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
|-+  Profile of dalebert
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dalebert

Pages: 1 ... 353 354 [355]
The Polling Pit / Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« on: May 08, 2007, 04:02:32 PM »
Whenever that government exceeds its bounds it exceeds the definition of minarchy, it becomes tyranny, and people have the individual right to relinquish their power to aide it at any time before or after. And it is just as simple as that.

As long as participation is voluntary, I have no moral problem with it. Call it whatever you want. I'm not married to the term "anarchy". I'm not going to be argumentative over semantics.

The Polling Pit / Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« on: May 08, 2007, 08:58:00 AM »
Seriously though, it seems to me that humanity isn't ready for the "purely principled" solution yet, so why the continual intellectual masturbation when we (should) all agree to at least get the ball moving in the same direction.

I completely agree that we should all be moving toward less government. I'm actually a pretty practical person. I'm definately anarchist in philosophy but even as I'm arguing for it on principle, I am quick to point out that I don't actually expect to achieve it in my lifetime.

You are correct that we will likely never achieve a state of total anarchy even far into the future. Some people somewhere are bound to establish some form of forceful government. However, in a society where anarchist ideals are common, it would not be allowed to gain enough reach and power that most people could not avoid it. I've said before that it's a mistake to argue that any particular form of government or lack thereof would achieve a Utopia. I just think a moral approach based on strong principles is better. Until each and every human being on earth is perfect, neither will it's constructs be. Crime will always exist, for instance. I just believe that a freer society would have much less of it.

Right now it's nigh impossible to avoid the reach of the state and live completely by anarchist ideals. If I so much as get pulled over for a ticket and then continue to resist/ignore government, the situation can escalate until I'm put in jail. The violation for jail wasn't getting the ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. The crime you can go to jail for is not respecting their authority. The very existance of a state that uses force against innocent people has allowed something to grow that wants to become totalitarian. To maintain the illusion of legitimacy, it has to crush any resistance even to minor transgressions of its authority. This is the demon seed of minarchy.

Now, having said that I don't expect to achieve it in my lifetime, I have to add that I find myself becoming more optimistic. Why? I think anarchism is a meme that is destined to survive in the evolution of memes. I have a theory that the freedom of expression of the Internet is speeding up the evolutionary process of memes. The illogical memes cannot ultimately survive this process in any strength. The same thing that's making me have optimism about Ron Paul's candidacy when originally I just hoped he would have some small voice makes me optimistic about freedom in general. Something tells me that the false legitimacy of the state will see new challenges every day.

The Polling Pit / Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« on: May 07, 2007, 08:57:40 PM »
I guess this thread presents a good opportunity to "officially" announce that I have now evolved from minarchist to anarchist. The change actually took place perhaps a few months ago but I haven't been that active in the forums while I moved across the country.

If you believe organized law is essentially evil, then you must admit it's actually the people who create the system who are evil, thereby solidifying a reason to have a system which keeps the nasty people in check. 

No, I don't have to admit that. The expression "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Some will call government a "necessary evil" so they will do a little bit of evil in order to prevent what they believe will be greater evil if they don't. The problem is that power attracts the corruptable. The government may be established with good intentions, but the power to use force preemptively against innocent people is bound to corrupt.

The idea that a government must exist to maintain order is built on false logic. We can and should live by certain principles in order to live in a civilized society, but the principles go out the window as soon as a government is established. The idea that force is wrong and one should not use it against another person unless it's in response to the use of force is a good foundation for a free and prosperous society. We have the right and responsiblity to defend ourselves from the infringement of our own rights. That's how we keep the nasty people in check. We can and I think should work together to do that in a way that doesn't use aggressive or preemptive force. Do you not see how stealing from people in order to fund a police force in order to protect people from crimes (like theft) is completely irrational? Nevermind that police spend the vast majority of their time enforcing victimless crimes and doing paperwork.

Regarding National defense, how is that any different than funding welfare? Many people believe we need a strong National defense. That's fine. Do something about it. There's nothing stopping you in a free society. Collect contributions and build an army for defensive purposes. The truer the threat is, the easier time you'll have of convincing others of the importance of it. That army would be a lot more accountable and therefore less evil. If they took actions that people believed to be immoral, their funding would dry up. But you don't have the right to make someone pay for it (steal from them to pay for it) any more than you have a right to steal from people to pay for welfare, no matter how important you believe it to be.

A socialist friend of mine justified a progressive tax by saying that the wealthy have a lot more at stake in a time of war, and therefore should be expected to contribute more toward things like National defense. So if one really believes that, then those people will surely step up and defend this country to preserve their wealth, yes?

Not only is the state inherently immoral, but it's unnecessary in a free society. As soon as you establish a state, you're establishing authority by some people over other people. You're saying that some people are better than others and that might makes right. They are in the position of authority so what they decide becomes right by virtue only of the fact that they will enforce their decision. What could possibly make such an organization legitimate? A vote by 50.1% of the population? They're right because they're in the majority? History shows that the majority opinion is frequently very wrong.

The Polling Pit / Re: DO RIGHTS EXIST?
« on: August 16, 2006, 11:24:07 PM »
I agree with sms5150... I think. According to purely natural law, might makes right. In other words, you can claim some property for as long as you can defend it. If you're alone in the jungle, your right to life is as good as your ability to defend yourself from the hungry tiger who is attempting to homestead your flesh for his dinner. Society is built upon the notion of rights as a basis for determining between right and wrong. Therefore, I voted that rights are only as good as the defense of said rights. We create them as a way to get along in a cooperative society and then society defends them. We determine as a society when to intervene based on someone's right getting violated. Without societal intervention, we revert back to natural law where might makes right.

Can someone explain the view of rights from an anarchist perspective? I get the gist that anarchism is belief in no government but at the same time they don't seem to approve of murder and theft. Does it just mean no organization is responsible for enforcing the right to be free from aggression? But they believe in free trade, so a voluntary neighborhood watch whereby they take turns looking after each others' property is acceptable, but then that's a very small and simple form of local government. It's like Libertarians believe in minimal government and Anarchists believe in really really REALLY minimal government.

The Polling Pit / Re: DO RIGHTS EXIST?
« on: August 12, 2006, 01:39:16 PM »
I think this is a crucial question for Libertarians to ask and be able to answer. Rights are a human construct, and if we try to claim otherwise, we put ourselves in the undesirable position of trying to defend a belief system that's based on faith. We should be arguing for why individual freedoms and voluntary cooperation is superior to the use of force to achieve our individual goals as well as our shared goals. That's an argument that we can win on the basis of logic. Belief in innate rights is similar to a religious belief. It's an intangible thing. You may feel it in your heart and it may make sense for you to treat that as evidence, but it's irrational to expect someone else to share your belief based on a divine inspiration that you feel internally and he doesn't. Thomas Paine talked about this with respect to religion.

If we can argue and even give tangible evidence for how freedom moves every individual and the entire human race forward, then maybe they will start to feel it as well-- that yes, this is how things SHOULD be. Freedom is distinctively RIGHT and tyranny is distinctively WRONG.

Pages: 1 ... 353 354 [355]

Page created in 0.224 seconds with 32 queries.