The Obviousness of Anarchy: The Question

[iOWNme]

This is the first part of The Obviousness of Anarchy by John Hasnas.

"I am not arguing for a Anarchist Utopian Society, I am arguing only that human beings can live together successfully and prosper in the absence of a centralized coercive 'Authority'. To make the case for 'Anarchy' that is all that is required."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcuSEPBbayQ


Lets see how many GSUS Statists can comment without even watching the video.

Of course, if any members want to actually watch the video and then try and discuss what was proposed, that would be swell. LOL

[Ares]

Ohh, you know the answer to that. We need a system to prevent Jews from taking control.... Somehow the idea of not having a system to control doesn't seem to make any sense....... :rolleyes:

[BrewTech]

Ohh, you know the answer to that. We need a system to prevent Jews from taking control.... Somehow the idea of not having a system to control doesn't seem to make any sense....... :rolleyes:

I hear the same thing from people..."if not for government, the corporations would eat us alive!"

These folks can't seem to grasp that "government" IS the means, the tool they use, to eat us alive. Without being able to commandeer and wield a monopoly on the use of force through legislation and policy-making (backed by the threat of violence), they wouldn't have the means to become as powerful as they are.

Corporations ARE the government. As long as individuals cling to the idea that some group *should* have a monopoly on the use of coercive force, that group will have a boot on their neck, forever. An organization that may use violence as a means of defending its interests while others may not will do whatever it takes to perpetuate itself.


*It appears that a majority of individuals believe this arrangement is right and proper (or lacks any alternative), yet disagree with the unavoidable result. That's where they are confused.

I believe this to be the basis of iOWNme's argument.

[singular_me]

Ares, I am not refuting what your words but it is impossible to change this nefarious state of affair as long as we do not take responsibility for "what it is". At some point, the blame game runs into a brick wall. It doesnt work forever.

Removing one's consent is the best way to get rid of the situation. the global elites represent 2% of population perhaps or less, so WHO is really in charge? The sheeple have the power to stop this insanity, if they want to, wake up.

taking reponsibility is at the core of any non-coercive collaboration/premise

[Ares]

Ares, I am not refuting what your words but it is impossible to change this nefarious state of affair as long as we do not take responsibility for "what it is". At some point, the blame game runs into a brick wall. It doesnt work forever.

Removing one's consent is the best way to get rid of the situation. the global elites represent 2% of population perhaps or less, so WHO is really in charge? The sheeple have the power to stop this insanity, if they want to, wake up.

That maybe, but sheep like being sheered and continue looking for a Shepard to "protect" them from the wolves of the world. The shepard can abuse his flock to the point of murdering anyone that gets out of line. But they'll still cling to the very idea that the shepard is somehow protecting them... :rolleyes:

[Santa]

The video claims that "government" is something distinctly separate from 'governance' and then claims the former is coercive and unnecessary while the latter is inevitable.

This is absurd. Governance is nothing more than the act of governing by any type of government, whether it's coercive or benevolent, altruistic or selfish.

If a Market, free or otherwise, governs commerce, then it IS government. It makes the rules and laws that allow it to prosper.

My argument here is that we already live under the governance of a Market State, the millennial successor to the Nation state.

Rulers are anonymous and dictate from no central location.

In a Market State, the is no democracy and there is no republic.

There is no public redress, other than to retreat from the commerce of the Market State.

Fading slowly into the grey market, then into the black, and so on.

[singular_me]

The video claims that "government" is something distinctly separate from 'governance' and then claims the former is coercive and unnecessary while the latter is inevitable.

I cannot stream because this internet package is minimal... but indeed there are contradictions.

[Jewboo]

To make the case for 'Anarchy' that is all that is required.





http://inebriatedpress.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/090516-think-for-yourself-far-side.jpg




:rolleyes:

[iOWNme]

The video claims that "government" is something distinctly separate from 'governance' and then claims the former is coercive and unnecessary while the latter is inevitable.

This is absurd. Governance is nothing more than the act of governing by any type of government, whether it's coercive or benevolent, altruistic or selfish.

If a Market, free or otherwise, governs commerce, then it IS government. It makes the rules and laws that allow it to prosper.

My argument here is that we already live under the governance of a Market State, the millennial successor to the Nation state.

Rulers are anonymous and dictate from no central location.

In a Market State, the is no democracy and there is no republic.

There is no public redress, other than to retreat from the commerce of the Market State.

Fading slowly into the grey market, then into the black, and so on.

I actually agree with you here. But i think the term 'Government' means men 'elected' to do certain things = COERCION. Where the term 'Governance' means NATURAL and VOLUNTARY in your 'Market' example.

[iOWNme]

Part IV: The Answer


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMWetM976kM

"Supporters of government claim that government is necessary to provide the fundamental rules that bring order to human life in society. Without government to create rules of law, they contend, human beings are unable to banish violence and coordinate their actions sufficiently to produce a peaceful and prosperous society, and hence, are doomed to a Hobbesian existence that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The proper response to this is: look around. Since almost none of the rules that bring peace and order to our existence were created by government, little argument should be required to establish that government is not necessary to create such rules. On the contrary, it is precisely the rules that were created by government that tend to undermine peace and order."

[Carl]

It's easy to sit back, safely ensconced within the bosom of civilization, and call for its obliteration, all in the name of some ideology that told you that life would be better without it.

Most ideologues are cowards. That's why Lysander Spooner died in in his little room at 109 Myrtle Street, Boston instead of in one of those western pioneer towns where is ideology could be tested.

[iOWNme]

It's easy to sit back, safely ensconced within the bosom of civilization, and call for its obliteration, all in the name of some ideology that told you that life would be better without it.

Another Statist mythology spewed by you. Just because we get rid of the GANG of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money means that nobody would be able to cooperate or form voluntary groups. In your eyes 'civilization' as we know it would literally cease to exist if we didnt let a gang of violent criminals steal our money and boss us around. Its absolute LUNACY. Your assumption is based on an irrational self contradictory argument.

Government = A Monopoly on the Initiation of Violence

And you think we need a gang of violent criminals who initiate violence in order to save us from individual criminals who may initiate violence against us. Circular logic and contradictions.


Most ideologues are cowards. That's why Lysander Spooner died in in his little room at 109 Myrtle Street, Boston instead of in one of those western pioneer towns where is ideology could be tested.

What does this have to do with the video posted? This is a strawman argument. Nobody brought up Lysander Spooner. Did you even watch the video? Can you intellectually and coherently rebut ANYTHING that was presented in this video?

Has more violence and injustice been done by men claiming to be 'the law', or by individual criminals who were breaking 'the law'?

And Im the ideologue?

[Buddha]

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/bo/2004/bo041114.gif

[Jewboo]

It's easy to sit back, safely ensconced within the bosom of civilization, and call for its obliteration, all in the name of some ideology that told you that life would be better without it.

Most ideologues are cowards. That's why Lysander Spooner died in in his little room at 109 Myrtle Street, Boston instead of in one of those western pioneer towns where is ideology could be tested.


https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9IYbjLfTHQhXKjVIFUVKvWzL_9rgSh 6DNkEY6QVTnH44WQ0OSwokYvQ


iOWNme's sig line fails to mention that his hero Henry, while living on Waldon Pond, every Sunday walked to his mom's house for dinner and laundry.


:rolleyes:

[Jewboo]

The Obviousness of Anarchy




http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UeuaziTfv8Q/TLObIqOM8fI/AAAAAAAAACU/ZVHVzUp4krE/s1600/homeless_laptop.jpg
iOWNme







1) Uses jew dollar bills to buy his laptop.

2) Uses his government drivers licence as identification to cash checks at the jew bank.

3) Never actually admits to (1) or (2).


:D

[Buddha]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9IYbjLfTHQhXKjVIFUVKvWzL_9rgSh 6DNkEY6QVTnH44WQ0OSwokYvQ


iOWNme's sig line fails to mention that his hero Henry, while living on Waldon Pond, every Sunday walked to his mom's house for dinner and laundry.


:rolleyes:

What does that matter? I eat dinner at my mother's house every Thursday. I do laundry once in a blue moon too, that's what family is for. I've watched them all fucking die and I can't do fucking laundry? Eat dinner? Better get your your attitude right, teddy bear

[Jewboo]

Better get your your attitude right, teddy bear.



:rolleyes: Oh. Here's inspiration for the right attitude:



I've gotten tired of being broke I think it's from working these dead end jobs that just want to use you then let you go when you are of no more use. Getting too old for this, no education...had a bad car accident, ripped up my liver and spleen, left hospital after 2 days, just pulled out IVs and walked out. Wanted to go back to work. Got fired 5 days later because no car, I was a manager that worked at any location they asked. Denied unemployment...sorry venting a bit.

[Buddha]

:rolleyes: Oh. Here's inspiration for the right attitude:

Hey everyday above ground is a good day, are you Book?

[iOWNme]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9IYbjLfTHQhXKjVIFUVKvWzL_9rgSh 6DNkEY6QVTnH44WQ0OSwokYvQ


iOWNme's sig line fails to mention that his hero Henry, while living on Waldon Pond, every Sunday walked to his mom's house for dinner and laundry.


:rolleyes:


I think its funny i can call you out of the woodwork anytime i want my makeing threads on Anarchism. You come by and post worthless crap which lets other members see the actual logic reason behind Self Ownership, Voluntaryism and the NAP. Thank you!

You REALLY are reaching now because you know you can not articulate YOUR own personal thoughts. He's my hero because i have a quote from him in my sig? Really? How old are you?

Remember we already went over this. There was no 'Law' at the time forbidding Henry from doing his wash at his mothers. Therefore, according to you it was perfectly moral for him to do so because the State did not forbid it.

[hoarder]

Ohh, you know the answer to that. We need a system to prevent Jews from taking control.... Somehow the idea of not having a system to control doesn't seem to make any sense....... :rolleyes:Ares, please tell us all who controls our mass media and Federal Reserve.

[BrewTech]

Ares, please tell us all who uses the current system, which employs a single group with a monopoly on the use of coercion and violence, to control our mass media and Federal Reserve.

That's an easy one!

[Ares]

Ares, please tell us all who controls our mass media and Federal Reserve.

Please tell me how those spooky jews you fear could control a mass media without licensing. Please tell me who could control the Federal Reserve if it didn't exist.

Instead of answering you choose your bogeyman. That's all you know, and that is all you ever do. Blame Blame Blame. Instead of looking what provides them the power to enslave you.

If there is no closet for the boogeyman to use and hide, is he really that much of a threat?

[hoarder]

Please tell me how those spooky jews you fear could control a mass media without licensing. They have most of the wealth and most of the secrets. It stands to reason they would continue to own the media. Why would they give up their influence and secrets?



Please tell me who could control the Federal Reserve if it didn't exist. The theft of 3/4 of the world's wealth has already been accomplished. The Fed isn't going to last much longer anyway. The real issue is whether we are going to arrest the banksters. prosecute them for fraud and confiscate their stolen assets. I don't see you jew-defenders advocating that though.

[Carl]

Ares is correct, under anarchism there would be no Fed, or mass media, or electricity, or sewer systems, or water systems, or transport systems, or roads, or anything else that would render any semblance of civilization, except maybe weapons manufacturing. All there would be is groupings of walled compounds, where each individual government of one could exercise supreme authority without fear of others exercising their supreme authority upon him. Under anarchism, there would be no civilization, just clusters of ignorant people attempting to stay alive and defending what they believe is theirs.

[Ares]

They have most of the wealth and most of the secrets. It stands to reason they would continue to own the media. Why would they give up their influence and secrets?

Because of competition. In a truly free market like the internet for example. How effective is their propaganda and mass media then? Ever since the Internet came about their networks have been losing numbers. You've had at least a decade to see it. Apparently you must of missed it.. CNN is now the LOWEST rating news channel in existence that is supposedly a "Main stream media" source. They are being rendered useless by FREE MARKET INFORMATION.


The theft of 3/4 of the world's wealth has already been accomplished. The Fed isn't going to last much longer anyway. The real issue is whether we are going to arrest the banksters. prosecute them for fraud and confiscate their stolen assets. I don't see you jew-defenders advocating that though.

Who the fuck are you calling a "jew defender" Boy? You need to grow up and look around CHILD. You're the perfect plantation slave. Always bitching about the master, but not the system that enslaved you to begin with.

[Ares]

Ares is correct, under anarchism there would be no Fed, or mass media, or electricity, or sewer systems, or water systems, or transport systems, or roads, or anything else that would render any semblance of civilization, except maybe weapons manufacturing.

Your evidence of this is what again? Or you just using speculation as your tool for observation? If people want those services enterprising individuals will come together and do it. It was basically anarchy out in the old west during the gold rush. Especially in Alaska, there were towns, there was civilization. There were services. Your term on Anarchy needs to be updated. Research it yourself instead of relying on time tested proven failure dogma.


All there would be is groupings of walled compounds, where each individual government of one could exercise supreme authority without fear of others exercising their supreme authority upon him. Under anarchism, there would be no civilization, just clusters of ignorant people attempting to stay alive and defending what they believe is theirs.

:rolleyes:

Yeah because there isn't clusters of ignorant people attempting to stay alive and defending what they believe is theirs with your precious state?

You statists... Sure have a weird idea of what is, and what isn't civilization. Apparently to you civilization is being grouped together in a state at the barrel of a gun providing for others. :rolleyes:

[Horn]

Lets see how many GSUS Statists can comment without even watching the video.

One question, if we did not have a central authority at forum,

Who would enforce the non-SPAMing rule at a Gold and Silver site,

when someone kept posting threads concerned with changing the system to Anarchy, that created much strife and whoa?

Make all the videos you want, Anarchy just doesn't work in application.

[Ares]

One question, if we did not have a central authority at forum,

Who would enforce the non-SPAMing rule at a Gold and Silver site,

when someone kept posting threads concerned with changing the system to Anarchy, that created much strife and whoa?

People could use the Ignore feature....... spam from those individuals would be meaningless. On a support side it would make database management a bit of a challenge. Pros and Cons. :)

[Horn]

People could use the Ignore feature.......

the .us address would probably phished away to .china so we wouldn't need to worry either way.

[hoarder]

Because of competition. In a truly free market like the internet for example. How effective is their propaganda and mass media then? Ever since the Internet came about their networks have been losing numbers. You've had at least a decade to see it. Apparently you must of missed it.. CNN is now the LOWEST rating news channel in existence that is supposedly a "Main stream media" source. They are being rendered useless by FREE MARKET INFORMATION.Competition is exactly why Jews would keep the media. Commodities always fall into the hands of those who have the highest (return) use of it. Jews get to keep secrets and maintain power by holding media so no one else could compete with them.

Get it Jew Boy?

[Ares]

Competition is exactly why Jews would keep the media. Commodities always fall into the hands of those who have the highest (return) use of it. Jews get to keep secrets and maintain power by holding media so no one else could compete with them.

Get it Jew Boy?

LOL dude get over yourself. You're nothing but a sad pathetic joke. Do you even have a life outside of your parents basement? Or are you too scared to go out into the real world in fear that jew might see you?

I can't even take you seriously anymore. You're nothing but a joke, you contribute nothing other than pointing out boogeyman.

Keep living on the plantation slave. Always bitching about the master, but never seeing the whole picture.

The internet is a prime example of jewish control and supremacy... :rolleyes: LMAO You are just a fucking joke dude. Your entire existence is a joke. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror and say I have value as a human being?

[Ares]

the .us address would probably phished away to .china so we wouldn't need to worry either way.

The Domain Name Servers might have an issue with that. In a network a hierarchy of control makes sense. But done in a decentralized manner, which oddly enough is the internet.

What statist advocate for some one or some group to control the order. But they do so with force, extortion, or intimidation. How is it any different if I come to your house point a gun to your head and say I'm going to take your house unless you give me a property tax? Oh I use these taxes to pay for services that you may, or may not use, and oh by the way I use about 60-70 percent to pay for my salary. Now hand it over... You can keep your state, I want nothing to do with it.

Yes there are Root DNS servers, but there are also free market (i.e. someone making a copy of the root DNS) and having that in case they decide to flip a switch like they did during the arab spring and render computer traffic a bit of a hassle.

[hoarder]

LOL dude get over yourself. You're nothing but a sad pathetic joke. Do you even have a life outside of your parents basement? Or are you too scared to go out into the real world in fear that jew might see you?

I can't even take you seriously anymore. You're nothing but a joke, you contribute nothing other than pointing out boogeyman.

Keep living on the plantation slave. Always bitching about the master, but never seeing the whole picture.

The internet is a prime example of jewish control and supremacy... :rolleyes: LMAO You are just a fucking joke dude. Your entire existence is a joke. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror and say I have value as a human being?Thank you for the confirmation, Shlomo.

[Ares]

Thank you for the confirmation, Shlomo.

Shut the fuck up you zionist jew.

I bet you cried with tears of eternal sadness the day your jewish idle Ariel Sharon died didn't you?

[Horn]

How is it any different if I come to your house point a gun to your head and say I'm going to take your house unless you give me a property tax? Oh I use these taxes to pay for services that you may, or may not use, and oh by the way I use about 60-70 percent to pay for my salary. Now hand it over... You can keep your state, I want nothing to do with it.

Everyone on here knows income tax and the IRS are not Constitutional, so don't even make it part of the discussion. You pay your property tax most likely for he street and schools those should be voluntary if you use those.

You ought to pay more respect to the state you live under, without it we wouldn't be doing what we are, the free internet would still be in the Pope's back pocket.

[Ares]

Everyone on here knows income tax and the IRS are not Constitutional, so don't even make it part of the discussion.

You ought to pay more respect to the state you live under, without it we wouldn't be doing what we are, the free internet will still be in the Pope's back pocket.

Where did I say anything about Income tax? I said PROPERTY TAX, which is constitutional, because apparently if the theft is apportioned correctly its "constitutional".

[Carl]

Your evidence of this is what again? Or you just using speculation as your tool for observation? If people want those services enterprising individuals will come together and do it. It was basically anarchy out in the old west during the gold rush. Especially in Alaska, there were towns, there was civilization. There were services. Your term on Anarchy needs to be updated. Research it yourself instead of relying on time tested proven failure dogma.

My evidence? See:Africa.

Both Alaska and California had governments and law enforcement in place. Towns require central planning, maintenance and order enforcement, they would not exist otherwise. There were temporary cluster communities at mining sites but they do not qualify as towns, and if you weren't armed and alert, chances were good that you would get robbed or killed.

Except for the delusional ramblings of myopic ideologues, there is nothing to research about anarchy.

Why do you believe that every single person on the planet believes as you do and would act as you believe?



You statists... Sure have a weird of idea of what is, and what isn't civilization.

I harbor no illusions about the state, which is comprised of individuals, nor do I harbor any illusions about my fellow man who will always seek advantage in every unimpeded manner he can devise that will insure his own continued survival.

[Horn]

Where did I say anything about Income tax? I said PROPERTY TAX, which is constitutional, because apparently if the theft is apportioned correctly its "constitutional".

Then don't use the street, water, or trash services and such.

I won't be making many trips to your house to do commerce.

Property tax has been compromised in the U.S., most likely as addendum to the income and S.S. taxes.

Yes it needs to be fixed by the free market, my guess is it wouldn't be much of a problem without the other unconstitutional taxes as it would be focused upon and properly apportioned. Yes the they should have right to chuck you for non-payment of your share. But also the assessors office scrutinized.

[Jewboo]

What statist advocate for some one or some group to control the order. But they do so with force, extortion, or intimidation. How is it any different if I come to your house point a gun to your head and say I'm going to take your house unless you give me a property tax? Oh I use these taxes to pay for services that you may, or may not use, and oh by the way I use about 60-70 percent to pay for my salary. Now hand it over... You can keep your state, I want nothing to do with it.



http://www.rmbnewsreport.com/WantedPoster2.jpg



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/19/1395249614295/Muppets-Most-Wanted-008.jpg
Ares the Outlaw







:rolleyes: Anarchists are Muppets...lol.

[Ares]

My evidence? See:Africa.

I can agree to disagree here. Africa is a POOR example as culture is the main problem with Africa. Governments come and go on that continent more often than people change articles of clothing.


Both Alaska and California had governments and law enforcement in place. Towns require central planning, maintenance and order enforcement, they would not exist otherwise. There were temporary cluster communities at mining sites but they do not qualify as towns, and if you weren't armed and alert, chances were good that you would get robbed or killed.

So what was stopping someone, or group of individuals working together to provide those services?


Except for the delusional ramblings of myopic ideologues, there is nothing to research about anarchy.

There is plenty to learn and to try and implement in practice.


Why do you believe that every single person on the planet believes as you do and would act as you believe?

I don't. Far from it actually. Most people want to steal, rob, rape, intimidate, extort from others. But instead of giving them the tool (the state) to do it with I would prefer that that type of violence be more on an individual basis instead of in the hands of a select few, where your only recourse is their rigged court rooms (that is if you don't get shot first by their enforcement officers). It's easier to defend oneself, or pay for someone to provide that type of safety if you choose for you individually. Instead of asking my neighbor to provide it for me. I respect my fellow man, I respect him enough to try and limit my use of the all powerful state not to steal from him.



I harbor no illusions about the state, which is comprised of individuals, nor do I harbor any illusions about my fellow man who will always seek advantage in every unimpeded manner he can devise that will insure his own continued survival.

I respect that, and harbor no illusion that anarchy while practical in thought experiments won't work in reality. But that doesn't stop me from practicing and using the ideology in my daily life to limit the power of the state, and encourage goal oriented volunteer cooperation with my neighbor(s).

[Ares]

Then don't use the street, water, or trash services and such.

:rolleyes:

Street - fuel taxes

Water - city service paid for by usage fee. At my old house I didn't want to use their Fluoridated shitty water. But THEY wouldn't let me dig my own well to bypass it. I would of happily put in my own well and septic system, but since I lived in a suburb, I was FORCED to comply and FORCED to have their shitty Fluoridated water pumped into my house. So I had to pay for a Reverse Osmosis system to clean my water before I could drink it. Yeah what a deal having the state / city provide me water.... I have absolutely no say in what gets put into the water, and I have no say on refusing it.

Trash services - not typically a city service, and there are a number of PRIVATE companies providing it. Depends on where you live I guess.


I won't be making many trips to your house to do commerce.

Forced extortion is not commerce.


Property tax has been compromised in the U.S., most likely as addendum to the income and S.S. taxes.

Yes it needs to be fixed by the free market, my guess is it wouldn't be much of a problem without the other unconstitutional one as it would be focused upon properly.

I wouldn't say fixed, more along the lines of repealed. But you'd have to get rid of the NEA and the DOE, and most likely then property taxes can be looked into being repealed. I hate being forced to pay for shit I'll never use.

[Jewboo]

Instead of asking my neighbor to provide it for me. I respect my fellow man, I respect him enough to try and limit my use of the all powerful state not to steal from him.




You were a Bitcoin Miner and salesman last month.

:rolleyes:

[Horn]

I wouldn't say fixed, more along the lines of repealed. But you'd have to get rid of the NEA and the DOE, and most likely then property taxes can be looked into being repealed. I hate paying for shit I'll never use.

Everyone would agree, the apportioned tax is the hook. Here in C.R. they just changed to add an income tax, when they do that they raise the property tax within the next years. its a shell game they use. The apportioned most likely is to get things started on the infrastructure end, problem is once its vested and created the assessor does not stop to reduce.

Nobody would be building bridges if it weren't for them though, they don't even do that with all the dough they have now. you should see the temp bridges put up around here, they get stripped and sold of by the locals if not guarded. You'd have alot of that in Anarchy, one day the bridge and road sign would be there, the next not.

You want to see anarchy in action come on over :) lol!

[Ares]

Everyone would agree, the apportioned tax is the hook. Here in C.R. they just changed to add an income tax, when they do that they raise the property tax within the next years. its a shell game they use. The apportioned most likely is to get things started on the infrastructure end, problem is once its vested and created the assessor does not stop to reduce.

Nobody would be building bridges if it weren't for them though, they don't even do that with all the dough they have now. you should see the temp bridges put up around here, they get stripped and sold of by the locals if not guarded. You'd have alot of that in Anarchy, one day the bridge and road sign would be there, the next not.

You want to see anarchy in action come on over :) lol!

Saw a lot of that back in Indiana. Also saw private bridges out in the country that were defended against stripping theft. Anarchy would not be a cake walk, especially when starting out. Nor is it a perfect system. I'm not sure there is a system that could be perfect with so many individuals, perspectives, and personalities. You do have to have organization, cooperation, services, etc. But none of them should be provided for at the barrel of a gun with a slogan of if you don't like it you can leave.

That's the gist of what I'm trying to convey. Any system of government should allow those who do not want to be a part of it to "opt" out of it. You don't want to use certain services, you should not be forced to fund them, nor should you have any right to use them.

[Horn]

That's the gist of what I'm trying to convey. Any system of government should allow those who do not want to be a part of it to "opt" out of it. You don't want to use certain services, you should not be forced to fund them, nor should you have any right to use them.

Here is actually fairly balanced, or was, is getting more like U.S. Fed. currently.

One thing they do or did here is make the process for .gov intervention from a judicial/courts standpoint so lengthy and up for revision that state prosecutors themselves would not take a case to court if the payoff were not large enough from the private defense side. Or to say what the tax collector would take back is worth his while in court. Is one way to protect the individual, and only go after the big fish that do not pay.

[iOWNme]

Ares is correct, under anarchism there would be no Fed, or mass media, or electricity, or sewer systems, or water systems, or transport systems, or roads, or anything else that would render any semblance of civilization, except maybe weapons manufacturing. All there would be is groupings of walled compounds, where each individual government of one could exercise supreme authority without fear of others exercising their supreme authority upon him. Under anarchism, there would be no civilization, just clusters of ignorant people attempting to stay alive and defending what they believe is theirs.

LMAO!

What you just said was this:

"If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we might get over run by a gang of vilent criminals who will boss us round and steal our money."

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wouldnt be able to make a flat place. (a road)

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wouldnt be able to make a sewer system.

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wouldnt be able to make a car.

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wont be able to have electricty.


Carl dont you find it pecular that your Masters have trained you to IMAGINE that the word 'Anarchy' means you will have no rulers and you will live in chaos. LOL

Every single thing Carl pointed to was invented by the individual, created by the individual and built by the individual. Carl IMAGINEs that without 'Government' the human species would die off. LOL

Carl thinks having a gang of violent criminals who bood us around and steal our money is what makes us 'civilized'. LOL

Carl then hypocritically claims that no man has the right to tell him how to live his life, while he simultaneously claims that no man can just make up his own rules. Which one is it contradiction Carl?

Carl if there were no 'Government' tomorrow, would YOU just shit on the floor? Or would you maybe find a bucket? LOL

[Carl]

....Governments come and go on that continent more often than people change articles of clothing. Exactly. Africa exemplifies anarchy.



So what was stopping someone, or group of individuals working together to provide those services? They would have to organize, devise a plan, implement a structure and delegate responsibilities...government.



There is plenty to learn and to try and implement in practice. See: Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty).

Don't let an ideology paint pretty pictures for you, read up on the historical progression of the concept of individual liberty, draw your own conclusions and formulate your own personal philosophy.

Here's a glimpse of what I believe to be the origins of the death of individual sovereignty in the U.S.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/)

While I do not agree with the thrust (restoration of "democracy") of the site linked, it does a good job of explaining a large segment of how we got to where we are today.

[iOWNme]

Everyone on here knows income tax and the IRS are not Constitutional, so don't even make it part of the discussion. You pay your property tax most likely for he street and schools those should be voluntary if you use those.
.


LOL

Have you ever read Article 1 Sec 8?

[iOWNme]

You statists... Sure have a weird idea of what is, and what isn't civilization. Apparently to you civilization is being grouped together in a state at the barrel of a gun providing for others. :rolleyes:

Ares NAILED it.

Dont worry, the myth of statism is dying. From the Magna Carta to the Constitution. 'Governments' are getting smaller and smaller. The earth isnt flat. The earth isnt the center of the universe. TRUTH is always here. Humans were meant to live free, and they are going to live free. It is inevitable.

[iOWNme]

One question, if we did not have a central authority at forum,

Who would enforce the non-SPAMing rule at a Gold and Silver site,

Ummm.....The owners?


when someone kept posting threads concerned with changing the system to Anarchy, that created much strife and whoa?

You STILL dont get it. 'Anarchy' is not a 'system' its a lack of system. Im starting to realize you dont even comprehend what is being discussed here.


Make all the videos you want, Anarchy just doesn't work in application.

When you went to the grocery store last, how did you know what to buy? Was there a 'Law' telling you what you could and could not buy? Did a 'Politician' go with you to the store to make sure you were safe?

You live 99% of your life in Anarchy. Are you blind?

If the 'Government' FORCED you to eat certain foods tomorrow, you would be BEGGING for your 'Anarchistic' food production back. LOL

[iOWNme]

My evidence? See:Africa.

Both Alaska and California had governments and law enforcement in place. Towns require central planning, maintenance and order enforcement, they would not exist otherwise. There were temporary cluster communities at mining sites but they do not qualify as towns, and if you weren't armed and alert, chances were good that you would get robbed or killed.

Carls stance is this: If you dont let someone rob you for your own protection YOU WILL DIE!!!!!! - Holy shit man.


I harbor no illusions about the state, which is comprised of individuals, nor do I harbor any illusions about my fellow man who will always seek advantage in every unimpeded manner he can devise that will insure his own continued survival.


You IMAGINE that men can delegate rights they dont have. You IMAGINE that an individual can have a moral obligation to do the wrong thing. You IMAGINE that scribbles on parchment can alter human morality.

And you have no delusions?

LOL

[7th trump]

LMAO!

What you just said was this:

"If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we might get over run by a gang of vilent criminals who will boss us round and steal our money."

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wouldnt be able to make a flat place. (a road)

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wouldnt be able to make a sewer system.

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wouldnt be able to make a car.

If we dont have a gang of violent criminals who boss us around and steal our money, we wont be able to have electricty.


Carl dont you find it pecular that your Masters have trained you to IMAGINE that the word 'Anarchy' means you will have no rulers and you will live in chaos. LOL

Every single thing Carl pointed to was invented by the individual, created by the individual and built by the individual. Carl IMAGINEs that without 'Government' the human species would die off. LOL

Carl thinks having a gang of violent criminals who bood us around and steal our money is what makes us 'civilized'. LOL

Carl then hypocritically claims that no man has the right to tell him how to live his life, while he simultaneously claims that no man can just make up his own rules. Which one is it contradiction Carl?

Carl if there were no 'Government' tomorrow, would YOU just shit on the floor? Or would you maybe find a bucket? LOL

Now thats some funny ass shit from Sui Juris.
Carls rendition is more likely what the true nature of anarchism would look like....why would anybody build roads when they have no reason to.....people in general are lazy?
Look at todays society.........we continuely seek easier, cheap ways to accomplish things........an anarchial system would be even less developed.

I quit responding to Sui a while back....he wont listen to any reason, even when shoving reason in his face,...he wont listen....just set in his ways.
If you allow him to he will infect "reason" with his personal interpretations as he sees fit having nothing evidence wise to back his claim.

[Ares]

Exactly. Africa exemplifies anarchy.

I wouldn't exactly call Africa a perfect example of Anarchy. If it was Anarchy they wouldn't be clambering over themselves to institute a government that robs from the past governments political supporters.



They would have to organize, devise a plan, implement a structure and delegate responsibilities...government.

True, but why form a government? Why not just form a volunteer cohesive system of mutual benefit cooperation?



See: Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty).

Don't let an ideology paint pretty pictures for you, read up on the historical progression of the concept of individual liberty, draw your own conclusions and formulate your own personal philosophy.

I don't view Anarchy in any other picture than what it is. It is ugly, it is grossly unjust to those who cannot provide for themselves, and it is brutal. But that is the law of nature. Like it or not, we are part of this world and must abide by its laws. Government is an illusion that distorts that reality.

[iOWNme]

Competition is exactly why Jews would keep the media. Commodities always fall into the hands of those who have the highest (return) use of it. Jews get to keep secrets and maintain power by holding media so no one else could compete with them.

Get it Jew Boy?


Jews have gained NO POWER through open and fair competitin. They get all of their power through the MONOPOLY of 'Government'. The thing you keep advocating for.

Get it Jew girl?

[iOWNme]

They would have to organize (Voluntary), devise a plan (Voluntary), implement a structure (Voluntary)and delegate responsibilities (Voluntary)...government.(NON Voluntary, Coercive, Forceful, Inititation of Violence, Monopolies, etc)

Contradiction much Carl?

[Horn]

Ummm.....The owners?

You think you're owned now, Under your Anarchy you would truly feel the full wrath of ownage.

Humans would be the currency to spend, what's stopping them.

The fact is your Anarchy is basically like what we have today, your just turning the hourglass upside down. Allowing the masses to do what the few elite do today.

Its a non-starter, in opposition to a functional republic.

Give it up already.

[hoarder]

Jews have gained NO POWER through open and fair competitin. They get all of their power through the MONOPOLY of 'Government'. The thing you keep advocating for.

Get it Jew girl?You ignored my post. Do you disagree that like any asset, media will usually fall into the hands of those who are able to get the highest return on their asset?

[Carl]

I wouldn't exactly call Africa a perfect example of Anarchy. If it was Anarchy they wouldn't be clambering over themselves to institute a government that robs from the past governments political supporters. It is their desire to Excape Anarchy, that compels them to institute government. The reason they continually fail is because they have no foundational set of principles to base their governments upon, so they resort to forced redistribution schemes, which always fail.



True, but why form a government? Why not just form a volunteer cohesive system of mutual benefit cooperation? The very act of coming together into a cohesive system of mutual benefit cooperation, IS government. A pure democracy requiring 100% agreement and cooperation, 100% of the time from its participants, the people are the state.


I don't view Anarchy in any other picture than what it is. It is ugly, it is grossly unjust to those who cannot provide for themselves, and it is brutal. But that is the law of nature. Like it or not, we are part of this world and must abide by its laws. Government is an illusion that distorts that reality. So, you don't want civilization, you want to revert, to devolve, to a Hobbesian state of nature.

Well, if things keep going the way they are, your dreams may very well come true.

[Horn]

those who are able to get the highest return on their asset?

I would add that they gained much a foothold through slave trade in the U.S. early on in its free market life, they will do, what others could never bring themselves to do.

There is proof they do excel in free markets...

[Ares]

It is their desire to Excape Anarchy, that compels them to institute government. The reason they continually fail is because they have no foundational set of principles to base their governments upon, so they resort to forced redistribution schemes, which always fail.

I attribute that to a warlord, subjugate my enemy mentality more than anything. It's also a cultural mindset. Look no further than an American inner city to see the same qualities. Don't believe me, live there for a week. I doubt it would take you a day to see it, but I lived in a ghetto outside Chicago for 12 years before my parents scraped up enough money to move. There are cultural differences between African's and Europeans that could fill an entire thread of different subject matter.



The very act of coming together into a cohesive system of mutual benefit cooperation, IS government. A pure democracy requiring 100% agreement and cooperation, 100% of the time from its participants, the people are the state.

It CEASES to be a cohesive system of mutual benefit cooperation when it calls itself government. It is no longer mutual beneficial when only one party is getting all the benefits. Why I advocate for just severing the ONE SIDED beneficial cooperation.


So, you don't want civilization, you want to revert, to devolve, to a Hobbesian state of nature.

Well, if things keep going the way they are, your dreams may very well come true.

I don't see it that way. I see it more along the lines of systemic evolution. The system we have doesn't work, it CANNOT be fixed without major upheaval. Anyone telling you different is delusional. I believe staying within the confines of "government knows best" is to devolve, and never learn from our mistakes. 2,000 years of man trying this experiment called government its time for a change. A drastically different government, (i.e. a confederation) or not at all..

Maybe have a national government that is only allowed to interact with nations outside its borders and absolutely forbidden from interfering within internal matters. I'm not sure. Like I said, there is no perfect system, and I've never claimed Anarchy was perfect. In my last post I called it what it is. But it also shows general guidelines on how to have a mutual beneficial cooperation without the government saying it's my way or the highway approach. There is a good compromise between the two, and in all honesty that's all I'm advocating for. A system that respect personal god given rights above all else and is absolutely forbidden from ever interfering with a mans earnings, property and life. Unless he tramples someone elses god given rights.

[Horn]

Ares you tech. types are not allowed to be anarchisits, as far as I'm concerned

as you owe much of your current continuum to the republic's investment in Nasdaq.

You're simply an absolute capitalist wanting to turn jew after the investment is made for you by others. Oh,oh :)

[Ares]

Ares you tech. types are not allowed to be anarchisits, as far as I'm concerned

as you owe much of your current continuum to the republic's investment in Nasdaq.

You're simply an absolute capitalist wanting to turn jew after the investment is made for you by others. Oh,oh :)

I owe no one nothing. What I have I've earned by my own knowledge and experience.

[EE_]

You guys have been battling over semantics for how long now?
What have we gained? What have we learned? Where does all this lead?

A few of my thoughts:

There will always be a government! If one falls another will replace it.
When in history has this been any different?

Free Markets: Everything that we have, everything that is taking place, is a free market!
Anything goes in a free market!

'Authority' definition: A person, or group that possesses a higher knowledge, or skill in a particular subject, or field, then the common or average person. Somewhere the line got blurred to include someone with power over others.
A person/group in possession of power is not an 'Authority'!

Jews: Jews do not have the power they have now because people allowed it. They have power because they've seized it with their intellegence, cunning and financial power. They have been the most successful because they are the most organized, self promoting, tight knit group on the planet. Name me any other race as tight and organized as the Jews.
When is the last time you saw Jews killing Jews? Never! Can you say that about any other race?
What does it mean when Jews speak of themselves as "Our People"?

The "iOWNme principal" will never fly. The majority of Americans do not want to be free and they never will!

More thoughts later...

'Josie the Outlaw' is just another capitalist with a product to sell.

In my world there are only checks and balances...when there's not enough checks, things get out of balance. Then more checks need to be applied.

Maybe if enough people subscribe to the "iOWNme" principal, a small type of government can be formed where everyone follows the same rules of the principal.
We'll call it the "iOWNme government of America"

[Carl]

I attribute that to a warlord, subjugate my enemy mentality more than anything. It's also a cultural mindset. Look no further than an American inner city to see the same qualities. Don't believe me, live there for a week. I doubt it would take you a day to see it, but I lived in a ghetto outside Chicago for 12 years before my parents scraped up enough money to move. There are cultural differences between African's and Europeans that could fill an entire thread of different subject matter.I have no doubt as to the veracity of what you're saying. What I'm saying is that anarchy would lead to the same conclusions as experienced by the Africans, tribal warlord-ism. The Feudal System comes to mind..



It CEASES to be a cohesive system of mutual benefit cooperation when it calls itself government. It is no longer mutual beneficial when only one party is getting all the benefits. Why I advocate for just severing the ONE SIDED beneficial cooperation. It doesn't have to call itself "government", that's what it is. Look up the kibbutz system in Isreal, that's what you're talking about.



Maybe have a national government that is only allowed to interact with nations outside its borders and absolutely forbidden from interfering within internal matters..... That's the basis of our Constitutional Republic. The Central Government, formerly Federal, has no Constitutional authority within a state's boundaries, it has no Constitutional authority to tax individuals (the 16th did not grant it any), it has no Constitutional authority to interfere in free commerce, (in that arena it was given the authority to prevent states form imposing import/export fees and excise taxes on goods entering or exiting its borders), it has no Constitutional authority to own or control land within a state other than what was necessary for office buildings or military bases, it has no authority to have a policing force other than what was necessary to protect a 10 square mile radius around the seat of government, and within the buildings and military bases seceded to it by the states..... the list of usurpations goes on and on

75% of this occurring due to the 17th Amendment and the revolutionary forces of Socialist Progressivism which the 17th gave free reign to install the dialectical known as the Democratic and Republican Parties. The tracks of the dialectical that runs right over the former separation of powers the Constitution used to represent.

EE_ is wrong in his assessment; it's not that people don't want to be free, it's that they believe they are already free.

[Horn]

I owe no one nothing.

The main tenant of Anarchy,

in public Anarchy schools the classrooms will all stand, and pledge allegiance to a big red A painted on the wall with those 5 words, which include a double negative.

[Jewboo]

You guys have been battling over semantics for how long now?
What have we gained? What have we learned? Where does all this lead?

A few of my thoughts:

There will always be a government! If one falls another will replace it.
When in history has this been any different?

Free Markets: Everything that we have, everything that is taking place, is a free market!
Anything goes in a free market!

'Authority' definition: A person, or group that possesses a higher knowledge, or skill in a particular subject, or field, then the common or average person.
A person/group in possession of power is not an 'Authority'!

Jews: Jews do not have the power they have now because people allowed it. They have power because they've seized it with their intellegence, cunning and financial power. They have been the most successful because they are the most organized, self promoting, tight knit group on the planet. Name me any other race as tight and organized as the Jews. When is the last time you saw Jews killing Jews? Never! Can you say that about any other race? What does it mean when Jews speak of themselves as "Our People"?

The "iOWNme principal" will never fly. The majority of Americans do not want to be free and they never will!

More thoughts later...

'Josie the Outlaw' is just another capitalist with a product to sell.

In my world there are only checks and balances...when there's not enough checks, things get out of balance. Then more checks need to be applied.

Maybe if enough people subscribe to the "iOWNme" principal, a small type of government can be formed where everyone follows the same rules of the principal.
We'll call it the "iOWNme government of America"


My guess is that certain people at GSUS intentionally flood us with these nonsense-filled semantics threads to distract us from what the jew is doing to us in the real world.








:(?? they know who they are

[Ares]

It doesn't have to call itself "government", that's what it is. Look up the kibbutz system in Isreal, that's what you're talking about.

No it doesn't. But most people call it that because that's what they are familiar with and know.


That's the basis of our Constitutional Republic. The Central Government, formerly Federal, has no Constitutional authority within a state's boundaries, it has no Constitutional authority to tax individuals (the 16th did not grant it any), it has no Constitutional authority to interfere in free commerce, (in that arena it was given the authority to prevent states form imposing import/export fees and excise taxes on goods entering or exiting its borders), it has no Constitutional authority to own or control land within a state other than what was necessary for office buildings or military bases, it has no authority to have a policing force other than what was necessary to protect a 10 square mile radius around the seat of government, and within the buildings and military bases seceded to it by the states..... the list of usurpations goes on and on

75% of this occurring due to the 17th Amendment and the revolutionary forces of Socialist Progressivism which the 17th gave free reign to install the dialectical known as the Democratic and Republican Parties. The tracks of the dialectical that runs right over the former separation of powers the Constitution used to represent.

EE_ is wrong in his assessment; it's not that people don't want to be free, it's that they believe they are already free.

A lot the usupertation of our rights and our states rights were during the Civil War. It was really the federal governments war against the states. Culminating in that "perfect system" that Alexander Hamilton wanted being the Federalist douche bag that he was. Well we all get to see first hand how it works out. The language would have to be changed so that the Fed.gov haves absolutely NO SAY in internal matters. Not even with "regulation of commerce". That one clause has been the bane of the Republic since its inception.

[Horn]

Not even with "regulation of commerce". That one clause has been the bane of the Republic since its inception.

What if other countries start to import dollars into New Jersey?

You're a much better publican, than anarchist, Ares.

[singular_me]

Book, search for Rosicruciens... The Merovengian Jews converted to christianity due to the rampant persécution... nothing has changed since then , way tooooo many are still at it... thats what happens when people are persecuted for their beliefs... now we have a rome-zionist alliance taking over the world and ready to exterminate many of us ALL... so, keep it up, man :) ???

Reminds me of Magnes who admired Charles The Great, LOL, a Merovingian, said to be a descendant of Marie Magdalena. Look for the Rosicruciens' history when you get a chance and you will descend into another layer of conspiracies and hopefully grasp why you are engaged in "self-defeat"



My guess is that certain people at GSUS intentionally flood us with these nonsense-filled semantics threads to distract us from what the jew is doing to us in the real world.








:(?? they know who they are

[singular_me]

thats a very balanced point of view, Ares...

the evolution of Man always sends us back to the "earth is flat" example, the challenges just morph but remain identical. Hence, the more mainstream an idea/concept , the more FLAWED it is



I attribute that to a warlord, subjugate my enemy mentality more than anything. It's also a cultural mindset. Look no further than an American inner city to see the same qualities. Don't believe me, live there for a week. I doubt it would take you a day to see it, but I lived in a ghetto outside Chicago for 12 years before my parents scraped up enough money to move. There are cultural differences between African's and Europeans that could fill an entire thread of different subject matter.




It CEASES to be a cohesive system of mutual benefit cooperation when it calls itself government. It is no longer mutual beneficial when only one party is getting all the benefits. Why I advocate for just severing the ONE SIDED beneficial cooperation.



I don't see it that way. I see it more along the lines of systemic evolution. The system we have doesn't work, it CANNOT be fixed without major upheaval. Anyone telling you different is delusional. I believe staying within the confines of "government knows best" is to devolve, and never learn from our mistakes. 2,000 years of man trying this experiment called government its time for a change. A drastically different government, (i.e. a confederation) or not at all..

Maybe have a national government that is only allowed to interact with nations outside its borders and absolutely forbidden from interfering within internal matters. I'm not sure. Like I said, there is no perfect system, and I've never claimed Anarchy was perfect. In my last post I called it what it is. But it also shows general guidelines on how to have a mutual beneficial cooperation without the government saying it's my way or the highway approach. There is a good compromise between the two, and in all honesty that's all I'm advocating for. A system that respect personal god given rights above all else and is absolutely forbidden from ever interfering with a mans earnings, property and life. Unless he tramples someone elses god given rights.

[Ares]

thats a very balanced point of view, Ares...

the evolution of Man always sends us back to the "earth is flat" example, the challenges just morph but remain identical. Hence, the more mainstream an idea/concept , the more FLAWED it is

Contrary to what some others in this thread try to say, I do try to take a balanced approach when it comes to systems of government. Yeah I may have a more Anarchist view of human freedom, but I'm also a realist and realize that not everyone wants that kind of freedom. So there has to be a compromise. Like letting those who want that kind of freedom the ability to choose it.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I want to address Santa's qualms about government and governance being the same thing. I think that the way this fellow uses the terms, Government is a noun--a thing referring to an institution that is given power to control people. Governance, on the other hand is a verb meaning control. Governance can be spontaneous--that is self control by individuals, or it could be coercive--where individuals are controlled by others--such as government.

People are capable of controlling themselves. I see the real issue here is whether people should be allowed to do that, or whether they need to be coerced by others into doing that which they can do themselves. Put simply, "What's better, Coercion or Self Regulation?"

My answer to that is that only people who show an inability to self regulate should be subject to coercion. And that coercion doesn't have to come from 'government' or rulers. It can come from those who are able to self-regulate. People establish 'norms'. People don't need coercive institutions to enforce norms.


Hatha

[Jewboo]

My answer to that is that only people who show an inability to self regulate should be subject to coercion. And that coercion doesn't have to come from 'government' or rulers. It can come from those who are able to self-regulate. People establish 'norms'. People don't need coercive institutions to enforce norms.





http://youtu.be/2U30sDj-9Ws


:rolleyes: Like this Hatha?

[Carl]

I want to address Santa's qualms about government and governance being the same thing. I think that the way this fellow uses the terms, Government is a noun--a thing referring to an institution that is given power to control people. Governance, on the other hand is a verb meaning control. Governance can be spontaneous--that is self control by individuals, or it could be coercive--where individuals are controlled by others--such as government.

People are capable of controlling themselves. I see the real issue here is whether people should be allowed to do that, or whether they need to be coerced by others into doing that which they can do themselves. Put simply, "What's better, Coercion or Self Regulation?"

My answer to that is that only people who show an inability to self regulate should be subject to coercion. And that coercion doesn't have to come from 'government' or rulers. It can come from those who are able to self-regulate. People establish 'norms'. People don't need coercive institutions to enforce norms.


Hatha
I think that this argument is myopic and misses the point entirely.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I think that this argument is myopic and misses the point entirely.

Well, don't leave everybody hanging. What's the point?


Hatha

[Carl]

Well, don't leave everybody hanging. What's the point?


Hatha
It's not about "regulating behavior", its about the "standardization and application of Law".

[Hatha Sunahara]

It's not about "regulating behavior", its about the "standardization and application of Law".

The two things you cited are exactly the same thing.


Hatha

[Carl]

The two things you cited are exactly the same thing.

Hatha
How so?

[singular_me]

thats how collectivism starts, with standardization.

I agree with Hatha: regulating behavior", its about the "standardization and application of Law, Law dictates behaviors. Just look at the drug war which has to push for selling drugs endlessly and culturize it.


its about the "standardization and application of Law".

[Carl]

thats how collectivism starts, with standardization.
No, that's how Civilizations start, "collectivism" or "volenterism" (same thing) is what people do with their civilization.

[singular_me]

enforcing standardization will never work out... too many people not thinking alike.


No, that's how Civilizations start, "collectivism" or "volenterism" (same thing) is what people do with their civilization.

[Carl]

enforcing standardization will never work out... too many people not thinking alike.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

It's not about "enforcing standardization", it's about knowing that the law is not determined by the moods or whims of those around you.

[JohnQPublic]

Very nice exposition.

[Horn]

Right, in regards to centralized governement FED. as the bordered tribe grows, anytime the focus remains on the central and away from rights agreed by all initially is when the test of time and rot of fear grows within the central, and you get what we have to day.

All laws past the initial set should grow from the ground up not top down, maybe even proposed in an electoral form, without electoral passage not even proposed to the central. Central Congress itself is useless in this day and age, and should be stricken from the record. We are well beyond the need horse and buggy representation.

[Carl]

I disagree Horn. I am sovereign, I don't want to be government, governments are not sovereign, they are servants of and represent the state of sovereigns.

And, in my opinion, aside from the elected representatives, anyone who derives their income from government shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Santa]

And, in my opinion, aside from the elected representatives, anyone who derives their income from government shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I would also add all the corporations who contract with government as well as their employees.

[Horn]

they are servants of and represent the state of sovereigns.

Oh Christ,

If its not one high horse on one side of the street, there's another thousand high horses all over the street...

you guys will never be happy no matter what trend I set.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibca8XgHVFQ

[Carl]

Oh Christ,

If its not one high horse on one side of the street, there's another thousand high horses all over the street...

you guys will never be happy no matter what trend I set. It doesn't stop the love though......;D

[Hatha Sunahara]

http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Hatha Sunahara http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?p=699038#post699038)

The two things you cited are exactly the same thing.

Hatha




How so?





Regulating behavior and 'standardization and application of laws' are just two different ways of saying the same thing.

What does a law do? It tells you that you either must do something, or you must not do something. Doesn't that regulate your behavior? I suppose if you ignore the law, it doesn't regulate your behavior, but you are at risk of having armed people confront you about it at any time. As far as standardization and application of laws goes--it is just a modifier of the character and scope of how you intend to regulate people's behavior with 'laws'. So, when you drive, buckle your seat belt. It's the law.


Hatha

[Carl]

Regulating behavior and 'standardization and application of laws' are just two different ways of saying the same thing.

What does a law do? It tells you that you either must do something, or you must not do something. Doesn't that regulate your behavior? I suppose if you ignore the law, it doesn't regulate your behavior, but you are at risk of having armed people confront you about it at any time. As far as standardization and application of laws goes--it is just a modifier of the character and scope of how you intend to regulate people's behavior with 'laws'. So, when you drive, buckle your seat belt. It's the law.

Hatha Regulating behavior.... I suppose that if you were inclined to murder rape and rob and there were laws against murdering raping and robbing and you followed them then I would say that the laws regulated your behavior. But, if you were not inclined to do those things, then those laws would not regulate your behavior. I would also speculate that you would appreciate that those laws did modify the behavior of those who were so inclined.

So I concede, laws can be used to regulate behavior.

In fact, it appears that I owe you and singular_me an appology, I was wrong for missing this key purpose necessitating the standardization and application of laws, even when I was arguing that exact purpose.

It is that behavior modifying aspect that allows for the freedom to go about your daily business unarmed and without fear, so that you don't have to worry that if you accidentally bump into somebody, they will kill you for what they may percieve as an assault upon them, meting out their justice, following their law.

*Please excuse my obtuseness in this aspect of the argument...:o

[Buddha]

I'm almost at this point, legislating morality... Shit, you all think every one is Jesus Christ.... People are evil fucks, dirty degenerate bastards. Perhaps that is why we should legislate morality. I read Atlas Shrugged, jesus talk about wasted time.... That was one of the main tennents of that book, "you can't legislate morality" well some one fucking should, if not, then you got a bunch of wanna be jews fucking everyone in the ass, we have all dropped the soap. If you leave men to their own devices they will become economically gay... bending every one over.

[Horn]

If you leave men to their own devices they will become economically gay... bending every one over.

Economically gay, I need a better definition there.

When immune deficiency sets in wouldn't that then be natural selection?

Buddah I think you lost your Buddah.

[Buddha]

:rolleyes: Oh. Here's inspiration for the right attitude:

good thing you're banned, as you should be, fucking asshole, you want me to throw shit like a god damn fucking monkey ill do it you fucking cypto jew fuck, you can call me Zyclon-B in this bitch, and no I'm not talking about your mother...

Better have alot of men whith guns, cuz that's what it is gonna take, and I'm dieing trying...

[Buddha]

Economically gay, I need a better definition there.

When immune deficiency sets in wouldn't that then be natural selection?

Buddah I think you lost your Buddah.

I'm not really Buddist, It was a nickname from an old gf, Funny how it works though, though I understand that suffering is a part of life, it accuallly makes life, with out suffering, what is living... I try though, shits hard, my mind is like a choatic universe

[Horn]

I'm not really Buddist, It was a nickname from an old gf, Funny how it works though, though I understand that suffering is a part of life, it accuallly makes life, with out suffering, what is living... I try though, shits hard, my mind is like a choatic universe

Moses was always a fine example,,,

Now all you need to do is part the Red Sea while looking like you're in charge of things. :)

[Buddha]

Moses was always a fine example,,,

Now all you need to do is part the Red Sea while looking like you're in charge of things. :)

I can probably do the latter, but parting the red sea? shhiiittt... loooks like I'm just another nigga on the stoop...

[Horn]

I can probably do the latter,

key for a managerial position huh?

appearing to be in control, but on the inside the story is not so "as above, so is below"...

[iOWNme]

Part 3: Uniformity of Rules of Law

"The quest for uniformity leads us to treat the loving husband who kills his terminally ill wife to relieve her suffering the same way we treat Charles Manson."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuXV0CgmWTg

[singular_me]

every case is very/slightly different, and one especially sees this when it is about major issues such abortion, stemcell, death penalty, etc... while in fact, the same happens every time the law is broken. Only a case by case law can do justice. Yeah, sure it becomes kinda entangled but thats just the way it is for laws to be more humane. More creativity is required to handle human behaviors.

85-90% of the time, there are gray areas in everything we can think of... something to chew on

[Carl]

That's what "Juries" are for...to decide on a case by case basis.

[palani]

That's what "Juries" are for...to decide on a case by case basis.

Jury pools are pulled from U.S. citizens only. This is equivalent to asking the inmates how they would like to see the asylum run.

[Horn]

Jury pools are pulled from U.S. citizens only. This is equivalent to asking the inmates how they would like to see the asylum run.

Oh shit since when was palani subscribed to this thread?

[Carl]

Oh shit since when was palani subscribed to this thread?
And he jumps in with the most idiotic, nonsensical prattle to boot...

[Horn]

And he jumps with the most idiotic, nonsensical prattle to boot...

Someone trespassed his property.

If it can be claimed by anyone, that notions are property.

Anyway this isn't as urgent a case as nuclear war decisions, is it?

Oh great one who doth decide the order of cases, let your light shineth down upon us. :)

[mick silver]

horn do you want me to tell you how high to jump if so let me know . see i have a gang too

[Horn]

horn do you want me to tell you how high to jump if so let me know . see i have a gang too

I'm only an estimator, mick.

If you're looking to be another evil kenevil, my advise won't matter to you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC1CEWkW7vE

[palani]

Oh shit since when was palani subscribed to this thread?

subscribe (v.)
early 15c., "to sign at the bottom of a document,"

Part of your delusions?

[palani]

he jumps with the most idiotic, nonsensical prattle to boot...

I detect no rebuttal; but that would require some level of intellect.

[Horn]

Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor

Obviously contemptuous,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtVLSZ5MdG0

[Buddha]

Obviously contemptuous,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtVLSZ5MdG0

That's some old bullshit. Don't harrass the pretty Spanish girl! How much money do you make a week? How much is your jewery worth? That's way out of line to me. "None of your God-damn fucking business Santa Clause." Then 10 grand!?, for selling Xanex if I heard properly. He said "bye bye" "They sell drugs and commercials at the same time, and lock a motherfucker up for the same crime."

[Carl]

I detect no rebuttal; but that would require some level of intellect.
What's to rebut?

You toss two unrelated sentences into the conversation believing you've said something of import when, in reality, all you've done is reaffirm that you are crazy and I can't rebut crazy.

[Horn]

That's some old bullshit. Don't harrass the pretty Spanish girl!

@ 39 seconds in watch the judge's head snap when she answers Yes

to the significant amounts question...

was like he never heard that answer before :)

he's used to accepting the lie...

[Buddha]

@ 39 seconds in watch the judge's head snap when she answers Yes

to the significant amounts question...

was like he never heard that answer before :)

he's used to accepting the lie...

LOL i went back and looked. "Do you own property of any kind?" "Yes" he looked like a jew who saw a Krugerand.

[palani]

What's to rebut?

Your statement:


That's what "Juries" are for...to decide on a case by case basis.

Is not crazy. It is INSANE!!!

[Horn]

6163

[mick silver]

i dont see how you couldnt like that peach horn , that's one of those finger licking peachhttp://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608034693356456036&pid=1.7

[iOWNme]

The Courts: The Obviousness of Anarchy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K7JtairQNc

[Horn]

Troubled decree, resolant mockery has claimed thee.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40gRE9iDMWg

[Dogman]

Morrison, Joplin, Hendrix all died close to the same age, ?

But all were ground breakers.

No video can mach this thread, other than posted, by horn.

[iOWNme]

Police: The Obviousness of Anarchy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfT3KEErOOo

Regardless of whether a State is needed to supply Law and Courts, supporters of 'Government' are adamant that Police must be supplied exclusively by 'Government'. They say it may be true that the market can adequately supply most goods and services, but Police services are unique in that they inherently involve the use of coercion. Obviously, no civilized society can permit competition in the use of violence. Civil society is formed precisely to escape from that situation. Unless 'Government' brings the use of violence under its monopolistic control, peaceful coexistence is impossible, and life is indeeed as "nasty, brutish and short", as Hobbes contended.

Consider the silliness of this argument. For if civil society cannot exist without a 'Government' monopoly over the use of coercion, then civil society does not exist. Societies do not spring into existence complete with 'Government' Police forces. Once a group of people have figured out how to reduce the level of interpersonal violence sufficiently to allow them to live together, entities that are recognizable as 'Governments' often develop and take over the Policing function. Even a marauding band that imposes 'Government' on others through conquest must have first reduced internal strife sufficiently to allow it to organize itself for effective military operations. Both historically and logically, it is always peaceful coexistence first, 'Government' services second. If civil society is impossible without 'Government' Police, then there are no civil societies."

[singular_me]

anybody who gets the "fear mechanism, its coercive inner workings" will want to get rid of whatever monopolies for hs/her own sake , voluntarily. No use of force needed as the revolution takes place within. It is not only the teachings of Christ but all great spiritualists.


What is needed, rather than running away or controlling or suppressing or any other resistance, is understanding fear; that means, watch it, learn about it, come directly into contact with it. We are to learn about fear, not how to escape from it.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
----------------------------------

•How Can Governments Be Abolished? by Lyoff N. Tolstoy
http://voluntaryist.com/articles/073.html#.U0lMCizeMfQ

free ebook
Etienne de la Boetie voluntary servitude
http://www.scribd.com/doc/168720927

On Anarchy (Leo Tolstoy) | The Anarchist Library
They are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a revolution.
To use violence is impossible; it would only cause reaction. To join the ranks of the Government is also impossible — one would only become its instrument. One course therefore remains — to fight the Government by means of thought, speech, actions, life, neither yielding to Government nor joining its ranks and thereby increasing its power.

This alone is needed, will certainly be successful.

And this is the will of God, the teaching of Christ. There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.

How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.
Leo Tolstoy
1900
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Leo_Tolstoy__On_Anarchy.html