini-statism and non-statism.  Your continued assertion that it is anything other than that appears to be of residual collectivism.  The obvious connotation is acceptance of the state and its ability to bind the individual (or at least the legitimacy of it), which is a non-starter.  That's why I broached the subject with a question, responded when someone else implied he got it, and responded in horror when the distinction was sidestepped.

Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #40 on: September 06, 2010, 02:13:37 PM »

I'm glad I horrify you.
Logged

alaric89

  • Guest
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2010, 02:23:48 PM »

I don't care whether you ally with them or not, but I think people should stop calling them minarchists.  They believe in a minimal state.  They are mini-statists.

Dude, it's because of your cartoon that I use the term "minarchist" at all.
I am not a mini statist. That is a term for George Bush's cock.
I am a libertarian,O.K.?
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #42 on: September 06, 2010, 04:42:40 PM »

Dude, it's because of your cartoon that I use the term "minarchist" at all.

Bad habit I picked up from others.  I'm trying to break myself of it though.

I just think it's a more accurate term.  Does it bother you?

Chaz Munro

  • Guest
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2010, 05:23:12 PM »

To me it matters what is meant when the term "unite" is used. Do I have to compromise my (anarchist/voluntaryist) beliefs to stand next to a minarchist at a protest or outreach? Of course not. So why not unite if I don't have to go against my principles?

The minarchist is working towards liberty in his or her own way. This means an eventual net gain to freedom that the statist hack can't offer even on his best day, and personally I'll take help wherever I can get it.

Today's libertarian is possibly tomorrow's anarchist. He only needs some time to be shown that the Legion of Doom can't be trusted to secure our freedoms. When the monster sinks it's fangs deep enough into his ass to where you can hear him yell miles away, the minarchist will then finally get it.

It is all collapsing around us anyway because it is unsustainable. Even the statists will cozy up to the idea of not having a "boss" outside the workplace.  So the minarchist won't bide his time pissing and moaning about a lack of the nanny state in his life. Gooberment still proceeds with the same voracious appetite for what limited funds people still have, that it did when folks had more to extract from their pockets.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 05:40:36 PM by Chaz Munro »
Logged

anarchir

  • Extraordinaire
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5103
  • No victim, no crime.
    • View Profile
    • Prepared Security
Re: Should minarchists and anarchists unite?
« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2010, 06:57:21 PM »

I don't see why anarchists and minarchists can't or shouldn't work together.  I would dispute the idea that most minarchists focus on more state involvement in some sort of pet issue rather than a broad reduction of government power.  If you believe such people are minarchists, then I think we have a definitional problem (much like communists who call themselves "anarchists").

Living and working together aren't the same as "uniting."  I find the quote above interesting, coming from someone with an image in his avatar of his hero--the guy who suggested federal income tax withholding.

Yay, debating semantics.  "Unite" and "work together" mean basically the same thing in this context.  If you don't believe me, look up the definition of unite.

As you probably also know, Friedman regretted the role he played in setting up withholding.  He did many other things which greatly contributed to freedom later in life.  I don't know if you're a Rothbard fan, but he certainly had his statist days as well.  I don't see why there needs to be so much stupid animosity.

I think my point drove home the point that "semantics" matters sometimes some time.  The issue is almost a signature issue for the difference.  They do not mean the same thing in this context.  Anarchists will never "unite" with statists, though they may occasionally work together.  I don't see why compromise has to go so far as to deny differences in principles.

Ok, here it goes:

Quote

u·nite
1    /yuˈnaɪt/ Show Spelled [yoo-nahyt] Show IPA verb, u·nit·ed, u·nit·ing.
[/u]
–verb (used with object)
1.
to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form a single whole or unit.
2.
to cause to adhere: to unite two pieces of wood with glue.
3.
to cause to be in a state of mutual sympathy, or to have a common opinion or attitude.
4.
to have or exhibit in union or combination: a person who unites generosity and forgiveness.
5.
to join in marriage.
–verb (used without object) (Hint: this is how it's being used here)
6.
to become joined together or combined so as to form a single whole.
7.
to act in concert or agreement.

8.
to share a common opinion, attitude, etc.
9.
to be joined by or as if by adhesion.

I guess we can't unite because we're always too busy reading the dictionary.


Dictionary quotes suck. Definitions are made and molded, not given.
Logged
Good people disobey bad laws.
PreparedSecurity.com - Modern security and preparedness for the 21st century.
 [img width= height= alt=Prepared Security]http://www.prepareddesign.com/uploads/4/4/3/6/4436847/1636340_orig.png[/img]
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Should minarchists and anarchists unite?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 31 queries.