[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/movie_play.html
…a horrifying collection of lynching pictures from a not so distant american past. Is this what you mean with aggressive society?[/quote]
Yep…all lovingly approved by the U.S. Federal Government.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/movie_play.html
…a horrifying collection of lynching pictures from a not so distant american past. Is this what you mean with aggressive society?[/quote]
Yep…all lovingly approved by the U.S. Federal Government.[/quote]
…what does that have to do with anything? If the state did not act against lynchings, would you participate?
The government did not care to protect the rights of black people back then is all I am saying.
An ethically consistent libertarian would not participate in such horrifying behavior and would definitely not allow others to get away with it.
But besides all this the aggressive nature of government is the shining influence for prehistoric cretins like these. These people carried around statist (and religious) idols while torturing black people to death to show their love for the state. That’s fucking disgusting!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The government did not care to protect the rights of black people back then is all I am saying.
An ethically consistent libertarian would not participate in such horrifying behavior and would definitely not allow others to get away with it.
But besides all this the aggressive nature of government is the shining influence for prehistoric cretins like these. These people carried around statist (and religious) idols while torturing black people to death to show their love for the state. That’s fucking disgusting![/quote]
stupid democrats . . .
^we agree…did you know those democrats eventually “evolved” into modern day republicans…?
LMAO - that’s beautiful . . . no, the democrats are still the same old idiots they always have been . . . just looking for a new class of slaves while the republicans might have lost their way, we conservatives are calling them back to the principles of Emancipation!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The government did not care to protect the rights of black people back then is all I am saying.
An ethically consistent libertarian would not participate in such horrifying behavior and would definitely not allow others to get away with it.
But besides all this the aggressive nature of government is the shining influence for prehistoric cretins like these. These people carried around statist (and religious) idols while torturing black people to death to show their love for the state. That’s fucking disgusting![/quote]
…nice spin to suit your political agenda. You’re not that different from the others on this board, are you?
I don’t see how that is spin. That’s a clearly observable fact. They love the state – in fact many of them even call theme selves “White Nationalists”. They were not dedicated to liberty in any way unless it was the liberty for them to kill black people indiscriminately.
…the only answer i could think of was this gif, sorry:
I’m interested,
who uses violence to get what they want on a regular basis?
Or even sporadically???
That’s right, not a whole bunch of you!
You see! You CAN! live a life without resorting to violence to get what you want!
The free, peaceful society is YOU!!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/movie_play.html
…a horrifying collection of lynching pictures from a not so distant american past. Is this what you mean with aggressive society?[/quote]
Yep…all lovingly approved by the U.S. Federal Government.[/quote]
The people that died because of a state far outnumber those who died at the hands of evil men.
Stockholm Syndrome all over these bright people, wouldn’t you say?
The government loves you, protects you, looks after you, all policians are angels, they serve us, they have our best interest at hand, if people are turned loose, they will rape and kill and pillage and beat up granny’s, blablablablablalbabullshit
You guys,…
c’mon!
What would you do? If you were turned loose?? What does a cow do, when he escapes from the farm? OMG!!! It just randomly attacks everyone, it impales babies on its horns,… No, it runs away and starts grazing in the next field.
Don’t you think it isn’t far-fetched to assume that the vast majority of people will just keep on living the way they did?
OK, what if, people are as violent and evil as you think they are.
Would the state be able to controll it? ANSWER: FUCK NO!!
Just look at Afghanistan! The Taliban, a bunch of cavemen with sandals on, can keep the awsome military power of NATO busy for almost 10 years!!! Same shit in Iraq! If some idiots want to blow up a marketplace, they usually succeed! And they don’t give a fuck about “laws” and other fairytails like “conventions” and “rules of engagement”.
I mean, the state isn’t omnipotent, the state isn’t all seeing! Fuck that religious mindset of yours!!!
Are you truelly so goddamn afraid of your fellow human?
1 more thing, if you take the government out of society as it is structured today, it will collapse completely and it’s going to be nasty, no doubt about it.
Only because this way of life will be disturbed, does not mean that the next way of life will be bad as well.
I think people are afraid of this transit-zone. That is just my bet.
And to all of you that use the word utopia, you used it first! You see anarchy as utopian. Anarchists don’t.
There is nothing wrong with trying to improve your society. Making it less violent, day by day.
One more tip, don’t listen to mainstream media when they talk about anarchists.
They don’t know anything about it.
Anarchism is the perfect structure for a society of humans(that is, rational and sufficiently moral men). Unfortunately, according to my favorite anarchist, Albert Nock, we may not all be human.
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/human.html
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good luck finding a new non-aggressive species to replace us with.[/quote]
Strangely enough, this.
OP, instead of seeking to squash human aggressiveness, why not find a way to channel it and we might do amazing things like invent the internet (and internet porn), build skyscrapers, find cures for diseases… oh.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
And to clarify, due to the social/political paradigm I mentioned previously you are not going to see voluntary/anarchic communities spring up all over the US because people think they need government to take care of them. But to generalize and say that voluntary societies won’t or can’t work is incorrect.[/quote]
No, they don’t - people (correctly) think they need government to protect and enforce their rights. “Volunteerism” won’t fix this basic problem, and thus, it can’t work.
TB, you are patently wrong. Voluntarism has fixed many problems:
Feeding the poor
Educating the poor
Healing the poor
private courts
private security
and many other private charities for that matter
Every civil need of society was created by the market first before the State came along and usurped it as a monopoly privilege.
Just because society requires the above listed good does not mean that it requires a monopoly on who should provide them.
This is all the evidence one needs to understand how voluntary society can work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TB, you are patently wrong. Voluntarism has fixed many problems:
Feeding the poor
Educating the poor
Healing the poor
private courts
private security
and many other private charities for that matter
Every civil need of society was created by the market first before the State came along and usurped it as a monopoly privilege.
Just because society requires the above listed good does not mean that it requires a monopoly on who should provide them.
This is all the evidence one needs to understand how voluntary society can work.[/quote]
Why do you do this? Why do you assume, despite being told one million times, that people have to either espouse anarchy or federal monopoly? Why? You ARE smarter than this. I’ve seen it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TB, you are patently wrong. Voluntarism has fixed many problems:
Feeding the poor
Educating the poor
Healing the poor
private courts
private security
and many other private charities for that matter
Every civil need of society was created by the market first before the State came along and usurped it as a monopoly privilege.
Just because society requires the above listed good does not mean that it requires a monopoly on who should provide them.
This is all the evidence one needs to understand how voluntary society can work.[/quote]
Why do you do this? Why do you assume, despite being told one million times, that people have to either espouse anarchy or federal monopoly? Why? You ARE smarter than this. I’ve seen it.[/quote]
Monopoly of aggression is bad.
Just because I need justice doesn’t mean I need the US government (which is a monopoly of aggression) to provide it for me.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Every civil need of society was created by the market first before the State came along and usurped it as a monopoly privilege.[/quote]
Is that a fact? Well then, point me to this historical era where the market was providing these civil goods first in the absence of a state - as you flatly contend here - and then show where, in the historical timeline, that darn state “usurps” it.
Can’t wait for your answer.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Every civil need of society was created by the market first before the State came along and usurped it as a monopoly privilege.[/quote]
Is that a fact? Well then, point me to this historical era where the market was providing these civil goods first in the absence of a state - as you flatly contend here - and then show where, in the historical timeline, that darn state “usurps” it.
Can’t wait for your answer.[/quote]
Civilisation precedes the state.
I’ve something about it somewhere but I can’t seem to find it!
Medievil Iceland and Ireland were in anarchy. Look in to that.
Why is there a need for a state? Let me ask the statists, what can a violent monopoly do what freedom cannot?
Simply being founded on coersion makes defending the state in my eyes repugnant.
I look at it in this way.
The state is a bully.
The bully is friendly to those who support him and he bullies those who question his violent monopoly.
Right after the foundation of the US government, the bully was very weak, i.e. people were very free.
Now the goverment has become a big bully, even bullying other countries as well as it’s own citizens, while being a little bit nice to it’s people in the form of “justice”, welfare, … to leave the impression to be benevolent.
The malevolent hand remains unseen, the gun in the room is not seem by the vast majority of people.
As you can see that the bully will always grow, just like in Rome, in the US, …
Anyway, to get back to what I wanted to say, there is ALWAYS a gun in the room with the state.
I don’t support government even when the gun is pointed to a few people (libertarian goverment) or many people (communist government)
(I have a little sympathy for libertarians or minarchist though, they mean well 