Anarchism vs. Libertarianism

[madfranks]

In another thread (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/where-do-you-stand-politically-%2810-questions-quiz%29/) started by Quixote2 the topic of anarchism vs. libertarianism was brought up by a few members. I admit I don't know as much about anarchism as I do libertarianism, and my understanding of anarchy is probably similar to most of the population. As far as I understand, anarchy is the abolishing of all laws where people live and die by their own rules. I wonder how such a society could function. If there were no laws protecting your property from aggression by others, how would you enforce the protection of your property?

If there were no laws prohibiting aggression of any sorts on another person's life, liberty or property, don't we all become our own law, responsible to defend and protect our own life, liberty and property with no higher claim upon which to appeal our sufferings? Everyone's individual ability to enforce their rights and protect themselves is all they would have, and wouldn't any agreements or contracts between communities to uphold and enforce similar values be the same as issuing laws, effectively negating the anarchist philosophy?

How do rights exist in an anarchist society? If there is no respect or even acknowledgment of the rights of others, again your rights exist only as far as you are able to personally enforce them among everyone else. Doesn't society need some sort of cohesive understanding and acceptance of a certain ethos in order to function? Or do anarchists count on individual goodwill and faith in others to treat everyone as they wish to be treated in the absence of any obligation to do so?

Does right and wrong exist in an anarchist society? If there are no laws against aggressive behavior towards someone else, is theft/rape/murder wrong? If the individual human is the highest and only claim to a moral worldview, if one person reasons that theft and killing is a justifiable way of living, who could tell him different? On what authority would one be able to tell him he is wrong?

Thoughts...?

[keehah]

The birds and the bees do it. Even the bugs and the trees do it.

And so did we till the first stopped about 10 or 20 thousand years ago when human parasites sold us on protection rackets. A few tribes still know nothing but this sort of life to this day.

In fact we do it every day. Take for example walking on the sidewalk. People may tend to walk on the right in North America as we drive this way, but there is no rule saying we must. OMG anarchy on the streets sidewalks every day!

Look at that nice person coming my way. Smile.
See that short person coming at me with the umbrella obvlivous to the fact its coming right for my eyes? I raise my hand and 'wap' its out of my way and gives the idiot a jolt.
Look at that obnoxious person oblivious to everyone else making them move or hitting them coming my way. Now I just put my shoulder into it at just the right time....

People who sell protection rackets need you to believe you need their protection. If I had no other option for justice, I could live with the fact that if someone murdered my son, I'll murder him at some later date of my choosing and everyone (including the perps family) will consider it fair, I do like the fact that we are taxed for people to handle this for us. When it comes to garbage on my neighbours front yard, rather than being taxed for laws and tattling for enforcement I'd prefer to take care of this myself. Either clean the crap up myself, or convince him to in some way. Would take a lot less of my time than working to pay the taxes to have a bureaucracy do this for me.

I'd like written rules to keep us safe from not obvious assault, like poisoned food and products. But this has been a failure lately, and in fact the laws mainly seem to serve other's interests over the good of society.

And like I said before, Anarchism or Libertarianism is mainly an age thing IMO. The older one is the weaker one is and the more one has to protect.

'Anarchy is the abolishing of all laws' seems like a strawman. Like saying statism means no freedom. Even prisoners have the freedom to crap and breathe when they want for example. Anarchy involves still acting with knowledge of the potential consequences of your actions. Cohesive understanding and acceptance of a certain ethos can exist without a set of written rules and a certain class of people to enforce them. Take this forum for example. One only needs to be able to banish from the community those members who choose not to accept the certain ethos.

[Agrippa]

As far as I understand, anarchy is the abolishing of all laws where people live and die by their own rules.


Your understanding is flawed. Anarchy is the state of having no ruler, master, or owner: not of having no laws. We are used to our rulers claiming a monopoly on the supply and administration of law, so it takes some effort to realise that this isn't the only way in which these services can be supplied. Similarly, a resident of North Korea might believe that food can only be supplied by government; hence anarchy would equate to starvation and cannibalism. Because of the reality that governments suck at supplying goods and services: we starve for justice while the North Koreans starve for bread.

[hoarder]

"Anarchy is the state of having no ruler, master, or owner: not of having no laws. "

Living under the United States Constitution is the state of having no ruler, master, or owner: not of having no laws. :D

[jaybone]

I am an anarchist at heart, and a libertarian in practice.

IMO government cannot exist without the use of force and I find the use of force to be immoral.

The happy medium is local rule, by consent, under Common Law.

Common Law means you do what you want unless it tangibly damages another.

civil law means you do what your force-wielding masters tell you to of you suffer their force, ie. immoral.

[palani]

Living under the United States Constitution is the state of having no ruler, master, or owner: not of having no laws.

Come again? The U.S. constitution was intended to be and still is primarily a financial document to permit the novation of federal debt to the several States. With the 14th amendment this novation was extended directly to the people who have taken this concept and decided that perpetual bankruptcy is preferable to abiding by an honest system of weights and measures. The law promoted by the U.S. constitution is that of Bernie Madoff.

[hoarder]

I find the use of force to be immoral.
Even when force is used to resist force?

[iOWNme]

I am an anarchist at heart, and a libertarian in practice.

IMO government cannot exist without the use of force and I find the use of force to be immoral.

The happy medium is local rule, by consent, under Common Law.

Common Law means you do what you want unless it tangibly damages another.

civil law means you do what your force-wielding masters tell you to of you suffer their force, ie. immoral.



ALL morality is negative. A negative force against the freedom to kill, a negative force against the freedom to steal.

The entire US CON and Bill of Rights are NEGATIVE forces against the Government. "No State shall........" "Congress shall make no Law......" By putting a negative force against the Government a RIGHT is created. That is why it is called the Bill of 'Rights', because the Government is restricted from even entering the field.

Without the negative use of force, there can be no morality. All morality is negative.

Now look to the 14th Amendment: "All citizens have the Right to vote....." - Do you see how this is an oxymoron? The Government cannot create a RIGHT. A Right is created by the absence of Government, not its existence. It is quite clear the founders understood this.

There has never been an anarchy form of Government. It cannot exist. In a society with no Laws, the very first time someone tries to steal, a group of people will form to stop the stealing. Once that group of people form, they become the Government and anarchy ceases to exist. Anarchy is only used when a small group of the minority wants to take control of the majority. For if they were in the majority, they wouldnt need to use anarchy to come to power. And you can bet that the small group of the minority using anarchy to come to power, is really just the same group in power already. The cleat that is trying to overthrow the existing cleat, is usually the cleat that is in existence.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The common perception of anarchism is 'no laws'; the true nature of anarchism is 'no rulers'.

Why is it so difficult to grasp that laws are necessary while rulers aren't? Try to imagine a place where there is no 'Executive', but people live by a set of commonly agreed to set of rules that everyone knows, and everyone knows when someone else is breaking those rules? You don't need a ruler to put the lawbreakers in jail. You just need an agreement among a number of citizens that the rulebreakers should be removed from the society until they stop breaking the rules. There are no 'policies' -- just rules. You obey the rules. Everything else is done voluntarily.

In this kind of society there would be no wars. Only common defense against attackers.

What the US Constitution did was to allow a Ruler, but to limit the power of that ruler. Rulers tend to be bullies. People who love freedom don't take kindly to being bullied. The bottom line of anarchism is FREEDOM. People who enjoy freedom tend to be anarchists.

Hatha

[Ash_Williams]

Anarchy is what the world is in reality. A ruler or law or government is only what it is in the here and now, to us. It's not something greater. The world cares as much about our hierarchy as we care about the hierarchy of an anthill. The borders are imaginary... humans are the only things that can't cross them. All property is that way too: possession might 9/10ths of the law but it's 10/10ths outside of human society.

Libertarianism just adds one level that we have more or less added naturally, to pretend as if property and borders and laws actually exist. I think that's about as much as you can add to anarchy and still have everyone be ok with it.

[Book]

Cohesive understanding and acceptance of a certain ethos can exist without a set of written rules and a certain class of people to enforce them. Take this forum for example. One only needs to be able to banish from the community those members who choose not to accept the certain ethos.



http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/rawrzorz/jewjitsu.jpg

The title and topic of this thread is a hilarious waste of time. Happened all the time at GIM1. All we need is one jew arriving at any village to confound the goyim:


con·found
verb \kən-ˈfau̇nd, kän-\
Definition of CONFOUND
transitive verb

a archaic : to bring to ruin : destroy b : baffle, frustrate



Suddenly weird things start happening to our Reality: TSA agents stick their hands down our pants while telling us they are "protecting" us. Federal Government sues Arizona for enforcing existing federal Immigration law while they themselves refuse to. Second Amendment is constantly and regularly "interpreted" by jew judges when the language was and is already simple and plain. Three simple words "Selfishness Is Good" becomes a 1088-page talmudic monstrosity called Atlas Shrugged. The "Patriot Act" is the opposite. "Fair and Balanced" is ironically the Fox News slogan. "Israel" remains occupied Palestine after 65 years. Truth becomes criminal "hate speech". GIM's Three Simple Rules were constantly cited while banning most of us here.

Anarchism vs. Libertarianism is a silly jew wordgame that keeps the goyim distracted while ZOG robs us all blind.

:oo-->

[MAGNES]

Cohesive understanding and acceptance of a certain ethos can exist without a set of written rules and a certain class of people to enforce them. Take this forum for example. One only needs to be able to banish from the community those members who choose not to accept the certain ethos.



http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/rawrzorz/jewjitsu.jpg

The title and topic of this thread is a hilarious waste of time. Happened all the time at GIM1. All we need is one jew arriving at any village to confound the goyim:


con·found
verb \kən-ˈfau̇nd, kän-\
Definition of CONFOUND
transitive verb

a archaic : to bring to ruin : destroy b : baffle, frustrate



Suddenly weird things start happening to our Reality: TSA agents stick their hands down our pants while telling us they are "protecting" us. Federal Government sues Arizona for enforcing existing federal Immigration law while they themselves refuse to. Second Amendment is constantly and regularly "interpreted" by jew judges when the language was and is already simple and plain. Three simple words "Selfishness Is Good" becomes a 1088-page talmudic monstrosity called Atlas Shrugged. The "Patriot Act" is the opposite. "Fair and Balanced" is ironically the Fox News slogan. "Israel" remains occupied Palestine after 65 years. Truth becomes criminal "hate speech". GIM's Three Simple Rules were constantly cited while banning most of us here.

Anarchism vs. Libertarianism is a silly jew wordgame that keeps the goyim distracted while ZOG robs us all blind.

:oo-->



Skyvike was for the " Patriot " Act, ( Patriot, notice Orwellian use of word, Patriot=to honor your fathers, Nation, etc, ) , he stated that himself, and he promoted Anarchy on gim.
And he waged war on real history and was confronted over and over by me and others.

The more I read about anarchy the more confused it becomes, lol .
A good friend of ours had a lot to say about this confusion, weighed in once,
about anarchy and communism, in it's original form, best take ever to understanding.
He doesn't post anymore, I think Philosophy was his area, like Anty Ep.

I am with Book on this, his take in general, the occult JewJitSu parasites are behind all of this.

I would only add, what would Plato and Socrates say ? LOL
Book, you are with them. lol

These guys were and are key targets of the Occult Jews Masons, ever wonder
why skykyke promoted " anarchy " and all other sh*t, Mr Mason, and his occult
queen partnership the self proclaimed "devil worshiper" on here after being
confronted on another one of her disinformation campaigns linked to Lucifer.
They did it on a personal level.

It is very simple to understand, it is all corruptions, they exist for only that.
Corruption of history, truth, justice, total deceit, our real founding fathers
and leaders of the West sh*t on.

" All philosophy is a footnote to Plato. " Famous modern philosopher, White maybe.
Who was Plato ? It is not an easy answer.
Who are the idiots ? Skyvike thought in email exchange I was
calling him an idiot by asking this question at the end. LOL

Governance is as perfect as people. Plato/Socrates/Aristotle
Fiat is as perfect as people. Aristotle
This is why morality and ethics are promoted, law, justice,
the morality of the state and justice are key topics.
Separation of powers, Republicanism, juries, anti Oligarchy/Monopoly/Tyranny,
you will never have Utopia, never, because of people,
they ain't just and perfect, man is a political animal.

One of the greatest works ever as well is Plutarchs Lives,
covers much of this.

All the corruption is possible because of idiots. IDOTES .

The FF were great students of all of this.

Who are the idiots ? Just as in the past, just as today,
corruption and injustice is possible because good people
are not involved, the majority are just and moral.
The word comes to us from, ithiotes in greek, those
that are not involved in community political affairs.
Even tribal greeks pre Athens voted and were expected
to be involved.

There is no perfect system, never will be.
The Republic is more important today than
it ever was, today, a complicated masterpiece.
Effecting every Western philosopher that ever
existed. Even Jesus Christ and Christianity.
It is no accident Christians built the West.

Mock me all you want, jokes on the mockers,
I just did a major review in book and podcast form
last 2 summers, many authors, this was not my
area and was part of my Occult studies, to understand
the corruptors.

[madfranks]

The common perception of anarchism is 'no laws'; the true nature of anarchism is 'no rulers'.

Why is it so difficult to grasp that laws are necessary while rulers aren't? Try to imagine a place where there is no 'Executive', but people live by a set of commonly agreed to set of rules that everyone knows, and everyone knows when someone else is breaking those rules? You don't need a ruler to put the lawbreakers in jail. You just need an agreement among a number of citizens that the rulebreakers should be removed from the society until they stop breaking the rules. There are no 'policies' -- just rules. You obey the rules. Everything else is done voluntarily.

In this kind of society there would be no wars. Only common defense against attackers.

What the US Constitution did was to allow a Ruler, but to limit the power of that ruler. Rulers tend to be bullies. People who love freedom don't take kindly to being bullied. The bottom line of anarchism is FREEDOM. People who enjoy freedom tend to be anarchists.

Hatha


So who enforces the removal of said rulebreakers? And what if the rulebreaker never agreed to any of the rules anyway? Or if he once did, but changed his mind? Now he is facing aggression against his person for breaking someone else's rules that he does not recognize.

[k-os]

I think this is an excellent topic for discussion. I am marking this for later, because I am supposed to be working right now. :o

[Book]

So who enforces the removal of said rulebreakers? And what if the rulebreaker never agreed to any of the rules anyway? Or if he once did, but changed his mind? Now he is facing aggression against his person for breaking someone else's rules that he does not recognize.


http://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/14667/192298/f/1491595-German-village-2.jpg

:oo--> Nice German Village compared to typical American neighborhood that does not recognize common rules of common decency.

http://tomgordon.org/crackhouse1.jpg

[MAGNES]

So who enforces the removal of said rule breakers?


You do, Gaillo does, John does, truth and justice is supposed to rule,
corruption expunged, corruptors burned at the stake, this place is
a microcausm of society, this forum exists due to corruption and injustice,
false leadership and tyranny removed. Nobody even voted for you guys. ;D
Secret rule isn't acceptable, and on and on ... Slay the Tyrants.

We are a colony that set sail from a corrupted destroyed city, John had he boat.

@ Hatha, what you state is only one version, and that is only theoretical,
communists and anarchists in practice today work together, and Soros funds
them in many societies to destroy and corrupt, case in point, the Greek Anarchist Communists
funded by Soros. Breaking windows and used to undermine real protestors
and concerns. Same thing happened in the G20 in Toronto recently,
what was the G20 about ? Anarchy, right, they go around breaking windows.
And if they don't do it, the police does it for them to shut down the protests.
What happened at the G20 , who knows . One ism after the other promoted.
Supposed to work this way ... yada yada

And the USA isn't supposed to have " a ruler " .

Imagine a society built for and working for that society, once upon a time.

Extreme " libertarians ", open borders, that is what mayhem aka Ulysses/Immanti
stood for. A DESTROYER ! See Books new post above.

Both are false ideologies and vary among the adherents themselves.

[Hatha Sunahara]

From what I read here, the prevailing attitude is that 'Anarchists have Cooties'. Seems that the propaganda works.

My view of anarchism is influenced by Stephan Molyneaux. He's got a major case of cooties. You can get a sample of his work here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

If you want more, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

558 videos here.

Anarchism is for smart people. Therefore it is not that widespread. And often despised by the people who would benefit most from it.

Hatha

[Gaillo]

Anarchism, while sounding good "in theory", fails DISMALLY when attempts are made to apply it to the real world (witness untold hundreds of failed hippy communes!).

Libertarianism, while also sounding reasonable, has many of the same flaws... mainly an emphasis on individual free will without the attached accountability and responsibility FOR the use of said free will (at least among almost all "Libertarians" that I've ever met!).

I personally see neither political ideal as realistic... the only proposed system I've ever heard of that MIGHT work in the long-run is based on this principle:

There are only 2 ways human beings can obtain the things they need to survive: they can either produce what they need using their labor and minds then peacefully trade amongst each other, or they can take it by force from those who have done the former. The ONLY legitimate function of government (in whatever form that might take) is to protect the first group from the actions (coercion and fraud) of the second. All other actions by government amount to corruption and evil, with ZERO exceptions.

Objective justice can ONLY be achieved through the objective application of objective laws.

When a political ideal comes along that matches up with this, consider THAT to be my "ism"... Until then, I'll remain an "outsider" to political experiments.

[madfranks]

So who enforces the removal of said rule breakers?


You do, Gaillo does, John does, truth and justice is supposed to rule,
corruption expunged, corruptors burned at the stake, this place is
a microcausm of society, this forum exists due to corruption and injustice,
false leadership and tyranny removed. Nobody even voted for you guys. ;D
Secret rule isn't acceptable, and on and on ... Slay the Tyrants.


Interesting... I like your comparison of this forum to a society. So in this case, this is not an anarchistic forum. Myself, Gaillo and John are the governing body of GSUS. And I agree with you, if we begin to corrupt ourselves with power, we should be tarred, feathered and run out of town. We may be the enforcers of the rules, but this is not our forum, it's yours. So if the body of GSUS desires new enforcers of the rules, we are obligated to step down so the membership can choose their own representatives. I personally would consider this to be a forum based on a libertarian philosophy. I wonder if there is a forum in the net that accurately represents what an anarchistic society might look like.

And Hatha, I'm glad you're sharing this stuff; I started this thread because I have a genuine desire to understand this philosophy and I think you're one of the few who can present it intelligently.

[madfranks]

When a political ideal comes along that matches up with this, consider THAT to be my "ism"... Until then, I'll remain an "outsider" to political experiments.


"Gailloism" ;D

[Ash_Williams]

Interesting... I like your comparison of this forum to a society. So in this case, this is not an anarchistic forum. Myself, Gaillo and John are the governing body of GSUS. And I agree with you, if we begin to corrupt ourselves with power, we should be tarred, feathered and run out of town.

That could happen. What I see happening on most forums is that when the leadership goes bad, a splinter group is formed and someone creates a new forum. Had the whole webtech thing gone on I think that would have happened here, even as this place is a splinter from GIM2.

What sucks is that this only works on the internet now since the space is essentially infinite. You can't do that in the real world as every inhabitable square kilometer is already under bad leadership.